Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                   )                             
)    File No. EB-00-IH-0326a
SBC Communications, Inc.           )    
                              )    NAL/Acct. No. 200132080015
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       )
                         
          
           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted:  January 17, 2001                   Released: January 
18, 2001 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION
 
     1.   In this  Notice of  Apparent Liability  for  Forfeiture 
(NAL), we find that SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) has apparently 
violated the Commission's rule requiring incumbent local exchange 
carriers (ILECs) promptly to post  notices of premises that  have 
run out of collocation  space.  These violations were  discovered 
through  an  independent  audit  of  SBC's  compliance  with  the 
Commission's collocation rules.  That  audit was required by  the 
Commission's order approving the merger application of  Ameritech 
Corp.  (Ameritech)  and  SBC.1   It  appears  that,  in  numerous 
instances during the audit period,2  SBC failed to timely  update 
the document on its Internet  site, required by the  Commission's 
collocation rules, identifying those  SBC premises that have  run 
out  of  physical  collocation  space.3   These  violations  also 
constitute violations of  the SBC/Ameritech  Merger Order,  which 
requires that SBC/Ameritech  provide collocation consistent  with 
the Commission's rules.4  Based upon our review of the facts  and 
circumstances surrounding  this  matter,  we  find  that  SBC  is 
apparently liable for a forfeiture  in the amount of  ninety-four 
thousand, five hundred dollars ($94,500).

                         II.  BACKGROUND
                                  
     2.  SBC is an ILEC that provides local telephone service  in 
13 states, including Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, 
California, Nevada, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, 
and Connecticut.   At  the end  of  1999, SBC  served  nearly  60 
million local exchange access lines  in its 13-state region,  and 
served customers in 23  countries.5  SBC also provides  in-region 
interLATA, wireless,  Internet access,  out-of-region  interLATA, 
cable and wireless television, security monitoring, and directory 
publishing services.6  In 1999, SBC had total operating  revenues 
of more than $49 billion dollars.7

     3.   In  the  SBC/Ameritech  Merger  Order,  the  Commission 
       concluded  that the  merger  of SBC  and  Ameritech  posed 
       significant public interest harms that were not  mitigated 
       by the  proposed transaction's  potential public  interest 
       benefits.8  The  Commission therefore approved the  merger 
       only subject  to certain conditions  designed to  mitigate 
       the  potential  public  interest  harms.   One  of   those 
       conditions was that  SBC retain an independent auditor  to 
       develop and implement a comprehensive audit of the  merged 
       company's  compliance with  the  Commission's  collocation 
       rules  for  the  first  eight  months  after  the   merger 
       closing.9

     4.   On August 8,  2000, SBC submitted  its audit report  to 
       the  Commission   regarding  SBC's  compliance  with   the 
       Commission's  collocation  rules  from  October  8,   1999 
       through June 8,  2000.10  Based on the Bureau's review  of 
       the audit report  and of certain information submitted  to 
       the  Bureau  by  SBC,  we  conclude  that  SBC  apparently 
       violated  the   requirement  to   timely  post   exhausted 
       collocation space in  numerous instances during the  audit 
       period.11


                      III.      DISCUSSION
A.   Violations 

     5.    SBC does not dispute that, in certain instances during 
       the  audit  period,  it  violated  the  Commission's  rule 
       requiring   timely   posting  of   notice   of   exhausted 
       collocation space.12   Based on  information submitted  to 
       the Bureau  by SBC, we find  that SBC apparently  violated 
       the   timely  posting   requirement  in   numerous   other 
       instances.

     6.    The posting rule states  that an ILEC must update  its 
       Internet  website  listing premises  that  have  exhausted 
       collocation space ``within  ten days of the date at  which 
       a  premises runs  out of  physical collocation  space.''13  
       The Commission order  adopting this rule makes clear  that 
       an ILEC's obligation to post notice of exhausted space  is 
       triggered  when such  exhaustion occurs.14   Specifically, 
       the purpose of the  rule is to ensure that competitors  do 
       not  ``expend[]  significant  resources  in  applying  for 
       collocation space  in an incumbent  ILEC's premises  where 
       no  such space  exists.''15  Information  provided by  SBC 
       indicates  that  there have  been  numerous  instances  in 
       which the  posting date was  more than 10  days after  the 
       date  that  space  actually  became  exhausted  in   those 
       central  offices.16    Moreover,  in   several  of   those 
       instances,  a competitive  local exchange  carrier  (CLEC) 
       may   have  been   required   to  submit   a   collocation 
       application, only  to have the  application denied on  the 
       ground that no space  was available as of the time of  the 
       application.   As noted  above, this  is the  very  result 
       that  section  51.321(h) of  the  Commission's  rules  was 
       designed to avoid.17

     7.   Based on the facts set forth above, we find that SBC is 
       apparently  liable  for  a  forfeiture  for  willful   and 
       repeated violation  of the Commission's collocation  rules 
       and   paragraph  37   of  the   merger  conditions.    SBC 
       apparently violated  the Commission  rule requiring  ILECs 
       to  timely  update  the  document  on  its  Internet  site 
       identifying those premises  that have run out of  physical 
       collocation space in  numerous instances during the  audit 
       period, and all during  the past 12 months.  We find  that 
       SBC's  failure   to  timely  post   notice  of   exhausted 
       collocation  space was  willful  and repeated.   The  term 
       ``willful'' means  that the  violator knew  it was  taking 
       the  action in  question, irrespective  of any  intent  to 
       violate the  Commission's rules, and  repeated means  more 
       than  once.18   Furthermore,  a  continuing  violation  is 
       "repeated" if it lasts more than one day.19

     8.   Consistent with the  Commission's determination in  the 
       SBC/Ameritech Merger Order that its collocation rules  are 
       an  integral  component   to  opening  local  markets   to 
       competition, we  find SBC's failure  to comply with  these 
       rules to  be significant.20  Given the  importance of  the 
       Commission's  collocation rules,  we cannot  excuse  SBC's 
       failure to comply with them. 


