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.  ENF 99-10
Vista Group International, Inc. )
                                )       NAL/Acct. No. 916EF0005
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       )


                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


     Adopted:  April 6, 2001                      Released:  
April 11, 2001 

By the Commission:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

          In this Order, we  deny a Petition for  Reconsideration 
(``Petition'')  filed   by   Vista  Group   International,   Inc. 
(``Vista'').  Vista  requests  that  the  Commission  review  its 
October 23, 2000 Order of Forfeiture,1 which imposed a forfeiture 
of $680,000 against Vista for  willful or repeated violations  of 
section 2582 of the Communications  Act of 1934, as amended  (the 
``Act''), and our  related rules and  orders.  In the  Forfeiture 
Order, the Commission  found that Vista  willfully or  repeatedly 
violated section  258  of  the  Act  by  changing  the  preferred 
interexchange carriers  (``PICs'')  designated  by  14  consumers 
without their authorization (a  practice commonly referred to  as 
``slamming'').  In  its Petition,  Vista asks  the Commission  to 
rescind the forfeiture.3

                         II.  BACKGROUND

          Between September  1,  1998  and  July  30,  1999,  the 
Commission processed  hundreds of  consumer complaints  regarding 
Vista.  Following an investigation of 18 of these complaints, the 
Commission issued a Notice  of Apparent Liability for  Forfeiture 
(``NAL'') against Vista.4    Each of  the complainants  contended 
that Vista converted his  or her preferred interexchange  carrier 
(``PIC'') without authorization and provided sworn statements and 
evidence to that  effect.  Accordingly, we  found that Vista  was 
apparently liable for a proposed  forfeiture of $80,000 for  each 
of seven  violations that  appeared to  involve slamming  through 
misleading sales  and verification  practices.  In  addition,  we 
found that Vista was apparently liable for a proposed  forfeiture 
of $40,000  for each  of  the other  11 instances  that  involved 
Vista's switching consumer  accounts purchased from  ATS, one  of 
Vista's  telemarketing  agents.5    In  total,   we  proposed   a 
forfeiture of $1,000,000.6  Vista filed a response contesting the 
Commission's findings of apparent liability under section 258, as 
well  as  the  amount  of  the  proposed  forfeiture.7   In   the 
Forfeiture Order,  we rejected  most  of Vista's  arguments,  but 
found Vista not to be liable for four violations and reduced  the 
amount of the forfeiture by a total of $320,000 accordingly.8     

          On November 22, 2000, Vista filed the instant  petition 
for reconsideration  (Petition)  with  the  Commission.   In  its 
Petition, Vista contends that  the Commission should rescind  the 
remainder  of  the  forfeiture  amount  because  it  was  imposed 
``against the weight of the evidence, inequitably, and  arbitrary 
and capriciously.''9  Generally, Vista argues that the Commission 
erred  by  disregarding  evidence  describing  Vista's   business 
practices and slamming precautions.10  Vista also claims that the 
Commission applied  an incorrect  standard of  intent by  finding 
Vista liable  for  actions  wholly beyond  its  control.11  Vista 
maintains  that   the   Commission   engaged   in   impermissible 
retroactive rulemaking  by finding  violations  based on  the  11 
consumer accounts  Vista purchased  from ATS,  even though  Vista 
admits it failed to  obtain authorization and verification  prior 
to switching  the consumers'  service.12  Finally,  Vista  argues 
that the forfeiture amount is  too high, and that the  Commission 
disregarded evidence in that regard.13
     
                      III.      DISCUSSION

          Reconsideration   is   appropriate   only   where   the 
petitioner either  shows  a material  error  or omission  in  the 
original order or raises additional  facts not known or  existing 
until after  the petitioner's  last opportunity  to present  such 
matters.14  A petition that  simply repeats arguments  previously 
considered and rejected will be denied.15  Our review of  Vista's 
Petition reveals that the  Commission has already considered  and 
rejected some of Vista's arguments  in the Forfeiture Order.   We 
will,  therefore,  limit  the  discussion  below  to  those   new 
arguments raised by Vista.

