Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

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

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

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



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


In the Matter of                  )
                                 )
DYNASTY MORTGAGE, L.L.C.          )   File No. EB-03-TC-100
                                 )
                                 )   NAL/Acct. No. 200432170005
Apparent Liability for            )   FRN:  0012612156
Forfeiture                        )
                                 )
                                 )

         NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted:  February 28, 2005             Released: March 1, 
2005

By the Commission:


I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C.1 
(``Dynasty'') apparently willfully or repeatedly violated 
section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules2 by making 
telephone calls for the purpose of delivering telephone 
solicitations to residential telephone consumers who had 
registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-
Call Registry.  This NAL addresses 70 such calls made to 50 
residential telephone consumers in Arizona and California 
between March 2, 2004 and January 20, 2005.  Based on our 
review of the facts and circumstances surrounding these 
apparent violations, we find that Dynasty is apparently 
liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $11,000 for each of 
the 70 violations for a total of $770,000.3
II.  BACKGROUND

     II.A.     Rules Implementing the Telephone Consumer 
          Protection Act

     2.   The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (``TCPA'') 
was enacted in 1991 as section 227 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), to restrict certain 
telemarketing practices.  The TCPA required the Commission 
to adopt rules governing such practices, including the 
delivery of telephone solicitations to residential telephone 
lines.4  Consistent with this statutory mandate, the 
Commission first adopted rules to implement the TCPA in 
1992, establishing a company-specific do-not-call regime 
whereby residential telephone consumers may make do-not-call 
requests to companies whose telephone solicitations they 
seek to end.5  Following considerable changes in the 
telemarketing industry,6 new telemarketing rules adopted by 
the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC''),7 and further 
statutory requirements,8 we amended our TCPA rules in 2003.9  
While retaining a company-specific do-not-call option to 
prevent telemarketing calls from particular entities, the 
amended rules, inter alia, expand this system to include a 
National Do-Not-Call Registry that provides residential 
consumers with a one-step option to prohibit unwanted 
telephone solicitations.  

     3.   Section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules 
requires that ``no person or entity shall initiate any 
telephone solicitation . . . to . . . a residential 
telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone 
number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry of persons who 
do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is 
maintained by the federal government.''10  Not every 
promotional call,
however, constitutes a prohibited telephone solicitation 
under this rule.  As established by the TCPA, the term 
``telephone solicitation'' means: 

      the initiation of a telephone call or message for the 
      purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or 
      investment in, property, goods, or services, which is 
      transmitted to any person, but such term does not 
      include a call or message:

      (i) To any person with that person's prior express 
      invitation or permission.11

      (ii) To any person with whom the caller has an 
      established business relationship12; or

      (iii) By or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit 
organization.13

Accordingly, an advertising call that falls within one of 
these exclusions does not violate section 64.1200(c)(2).  In 
addition to these statutory exemptions, section 
64.1200(c)(2)(iii) also permits delivery of telephone 
solicitations to National Do-Not-Call registrants in the 
limited situation in which the caller has a personal 
relationship with the called party.14  Moreover, religious 
and political messages are not considered to be ``telephone 
solicitations'' and are, therefore, exempt from the 
Commission's National Do-Not-Call rules.15

     4.   To protect against prohibited telemarketing calls, 
entities that advertise through telephone solicitations are 
required to pay fees to access the do-not-call database and 
must ``scrub'' their calling lists of non-exempt residential 
telephone numbers contained in the Registry.16  Recognizing 
that parties who have made good faith efforts to comply with 
the national do-not-call rules may, nonetheless, 
occasionally make some calls in error to registered 
telephone lines, the Commission established standards for a 
safe harbor exemption from liability.17  

     5.   In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, a 
seller must first demonstrate that, as part of its routine 
business practice it has: (1) established and implemented 
written procedures to comply with the do-not-call rules; (2) 
trained its personnel, and any entity assisting in its 
compliance, in the procedures established pursuant to the 
do-not-call rules; (3) maintained and recorded a list of 
telephone numbers the seller may not contact; (4) used a 
process to prevent telemarketing to any telephone number on 
any list established pursuant to the do-not-call rules 
employing a version of the National Do-Not-Call Registry 
obtained from the administrator of the Registry within a 
designated time frame,18 and has maintained records 
documenting this process; and (5) used a process to ensure 
that it does not sell, rent, lease, purchase, or use the 
Registry for any purpose except national do-not-call 
compliance, and that it has purchased access to the Registry 
from the Registry administrator without participating in any 
cost sharing arrangement with any other entity.  Finally, 
the safe harbor only applies if the seller is able to show 
that the violative calls made in spite of adherence to the 
enumerated do-not-call procedures were the result of error.  