B.   Forfeiture Amount   

     9.  Section 503(b)(1) of the Act states that any person that 
willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the 
Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission, 
shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.21  
For the time period relevant to this proceeding, section 
503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a 
forfeiture of up to $110,000 for each violation, or each day of a 
continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,100,000 for 
a single act or failure to act.22  In determining the appropriate 
forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the nature, circumstances, 
extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the 
violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior 
offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may 
require.''23  Considering all of the circumstances described 
above, we find SBC apparently liable for a forfeiture in the 
amount of $94,500.  

                         IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

 10.    ACCORDINGLY,  IT IS  ORDERED THAT,  pursuant to  section 
  503(b) of  the Act,  24 and  section 1.80  of the  Commission's 
  Rules,  25  SBC  Communications  is  HEREBY  NOTIFIED  of   its 
  APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of  ninety-four 
  thousand,  five  hundred dollars  ($94,500)  for  willfully  or 
  repeatedly violating the Commission's collocation rules.
 
     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of 
the Commission's Rules,  within thirty (30)  days of the  release 
date of  this NOTICE  OF APPARENT  LIABILITY, SBC  Communications 
SHALL PAY to the  United States the full  amount of the  proposed 
forfeiture OR  SHALL FILE  a written  statement showing  why  the 
proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced.

     12. Payment of the forfeiture amount may be made by  mailing 
a check  or  similar instrument,  payable  to the  order  of  the 
Federal Communications Commission,  to the Forfeiture  Collection 
Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission,  P.O. 
Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note 
the ``NAL/Acct. No.'' referenced above.

     13.  The response, if any, must be mailed to Charles W. 
Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street S.W., 
Room 3-B443, Washington, D.C., 20554, and must include the 
``NAL/Acct. No.'' referenced above.

     14.  The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling 
a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless 
the respondent submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most 
recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared 
according to generally accepted accounting practices (``GAAP''); 
or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that 
accurately reflects the respondent's current financial status.  
Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the 
basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation 
provided.

     15.  IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of  this Notice  of 
Apparent Liability shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt 
Requested  to  SBC  Communications,  c/o  Sandra  L.Wagner,  Vice 
President-Federal Regulatory, 1401  I Street,  N.W., Suite  1100, 
Washington, D.C. 20005.


                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                    David H. Solomon
                    Chief, Enforcement Bureau     
_________________________

1    See Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC 
Communications, Inc., Transferee, For Consent to Transfer Control 
of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to 
Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and Parts 5, 
22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission's Rules, CC 
Docket 98-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14712 at 
 387 (1999) (``SBC/Ameritech Merger Order''); SBC/Ameritech 
Merger Order, Appendix C at  40.  See also Association of 
Communications Enterprises v. FCC, No. 99-1441 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 
2001).
2    See January 9, 2001 Letter from Sandra L. Wagner, Vice-
President, SBC Telecommunications, Inc., to Brad Berry, Deputy 
Chief, Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau, 
Exhibit A.  SBC has requested confidential treatment of its 
submissions to the Bureau detailing the nature and scope of its 
apparent violations, and that request is pending.  Accordingly, 
we do not here disclose the number of apparent violations or the 
premises with respect to which they occurred.
3    47 C.F.R.  51.321(h).
4    See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, Appendix C at  37.

5    SBC 1999 Annual Report at 6.
6    Id. at 4.
7    Id. at 76.
8    See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order at  348.
9    See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order at  387; see also 
SBC/Ameritech Merger Order Appendix C at  40.  The audit covered 
the period from October 8, 1999 through June 8, 2000.
10   See August 8, 2000 Letter from Marian Dyer, Vice-President, 
SBC Telecommunications, Inc., to Magalie Salas, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission; see also August 7, 2000 Report 
of Management on Compliance with the FCC's Collocation Rules 
(``Management's Assertion on Compliance''); see also August 7, 
2000 Report of Independent Accountants, Ernst & Young LLP 
(``Auditor's Report on Compliance'').
11   47 C.F.R.  51.321(h).  See also SBC/Ameritech Merger Order, 
Appendix C at  37.  See Auditor's Report on Compliance at pp. 1, 
2; see also Management's Assertion on Compliance at p. 3.

12   See Auditor's Report on Compliance at pp. 1, 2; see also 
Management's Assertion on Compliance at p. 3.
13   47 C.F.R.  51.321(h).
14   See In the Matter of Deployment of Wireline Services 
Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket 98-
147, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd. 4761, 4793 (1999) (``Advanced Services 
Order''). 
15   See Advanced Services Order at 4793.
16   In a November 28, 2000 meeting, SBC told representatives of 
the Enforcement Bureau that SBC notified the California Public 
Utilities Commission of its intention to delay the postings for 
many of its California central offices cited above.  At no point, 
however, did SBC seek a waiver from the FCC of the requirements 
of section 51.321(h).
17   See 47 C.F.R.  51.321(h); see also Advanced Services Order 
at 4793.
18   See Application for Review of Southern California 
Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 
4388 (1991) (``Southern California Broadcasting Co.''); see also 
Liability of Hale Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 79 FCC 2d 169, 171 (1980).
19   See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.  
20   See SBC/Ameritech Merger Order at  355, 386.
21   47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a)(2).
22   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R  1.80(b)(2).
23   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D); see also The Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the 
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 
17100 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''); recon. denied 15 
FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).
24   47 U.S.C.  503(b). 
25   47 C.F.R.  1.80.