********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554


                                             )
                                             )
In the Matter of                             )
                                             )                             
David A. Hernandez                           )
d/b/a/ Crystal Communications        )       NAL/Acct. No. 615SF0002
                                             )


                                   ORDER


       Adopted:  December 18, 1997           Released:  December 23, 1997  

By the Compliance and Information Bureau:

                               INTRODUCTION

       1.      Before the Bureau is a Petition for Reconsideration, 47 C.F. R.  1.106, of
the Notice of Forfeiture issued by the Compliance and Information Bureau's San Francisco
Field Office on August 6, 1997, in the amount of $4,000, against David A. Hernandez, d/b/a
Crystal Communications (Crystal) pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act, as
amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C.  503.  As stated in the NAL, the Commission assessed the
forfeiture because of Crystal's failure to respond to Commission correspondence, a violation
of Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,  47 C.F.R. 1.89.  

       2.      In its Petition for Reconsideration, Crystal maintains that the Bureau erred in
imposing a forfeiture for failure to respond to its correspondence because Crystal did, in
fact, respond to the inquiries made by the Compliance and Information Bureau.    

                                DISCUSSION

       3.      Crystal's argument is without merit.  Essentially, Crystal advances the same
arguments that it made in response to the Notice of Apparent Liability, i.e., that it provided
a response through its subsequent actions by allowing inspection and responding to
subsequent Bureau inquiries.   The record indicates, however, that Crystal did not provide a
response to the Bureau's inquiries until after it had received a warning, and the San
Francisco Field Office had commenced further enforcement proceedings.  Moreover, the
responses Crystal did provide were incomplete and failed to provide an acceptable
explanation for its refusal to allow inspection in the first instance.  Section 1.89 of the rules
states that "an answer shall be made at the earliest practicable date with a satisfactory
explanation of the delay; the answer shall be complete, and shall contain a statement of
action taken to correct the condition or omission complained of and to preclude its
recurrence." 47 C.F.R.  1.89.  Until the filing of its Petition for Reconsideration, Crystal
did not satisfy many of these requirements for a responsive answer.  The Commission relies
upon licensees to respond to correspondence inquiring about compliance with its rules and
regulations, particularly when the information requested is known only by the licensee.  As
noted, in the NOF, licensees do not get to select which requests from the Commission they
will honor.  In these circumstances, the Bureau affirms the $4,000 forfeiture amount.

                             ORDERING CLAUSES

       4.      ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.106,
the Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order, NAL No. 615SF0002, issued to
David A. Hernandez, d/b/a Crystal Communication, is DENIED.

       5.      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  503(b), and Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80, Crystal Communications must pay the amount of
$4,000 within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Order, or file an Application for
Review pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115.  Payment
may be made by check or money order, drawn on a U.S. financial institution, payable to the
Federal Communications Commission.  Payment may also be made by credit card with the
appropriate documentation.  The remittance should be marked NAL Acct. No. 615SF0002
and mailed to the following address:

               Federal Communications Commission
               P.O. Box 73482
               Chicago, Illinois  60673-7482 

       6.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent certified
mail, return-receipt requested, to David A. Hernandez, d/b/a Crystal Communications, and
its  counsel of record. 

                                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                                     Richard D. Lee
                                     Chief, Compliance and Information Bureau