     6.   The Commission's do-not-call rules closely 
correspond to those of the FTC, which maintains the National 
Registry and shares federal enforcement responsibilities 
with this Commission.  As provided in the 2003 TCPA Order, 
we have focused our enforcement efforts on entities that 
fall outside the FTC's jurisdiction: communications common 
carriers, airlines, insurance companies, banks, credit 
unions, savings and loans, and intrastate calls by any 
entity.  Enforcement of the National Do-Not-Call Registry 
has been the top consumer protection enforcement priority 
for this Commission since the Registry took effect in 
October 2003.

          B.   Investigation of Complaints against Dynasty

     7.   The Telecommunications Consumers Division 
(``Division'') of our Enforcement Bureau initiated this 
investigation based upon its review of consumer complaint 
data involving calls made to telephone lines contained in 
the National Do-Not-Call Registry.19  The Division found a 
significant volume of complaints involving Dynasty, a 
mortgage services provider that apparently uses telephone 
solicitations to market its services to consumers in Arizona 
and southern California.  In October and November 2003, the 
Division sent letters to Dynasty seeking information both 
about its telemarketing practices generally and about 
specific complaints from consumers who allegedly received 
calls from Dynasty despite their registration on the 
National Do-Not-Call Registry.20  The November 18 letter to 
Dynasty forwarded complaints from 114 consumers who are 
registered on the National Do-Not-Call List and claim to 
have received telephone solicitations from Dynasty between 
October and early November 2003.  The letter asked Dynasty 
to provide information demonstrating that the reported calls 
did not violate the Commission's do-not-call rules, and 
warned that the Division would issue a citation21 against 
Dynasty if it failed to provide such exculpatory evidence 
within 20 days.  

     8.   On December 22, 2003, following Dynasty's failure 
to respond to the November letter, the Division issued a 
citation against Dynasty.22  The citation warned Dynasty 
that future delivery of telephone solicitations to 
residential consumers registered on the National Do-Not-Call 
Registry could subject it to monetary forfeitures of up to 
$11,000 per call.  In addition, the citation informed 
Dynasty that it could, within 30 days of the citation, 
either have a personal interview at a Commission field 
office or submit a written response to the citation. 

     9.   Dynasty's contacts with our staff following 
issuance of the citation provided a series of shifting 
positions on the company's response to the citation and 
compliance with our rules.  During the week of January 4, 
2004, an individual who identified himself as Randy Sage 
called the Division, on behalf of Dynasty, to discuss the 
citation.  On January 8, 2004, a Division staff member 
returned Mr. Sage's call.  Mr. Sage claimed that ``as a 
government-regulated business,'' Dynasty is exempt from 
federal do-not-call rules.  The staff person informed Mr. 
Sage that neither the TCPA nor the Commission's rules 
contain such an exemption, and repeated the citation's 
warning that Dynasty's continuing telephone solicitations to 
consumers who had placed their residential telephone numbers 
on the National Do-Not-Call Registry could result in 
substantial monetary penalties.  Nonetheless, the staff 
person encouraged Dynasty to explain in a formal response to 
the citation the circumstances surrounding its calls, 
including any reliance on the so-called regulated entity 
exemption.  Mr. Sage stated that Dynasty would provide such 
a response sometime during the week of January 11, 2004.  
After the Commission did not receive any such response from 
Dynasty and the 30-day date for its citation response 
passed, the staff person called Dynasty's Phoenix office on 
January 30, 2004.  At this time, the staff person was 
informed that Mr. Sage no longer worked at Dynasty.  She was 
connected to Dynasty employee Butch Hughes.  Mr. Hughes 
informed her that Dynasty had recently terminated Mr. Sage's 
employment when it discovered that Mr. Sage had provided 
Dynasty with incorrect information regarding its obligation 
to comply with the Commission's do-not-call rules.  Mr. 
Hughes indicated that Dynasty had taken steps to subscribe 
to the National Do-Not-Call Registry and to ensure 
compliance.  Finally, Mr. Hughes stated that he believed 
Dynasty had already responded to the staff's November 18 
letter.  The staff person informed Mr. Hughes that the 
Commission had not received any written response from 
Dynasty, either to the October or November letters or to the 
citation, and encouraged Dynasty to respond in writing to 
the citation as soon as possible. 