A.   Liability Assessed in the CUM Save N' Share Complaint

          Vista first argues that  the Commission should  rescind 
the penalty based on the violation  described in the CUM Save  N' 
Share complaint.  As recorded in the Vista NAL, CUM Save N' Share 
filed a complaint alleging that  Vista switched its PIC to  Vista 
without  authorization.16  After  reviewing  the  complaint   and 
Vista's response to the NAL, the Commission determined that Vista 
did not  submit  adequate  evidence  to  counter  the  consumer's 
slamming allegation and, therefore, found that Vista had violated 
the Act.17  Vista  contends that  in so  finding, the  Commission 
ignored evidence  demonstrating  that Vista  followed  Commission 
rules when  it switched  CUM Save  N' Share's  PIC.18  Vista  was 
unable to produce a tape verifying the consumer's  authorization, 
but did provide two declarations describing Vista's  verification 
practices.  According  to  one declaration,  Vista  followed  its 
established complaint investigation procedures by contacting  the 
independent third party verification  firm that had verified  the 
CUM Save `N  Share authorization, Quick  Response, and  confirmed 
that it had received ``a good verification'' for the CUM Save  `N 
Share account.19  The declaration from the Operations Manager  of 
Quick  Response  describes  the  business  practices   (training, 
monitoring, script verification) that Quick Response used  during 
the time frame  that it  performed third  party verifications  on 
behalf of Vista.20 Based on  this description, Vista argues  that 
the script used during the time  of the CUM Save `N Share  switch 
was the  same as  that used  for the  verifications of  the  four 
accounts where  the Commission  determined that  no  unauthorized 
conversion had taken place.21 
     
          As we  emphasized in  the Forfeiture  Order,  liability 
must be  determined  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each 
individual case.22  We  uphold our determination  that Vista  did 
not  provide  evidence  adequate  to  counter  the  complainant's 
allegation that it did not  authorize Vista to change its  PIC.23  
When we examine the  declarations, we see that  the one from  the 
Quick  Response  manager  was  very  general,  giving  only   the 
procedures it purportedly  used for all  the verification  calls, 
and did not address the specific verification at issue, CUM  Save 
N'  Share.   The  Vista  employee  reiterated  Quick   Response's 
business practices, but also  admitted that there was  apparently 
no verification by the complainant to change the company's PIC to 
Vista.24  Thus,  Vista's  declarations  describing  its  business 
practices do not, in  light of the  complete record, persuade  us 
that Vista had obtained the complainant's authorization to switch 
preferred carriers.  We  therefore find that  Vista violated  the 
Act when it switched CUM Save N' Share's service.

          Vista also argues that because Commission rules do  not 
require carriers to keep verification tapes, we cannot find Vista 
liable for its failure to submit  a tape of CUM Save N'  Share.25  
As discussed above, we found Vista liable, not because it  failed 
to produce a confirming  tape, but because  it failed to  provide 
substantive evidence to counter the complainant's allegation that 
Vista changed its PIC without authorization.  We therefore reject 
Vista's contention. 