     10.  On February 19, 2004, Dynasty's president Curtis 
L. White called a manager in the Telecommunications 
Consumers Division.  Mr. White repeated the information that 
Mr. Hughes had provided to the staff person and reiterated 
Dynasty's determination to comply with the Commission's do-
not-call rules.  Mr. White also claimed that Dynasty had 
receipts showing delivery to the Commission of Dynasty's 
written responses to the citation and the November letter.  
The Division manager informed Mr. White that the Division 
had not received any written response from Dynasty and 
suggested that Dynasty outline in writing its claims and 
defenses and also forward copies of any prior responses 
along with documentation of delivery.

     11.  By letter dated February 20, 2004, Dynasty 
responded in writing to the citation by reiterating the 
information provided orally to the Division staff person and 
manager.23  Dynasty did not provide copies of any previous 
responses or proof of delivery.  In short, Dynasty claimed 
that ``prior to December 21, 2003 [Dynasty] outsourced it's 
[sic] compliance department'' to Mr. Sage's company, 
Mortgage Marketing Consultants, and relied upon Mr. Sage's 
advice that Dynasty was exempt from federal do-not-call 
requirements by virtue of its status as ``an approved 
lending institution'' with a license from the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development.  Dynasty stated, that 
``[o]bviously we now know that this information was 
incorrect and have fired Mr. Randall Sage and have taken the 
appropriate actions to comply with the National Do Not Call 
List.''  Outlining those actions, Dynasty emphasized that it 
had recently subscribed to the National Do-Not-Call 
Registry24 and had put into effect a company-specific do-
not-call list ``for the people that are not on the National 
list but still do not want a courtesy call from our 
company.''  Dynasty claimed that it scrubs its lead lists 
using both its company-specific do-not-call list and the 
National Registry.  Dynasty also mentioned its plan to 
enhance its compliance efforts with the acquisition of a 
dialing system that will ``suppress all the [prohibited] 
leads automatically.''  

     12.  Despite Dynasty's assurances, consumers whose 
residential telephone numbers are registered on the National 
Do-Not-Call Registry have continued to complain about 
telephone solicitations made by Dynasty, even after its 
February 20 citation response.  Accordingly, on July 6, 
2004, the Division sent to Dynasty a Letter of Inquiry 
(``LOI'') seeking information about consumer complaints 
received after issuance of the citation, 45 of which were 
filed after Dynasty's February 20 letter.  The LOI directed 
Dynasty to provide information regarding each complaint 
including, inter alia, whether and why it called the 
complainants.  In addition, the LOI sought information 
regarding Dynasty's internal procedures to ensure compliance 
with the National Do-Not-Call Registry and its own company-
specific list.  The LOI directed Dynasty to support its 
response with an affidavit or declaration from a company 
officer attesting, under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy 
of the information provided in any response.  

     13.  Dynasty responded to the LOI on July 28, 2004.  
Dynasty provided some information regarding its do-not-call 
efforts but did not fully answer the LOI.  In particular, 
Dynasty did not address the complaints individually, instead 
providing a broad general response regarding the purpose of 
its telephone solicitations.  Dynasty did not deny making 
the calls in question but appeared to invoke the safe harbor 
defense, claiming to have routine business practices largely 
consistent with the safe harbor standards set forth in 
section 64.1200(c)(2)(i).25 

     14.  All of the consumers whose complaints form the 
basis of this NAL filed a complaint with either this 
Commission or the FTC alleging that Dynasty failed to honor 
their registration on the National Do-Not-Call Registry by 
making a phone call or calls to the registered telephone 
lines.26  The FTC's database shows that each telephone 
number was, in fact, properly and timely registered on the 
National Do-Not-Call Registry27 at the time each complainant 
alleges receipt of a call from Dynasty.28  Further, each 
complainant has signed a declaration, under penalty of 
perjury, asserting (1) receipt of a telephone call or calls 
from Dynasty Mortgage on the complainant's residential 
telephone line despite registration of that number on the 
National Do-Not-Call Registry;29 (2) absence of prior 
express permission or invitation for the call(s); and (3) 
absence of a transaction with Dynasty or any of its 
affiliated companies within the 18 months immediately 
preceding the call(s), or an inquiry or application to any 
of these entities within the three months immediately 
preceding the call(s).30  In addition, three complainants 
who recorded the name of the individual calling on behalf of 
Dynasty attest that they do not, to the best of their 
knowledge, have a personal relationship with the caller.  
Finally, 30 complainants attest to receipt of caller ID 
information, which either explicitly identified Dynasty or 
displayed a telephone number traceable to Dynasty.  These 
violations are listed in Appendix A.

III.      DISCUSSION

     III.A.    Apparent Violations Evidenced in the Record

     15.  The evidence developed in this investigation 
warrants a finding of apparent liability for Dynasty's 
failure to comply with the requirement that it refrain from 
initiating telephone solicitations to consumers registered 
on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.  As indicated above, 
declarations from 50 residential telephone consumers 
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry detail 70 
calls made by Dynasty.  The declarations, and information 
from Dynasty itself, provide convincing evidence that 
Dynasty apparently made the telemarketing calls without any 
mitigating circumstances necessary to establish an exemption 
or support a safe harbor defense.  

          III.A.1.  Dynasty's Calls Are Non-Exempt Telephone 
               Solicitations

     16.  By its own admission, Dynasty places telephone 
calls for the purpose of promoting its mortgage services.  
Although Dynasty has failed to provide information regarding 
the particular circumstances associated with any of the 
specific calls at issue here, Dynasty appears to concede in 
its LOI response that it (1) made the calls for which the 
staff sought explanation and (2) that those calls were made 
to promote its mortgage services.31  Dynasty states:

      Reasons for the calls made by Dynasty Mortgage from 
 complaints listed . . .

      As a Mortgage Broker we save homeowners an average of 
      $300 to $500 each month by lowering payments through 
      interest rates, debt consolidation, etc.  We solicit 
      homeowners for the opportunity to show how we can 
      place them in a better financial position.  Our 
      telemarketing team schedules appointments for these 
      homeowners to attend a free consultation with a Loan 
      Officer.32 

     17.  The consumer declarations indicate that the 70 
calls at issue here are non-exempt telephone solicitations.  
Most consumers provide specific information regarding the 
advertisement delivered by Dynasty.33  Each consumer 
describes a Dynasty call or calls apparently made without 
benefit of prior express consent or the contacts necessary 
to establish a business relationship.  Further, the 
consumers who noted the name of the Dynasty representative 
who called them declare that they do not have personal 
relationships with the callers, i.e, the caller is not a 
friend, acquaintance, or family member.  Given the specific, 
detailed information provided by the consumer declarations, 
and the fact that Dynasty has made no claim or provided no 
evidence to demonstrate that its advertising calls were 
justified by prior express consent, an established business 
relationship, or a personal relationship, we conclude that 
Dynasty's calls are apparently prohibited telephone 
solicitations.
          III.A.2.  Dynasty's Calls  Do Not Fall  within the 
               Safe Harbor

     18.  Dynasty briefly asserts in its LOI response that 
it complies with the do-not-call standards that underlie a 
safe harbor defense pursuant to section 64.1200(c)(2)(i).34  
Specifically, Dynasty states that it has, among other 
things, (1) established and implemented written procedures 
to comply with national do-not-call rules, (2) trained 
personnel in these procedures, (3) implemented procedures to 
scrub its telemarketing leads against the National Do-Not-
Call Registry and its own company-specific list, and (4) 
purchased access to the National Registry.  Dynasty includes 
a document that purportedly outlines its do-not-call 
procedures as well as scripts for its telemarketing calls. 
Dynasty's blanket assertions, however, are not supported by 
the meager documentation that it provides; indeed, some of 
the materials provided by Dynasty are, in fact, inconsistent 
with the safe harbor requirements.  As an initial matter, 
however, Dynasty provides no information to satisfy a 
crucial element of the safe harbor:  that the calls were 
made in error.  For this reason alone, Dynasty's safe harbor 
defense fails.  Nevertheless, we address other obvious 
deficiencies in Dynasty's safe harbor defense as well to 
further demonstrate Dynasty's noncompliance.

               III.A.2.a.     Error

     19.  The error aspect of the safe harbor defense 
exempts telephone solicitations made despite a seller's 
efforts to prevent unlawful telemarketing as evidenced by 
compliance with the do-not-call standards outlined above and 
discussed in more detail below.35   Error, however, does not 
apply simply because an entity meets all other safe harbor 
criteria or incorrectly believes that it need not comply 
with national do-not-call requirements.36  An error claim 
should be supported by evidence showing that otherwise 
unlawful telephone solicitations were made unintentionally 
and detailing any procedural breakdowns that led to such 
calls, as well as the steps that the seller has taken to 
minimize future errors.   