B.   Liability  Assessed  in  the  W.F.  Magann  Corporation  and 
Colorado Partnership Complaints

          Vista  also  argues   that  it  should   not  be   held 
responsible for the slamming  violations based on the  conversion 
of W.F. Magann Corporation and Colorado Partnership's PICs. Vista 
admits  that  these  PIC  changes  were  unauthorized.   Magann's 
preferred carrier was switched based upon ``verification'' by  an 
individual impersonating Ms. Ricki Bittle from Magann.26  As  the 
record indicates, not only was it  not Ms. Bittle's voice on  the 
verification tape  but all  of the  information on  the tape  was 
incorrect, including  the spelling  of  her name,  her  company's 
current  long-distance  carrier,  her  company's  monthly   long-
distance usage,  and her  birthdate.27  Vista  also  acknowledges 
that Colorado  Partnership's preferred  carrier should  not  have 
been switched because  the verification tape  indicates that  the 
consumer  did  not   agree  to  the   switch.28   Vista   argues, 
nonetheless, that in both instances,  Vista was unaware of  these 
inadequacies and  had taken  all the  precautions it  could  have 
under  the  circumstances.29   It   argues  that  the  level   of 
responsibility that the Commission imposes  on carriers is . .  . 
``unrealistic and unattainable . . .''30  
          Vista's arguments on these issues fail.  Section 217 of 
the Act deems ``the act, omission or failure of any . . .  person 
acting for or employed by'' any  carrier to be the act,  omission 
or failure of  that carrier.31   As explained  in the  Forfeiture 
Order, this  language clearly  extends to  the entities  ``acting 
for''  Vista  in   securing  PIC-change  authorizations.32    The 
verification problems encountered  here indicate  that Vista  did 
not have the consumers' authorization to make a switch in  either 
case.  In the Magann situation, the imposter who was subsequently 
recorded in  a conversation  with  Vista's third  party  verifier 
clearly  could   not   have  granted   the   initial   PIC-change 
authorization.   Because  the  tape  of  Colorado   Partnership's 
``verification'' shows  that  the  complainant did  not  want  to 
change her PIC, the complainant  again could not have  authorized 
the PIC change.   In the Forfeiture  Order, the Commission  found 
that Vista violated the Act by changing the complainants' service 
when Vista failed to obtain authorization before the verification 
calls.33  The Forfeiture Order did not find that Vista had proper 
authorization  and   then   simply  failed   to   obtain   proper 
verification.  None of Vista's  arguments persuade us that  Vista 
is not ultimately  responsible for the  unauthorized PIC  changes 
that occurred.  

          Vista also  argues  that  it should  not  be  found  in 
violation of the Act  for these unauthorized conversions  because 
it followed the Commission's rules,  and lacked intent to  change 
these  complainants'  PICs   without  their  authorization.    It 
disagrees  with  the  Commission's  interpretation  of  the  term 
``willfulness'' as used in section 503(b) of the Act.34  Instead, 
it offers  a  different interpretation  from  the  Administrative 
Procedure Act, and cites  non-Commission cases in support.35   We 
disagree with  Vista's contention.   Based on  the definition  of 
willful in section  312(f)(1) of  the Act,  and the  accompanying 
legislative history  indicating  congressional intent  that  this 
definition applies to section 503(b) as well, the Commission  has 
stated repeatedly  that section  503(b) requires  only a  finding 
that Vista knew it  was doing the acts  in question and that  the 
acts  were   not  accidental.36    Furthermore,  section   503(b) 
authorizes the Commission  to assess forfeitures  for willful  or 
repeated violations of the Act.37   The record supports the  fact 
that Vista's violations were repeated,  as well as being  willful 
under the standard imposed by the Act. 

          In further support of its  position, Vista refers to  a 
Commission rulemaking  report  and order  discussing  the  strict 
liability standard  mandated  by  section 258  of  the  Act.   In 
addressing carrier  concerns about  the imposition  of the  Act's 
strict  liability  standard,   the  Commission  stated:    ``[w]e 
recognize, however, that even with the greatest of care, innocent 
mistakes will occur and may  result in unauthorized changes.   In 
such cases, we  will take into  consideration in any  enforcement 
action the  willfulness  of  the  carriers  involved.''38   Vista 
contends that by this  statement, the Commission determined  that 
the  definition  of  willfulness   in  section  503(b)   includes 
consideration of  intent.   We  reject  Vista's  arguments.   The 
statement quoted by  Vista was included  to assure carriers  that 
the Commission would  apply its enforcement  authority in a  fair 
and even-handed manner.  It did not change the standards  imposed 
by sections 258  and 503(b) of  the Act.  As  the Commission  has 
stated, section 258 ``imposes a strict liability standard on  the 
carrier  responsible  for  submitting  an  unauthorized   change, 
regardless of intent.''39 The Commission determined that Congress 
intended that such a ``bright line  standard . . . will  minimize 
the threat of selective enforcement because it does not depend on 
divining the subjective intent of the violator.''40  As discussed 
above, Vista's  actions  were  both willful  and  repeated  under 
section 503(b) of the Act. 