     20.  In its LOI Response, Dynasty neither explicitly 
states that any of the telemarketing calls at issue here 
were made in error nor provides any information that would 
support such a determination.  On this basis alone, 
Dynasty's safe harbor defense fails.  Moreover, information 
provided by complainants belies any assumption or claim that 
Dynasty's calls were made in error.  Several consumers who 
received Dynasty's telemarketing calls outline conversations 
with Dynasty representatives that clearly demonstrate that 
Dynasty deliberately made the calls at issue here and, in 
fact, was aware of the unlawful nature of such calls and the 
potential penalties.  First, a Dynasty supervisor told a 
consumer that Dynasty does not use the National Do-Not-Call 
Registry.37  Further, despite the fact that Dynasty's LOI 
response explicitly concedes that the company is subject to 
the Commission's do-not-call rules and pledges to abandon 
the erroneous exemption claim that the company previously 
relied upon, three consumers report that during calls from 
Dynasty at least three months after the LOI response, 
Dynasty asserted that it is exempt from the National Do-Not-
Call Registry.38  Finally, one consumer reports that when he 
warned a Dynasty telemarketer that the company could be 
subject to a $10,000 forfeiture for the call, the 
telemarketer responded that the potential forfeiture was 
actually $11,000.39  The facts of this case clearly preclude 
an error claim, and, accordingly, Dynasty's safe harbor 
defense fails.

               III.A.2.b.     Written Procedures

     21.  To qualify for the safe harbor exemption, a seller 
must demonstrate that as part of its routine business 
practice, ``it has established and implemented written 
procedures to comply with the national do-not-call 
rules.''40  With regard to this requirement, we find that 
the record does not support a finding of compliance.  In its 
LOI Response, Dynasty asserts that its written procedures to 
comply with the national do-not-call rules are reflected in 
three documents attached to the LOI Response.  None of the 
three brief internal documents, however, constitutes or 
could be considered a plan for compliance with the national 
do-not-call rules.  One document simply presents promotional 
scripts, which do not mention either the National Do-Not-
Call Registry or Dynasty's company-specific do-not-call 
list. Another document, entitled ``Process for DNC 
Documentation,'' contains two very brief scenarios for 
recording company-specific do-not-call requests.  The final 
document contains two scripts for Dynasty representatives to 
follow when called parties seek to make or enforce do-not-
call requests.  With respect to the National Do-Not-Call 
Registry, the script reads:

      Going forward,41 the following responses will be used 
      for homeowners who identify themselves as being on 
      the National Dot [sic] Not Call List. . . .

      ``I'm on the National DNC List!''

      ``In that case, I do apologize for the call and any 
      inconvenience, and I want to assure you that we make 
      every effort to comply with the national do-not-call 
      rules and regulations.  I'll add you to our company 
      DNC list to insure that we never call your home 
      again, okay?''

This material does not address or describe the steps Dynasty 
and its representatives should take to comply with the 
National Do-Not-Call Registry and to prevent calls to 
numbers listed on the Registry.  In fact, rather than 
presenting a plan that seeks to avoid making calls to 
telephone numbers contained on the National Registry, the 
script instead addresses a scenario in which Dynasty calls 
such a number. 

     22.  In short, Dynasty fails to provide a document 
explaining, for example, any of the following things that 
reasonably could be expected to be included in a company's 
written compliance procedure:  a statement explaining what 
the do-not-call rules are and how they operate; the legal 
requirements for do-not-call compliance; the company's 
policies regarding compliance; the consequences for non-
compliance; the company's policies regarding compliance by 
outside lead generators and its means of communicating those 
policies with the outside parties; or any type of ongoing 
compliance monitoring.  

     23.  Notwithstanding the absence of written procedures 
for compliance with the national do-not-call rules, Dynasty 
asserts that it does, in fact, have a process for 
compliance:

      When we purchase any new leads we suppress the list 
      against our own DNC list as well as against the 
      national DNC list before we load the leads into our 
      dialer.  Before purchasing leads to call, our lead 
      broker uses or [sic] S.A.N. number on the National 
      DNC Registry to insure that we are not receiving any 
      phone numbers that are currently registered on the 
      national list.

This assertion, however, does not satisfy the requirement in 
the rules that Dynasty have written compliance procedures 
that set the parameters of Dynasty's telemarketing 
activities.   