C.   Liability Assessed in the Remaining Complaints

          In the  Forfeiture  Order, we  found  Vista  apparently 
liable for slamming 11 consumers whose accounts it purchased from 
ATS.   Vista  claims  that  this  determination  constitutes   an 
impermissible retroactive  rulemaking of  proposals contained  in 
the  Section  258  Order.41   Vista  supports  this  argument  by 
reasoning that such customer  base transfers were commonplace  in 
the telecommunications  industry,  the Commission  was  aware  of 
these transfers, and  the Commission issued  no orders  assessing 
liability against those carriers  for switching those  customers' 
accounts.42  Vista  reasons  that  because  it  found  no  waiver 
requests filed until after the Section 258 Order, that order gave 
notice, for the  first time, that  verification rules applied  to 
customer base  acquisitions.43   Because Vista's  acquisition  of 
customer names came before the  Section 258 Order was  published, 
Vista claims that the Commission's Forfeiture Order against Vista 
constitutes impermissible  retroactive  rulemaking  of  proposals 
contained in the Section 258 Order.

          We addressed similar claims in the Forfeiture Order and 
are not persuaded  to reverse  our finding  of liability  here.44 
First, we point out that Vista is not absolved from liability for 
its actions because other carriers may have slammed consumers but 
no such allegations were brought to our attention.   Furthermore, 
we are holding Vista liable  for 11 slamming violations based  on 
11 consumer complaints,  not for  slamming all  of the  consumers 
involved in any transfer  of a customer  base.  In addition,  the 
facts in the record before us confuse the nature of the Vista/ATS 
business relationship.  In response  to the Commission's  initial 
inquiries, Vista  identified  ATS  as one  of  its  telemarketing 
agents.45   Vista  additionally  described  these  ATS   consumer 
accounts as having been telemarketed  by ATS and ``sold to  Vista 
with the express or implied  representation that it was  properly 
verified by an  independent third party  verification company  in 
accordance with federal and state law.''46  In its NAL  Response, 
Vista stated that ATS had  acquired these consumer accounts  with 
the intent to provide its own telecommunications service and  but 
then sold the  accounts to Vista.47   Regardless of the  business 
relationship between Vista  and ATS, Vista  acknowledges that  it 
purchased consumer accounts from  ATS and subsequently  submitted 
PIC-change requests on behalf of those consumers to change  their 
service to Vista without  obtaining the consumers'  authorization 
or verification.48

          Vista's argument  that  it  had no  statutory  duty  to 
follow  the  Commission's  slamming  rules  under  this  type  of 
customer account  sale  until after  the  Section 258  Order,  is 
unavailing.  As the  Commission recently  stated in  a notice  of 
proposed rulemaking addressing the slamming waiver process:  

          The rules  we adopted  in the  Section 258  Order 
          modified  our  existing   requirements  for   the 
          authorization  and   verification  of   preferred 
          carrier changes and added procedures for handling 
          preferred carrier  freezes.  In  the Section  258 
          Order, we also  adopted liability rules  designed 
          to take the profit out of  slamming.  The Section 
          258 Order, however, did not  specifically address 
          carrier  changes  associated  with  the  sale  or 
          transfer of a subscriber base from one carrier to 
          another.49 

Although Vista is correct  in asserting that  no carrier filed  a 
waiver request of the Commission's slamming rules until after the 
Section 258 Order, it is not because the waiver issue was  raised 
there.
     
C.   Appropriateness of Assessed Forfeiture Amount

          Vista  further  argues  that  the  Commission  did  not 
consider  material  Vista  submitted  which  contained  financial 
information supporting  Vista's contention  that payment  of  the 
forfeiture amount ordered would jeopardize its ability to stay in 
business.50  This  material containing  financial forms  was  not 
clearly marked  nor was  it  described in  the  text of  the  NAL 
Response.  Upon  careful review  of this  material now,  however, 
using the  same  standard that  it  described in  the  Forfeiture 
Order, the Commission reaffirms the amount of the forfeiture due.  
In considering  a  carrier's  claim of  inability  to  pay,  case 
precedent reveals that the best indicators of a carrier's ability 
to pay  a forfeiture  are its  gross revenues,51  and that  gross 
revenues and current financial status can be shown in an  audited 
or otherwise  authenticated income  statement of  the  company.52  
Here, under  a  request  for  confidentiality,53  Vista  provided 
federal  tax  returns  for  1997  and  1998,  audited   financial 
statements for those years, and two unaudited statements for  the 
first two quarters of  1999.  In this  instance, we consider  the 
most reliable financial information  that Vista provided us54  to 
be its 1998  federal tax return  and audited financial  statement 
for  that  year  because  they  were  the  most  recent   audited 
information.  When  we look  at its  gross revenues  as given  in 
those documents,  we see  that  the proposed  forfeiture  amount, 
$680,000, is within  the range  of percentage  of gross  revenues 
that the Commission has found not excessive in other cases. 55

                         IV.  CONCLUSION

          After reviewing all the  information filed by Vista  in 
its Petition, we find that Vista has failed to identify facts  or 
circumstances  to  persuade  us   that  we  should  rescind   the 
Forfeiture Order, or that a  further reduction of the  forfeiture 
amount is warranted.

                    V.      ORDERING CLAUSES

          Accordingly, for all  the reasons stated  above, IT  IS 
ORDERED, pursuant to  Section 405 of  the Communications Act,  as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.  405, and Section  1.106 of the  Commission's 
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106,  that the Petition for  Reconsideration 
filed by Vista Services Corporation, Inc. IS DENIED.

          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of 
the Act, 47  U.S.C. 154(i),  Vista's Motion for  Stay filed  on 
November 22, 2000, IS DISMISSED as moot. 

          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to section 503(b) of the 
Act,  47  U.S.C.   503(b),  and  section   1.80(f)(4)  of   the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   1.80(f)(4), that Vista  Services 
Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States Government the sum 
of  six  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  dollars  ($680,000)  for 
violating section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  258, as well as the 
Commission's rules and orders in effect from December to  August, 
1999 governing interexchange carrier conversions. 

                                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                                Magalie Roman Salas
                                Secretary
_________________________

1    Vista Services Corporation, Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC  Rcd 
20646 (2000) (Forfeiture Order).  The company name in the caption 
of this  order  has been  conformed  to  that of  the  Notice  of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in this matter.  
2    Section  258   provides   in  pertinent   part   that   ``no 
telecommunications carrier  shall submit  .  . .  a change  in  a 
subscriber's  selection  of  a  provider  of  telephone  exchange 
service or telephone toll service except in accordance with  such 
verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.''   47 
U.S.C.  258.  In the Notice of Apparent Liability that  preceded 
the Order, we also found  that Vista apparently violated  section 
201(b) of the Act for  its unreasonable marketing practices,  but 
declined to assess a forfeiture for those apparent violations.
3    Vista also filed a ``Motion For Stay,'' requesting that  the 
Commission stay the Forfeiture  Order pending resolution of   its 
Petition.  At this time, Vista  has not paid the forfeiture,  but 
the Commission has not attempted to enforce the Forfeiture Order, 
so we dismiss the motion as moot.  
4    Vista  Group   International,  Inc.,   Notice  of   Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 13814 (1999) (Vista NAL).
5    Vista NAL, 14 FCC Rcd at  13820, 13826-27.  We note that  in 
its response to  Commission inquiries  Vista described  ATS as  a 
telemarketing agent.  In  responding to  the NAL,  Vista did  not 
appear to contend that ATS  was an agent soliciting consumers  to 
switch to  Vista's services  on  Vista's behalf.   Rather,  Vista 
stated that it purchased ``lawfully acquired customer  accounts'' 
from ATS.  See Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC at 20651.  The difference 
in descriptions is not material to our analysis.
6    Vista  NAL,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  13830.   The  Commission  has 
authority pursuant  to  section  503(b) of  the  Act,  47  U.S.C. 
503(b), to assess a forfeiture penalty against a common carrier 
if the Commission determines that the carrier has ``willfully  or 
repeatedly'' failed to comply with  the provisions of the Act  or 
with any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission.
7    Vista Group  International,  Inc.,  Response  to  Notice  of 
Apparent Liability, File  No. ENF  99-10 (filed  Sept. 30,  1999) 
(NAL Response).
8    Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 20653.
9    Petition at 2.
10   Petition at 3-7.
11   Id. at 7-13.
12   Id. at 13-23.
13   Id. at 23-24.
14   WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC  685, 686 (1964),  aff'd sub nom.  Lorain 
Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F2d  824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert.  denied, 
383 U.S. 967 (1966); 47 C.F.R.  1.106 (b)(2).
15   Bennett Gilbert  Gaines,  8 FCC  Rcd  3986, 3987  (Rev.  Bd. 
1993).
16   Vista NAL, 14 FCC Rcd at 13826, n.66.
17   Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 20649, n.19.
18   Petition at 3.
19   Response to  the  NAL,  Exhibit  6,  Declaration  of  Stacey 
Vigneau, at 5.
20   Response to the NAL, Exhibit 5, Declaration of April Reeser. 
21   Petition at 3-6.
22   Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 20649.
23   Not  only  does  Vista  acknowledge  that  it  has  no  tape 
verifying that CUM Save N' Share authorized a change in  service, 
it admits that two  of the verification tapes  it has for two  of 
the  complaints  at  issue   (Megann  Corporation  and   Colorado 
Partnership) do not  provide adequate evidence  of the  requisite 
authorization.  In  fact,  one  of  the  tapes,  that  of  Megann 
Corporation, also  provided  by Quick  Response,  was  apparently 
falsified.  See discussion, infra at  4-6.  Vista did not  submit 
these two tapes when it submitted its NAL Response.
24   Response to  the  NAL,  Exhibit  6,  Declaration  of  Stacey 
Vigneau, at 5-6.
25   Petition at 4.
26   Response to  the  NAL,  Exhibit 6,  Declaration  of   Stacey 
Vigneau, at 4-5.
27   Vista NAL, 14 FCC Rcd at 13819.
28   Response to  the  NAL,  Exhibit  6,  Declaration  of  Stacey 
Vigneau, at 7.
29   Petition at 7-10.
30   Id. at 10-11.
31   47 U.S.C.  217 (emphasis added).
32   Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 20649-50.
33   Id.
34   Petition at 11.
35   Id. at 13, nn 31-34.
36   ConQuest Operator Services  Corp., Order  of Forfeiture,  14 
FCC Rcd  12518, 12525,  n.41  (1999); Target  Telecom  Forfeiture 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 4458, Southern California Broadcasting  Co., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88 (1991).
37   47 U.S.C.  503(b) (emphasis added).
38   Implementation of the  Subscriber Carrier Selection  Changes 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and 
Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance 
Carriers, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of  Proposed 
Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1542 (1998) (Section 258 Order).
39   Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1540.  See also  Amer-I-Net 
Service Corporation, Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000).
40   Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1540.
41   Petition at 22-23.
42   Id. at n. 58. 
43   Id. at 20.
44   Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 20652.
45   Vista NAL, 14 FCC Rcd at 13821.
46   Id.
47   Response to the NAL at 39.
48   Petition at 13-14.
49   Implementation of the  Subscriber Carrier Selection  Changes 
Provisions of the  telecommunications Act of  1996; Policies  and 
Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance 
Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Third Further Notice of  Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC No. 00-451 (rel. Jan. 18, 2001).
50   Petition at 24.
51   See, e.g., Target  Telecom Forfeiture Order,  13 FCC Rcd  at 
4464 (``the use of gross revenues to determine a party's  ability 
to pay  is reasonable,  appropriate, and  a useful  yardstick  in 
helping to analyze a company's financial condition for forfeiture 
purposes'').
52   Long Distance Direct, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 
FCC Rcd 3297, 3305-06 (2000).
53   Because the  Commission  is  not  describing  the  documents 
except  in  general   terms,  we  are   not  acting  on   Vista's 
confidentiality request.  See  generally, New York  Tel. Co.  and 
Material Enterprises Co.,  Request for Confidential Treatment  of 
Certain Financial Information, 5 FCC Rcd 874 (1990).
54   We note that the Commission has the flexibility to  consider 
documentation that  it considers  to  be reliable  and  objective 
evidence of  a  violator's  ability  to  pay.   See  Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of  the 
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 
12 FCC  Rcd 17087,  17107 (1997)  (Forfeiture Policy  Statement), 
recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 
55   PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc.,  7 FCC Rcd 2088,  2089 
(1992); David L. Hollingsworth d/b/a Worland Services, 7 FCC  Rcd 
6640, 6641 (1992).