     24.  Finally, even assuming that Dynasty has 
established written do-not-call procedures, evidence 
suggests that it has failed to implement any such procedures 
as the rule requires.  Several complainants provide 
information indicating that Dynasty made telemarketing calls 
without regard to the National Do-Not-Call list.42  Most 
notably, one complainant reports that during an August 2004 
telemarketing call from Dynasty, a supervisor stated that 
the company ``doesn't check its numbers against the National 
Do-Not-Call Registry.''43

               III.A.2.c.     Training of Personnel

     25.  The safe harbor defense also requires a seller to 
demonstrate that as part of its routine business practice, 
``it has trained its personnel, and any entity assisting in 
its compliance, in procedures established pursuant to the 
national do-not-call rules.''44  Dynasty points again to the 
written materials described above to support its claim that 
it meets this prong of the safe harbor defense.  Based on 
the paucity of evidence in the record, we cannot so 
conclude.  Dynasty does not discuss in any way the manner in 
which it undertakes to train its telemarketers.  Even more 
significantly, Dynasty's documents in no way reflect that 
Dynasty telemarketers are provided the most basic 
information: that they must avoid calling non-exempt 
telephone numbers contained on the National Do-Not-Call 
Registry. Instead, as noted above, the materials deal with 
recording company specific do-not-call requests and handling 
calls that it has already made to consumers registered on 
the National Do-Not-Call Registry.45 

               III.A.2.d.     Accessing the National Do-Not-
                    Call Registry

     26.  The safe harbor defense applies only to an entity 
that can demonstrate that as part of routine business 
practices, it ``use[d] a process to prevent telephone 
solicitations to any telephone number on any list 
established pursuant to the do-not-call rules, employing a 
version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from 
the administrator of the registry . . . [within a specified 
timeframe], and maintains records documenting this 
process.''46  For most of the calls at issue here, Dynasty 
was required to use a version of the Do-Not-Call Registry 
that it obtained no more than three months prior to the date 
it made any telemarketing call.  Six calls made by Dynasty 
after January 1, 2005 are subject to a rule amendment that 
requires use of a version of the Registry obtained no more 
than 31 days before any telemarketing call.47

     27.  Dynasty itself provided no records to demonstrate 
that the company or any authorized telemarketers ever 
accessed the National Do-Not-Call Registry or that it 
maintains records documenting its use of the Registry.  Our 
staff has obtained FTC do-not-call records that show that 
Dynasty's do-not-call Subscription Account Number has been 
used to access portions of the National Registry twice in 
the past year:  first, over the course of one week in March 
2004, and second, on January 6, 2005.48  Dynasty's lapse of 
nearly ten months in accessing the Registry automatically 
removes the safe harbor defense for all telemarketing calls 
made by Dynasty between June 15, 2004 and January 5, 2005.49  

     28.  Apart from Dynasty's failure to timely access the 
National Registry, Dynasty fails to demonstrate that it 
correctly performed any scrub of its calling list against 
the National Registry.  Dynasty's summary statement that its 
lead broker scrubs potential leads against the National Do-
Not-Call Registry before Dynasty purchases them does not 
evince a process that complies with the safe harbor 
requirement.  Dynasty does not discuss how it ensures that 
the broker performs the scrub properly.  Moreover, Dynasty 
does not state that such leads are the sole source of its 
database of telephone numbers used for telemarketing 
purposes.  

               III.A.2.e.     Purchasing  the  National  Do-
                    Not-Call Registry

     29.  The safe harbor requires a telephone solicitor to 
demonstrate that it ``uses a process to ensure that it does 
not sell, rent, lease, purchase, or use the national do-not-
call database, or any part thereof, for any purpose except 
compliance with [the do-not-call rules] and any such state 
or federal law to prevent telephone solicitations to 
telephone number registered on the national database.''50  
It must demonstrate that it ``purchases access to the 
relevant do-not-call data from the administrator of the 
national database and does not participate in any 
arrangement to share the cost of accessing the national 
database, including any arrangement with telemarketers who 
may not divide the cost to access the national database 
among various client sellers.''51  Dynasty provides no 
information or statement regarding this aspect of the safe 
harbor.

     III.B.    Forfeiture Amount

     30.  Based upon our review of the record in this case, 
we conclude that Dynasty apparently willfully or repeatedly 
violated section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules by 
making 70 telephone solicitations to 50 consumers who had 
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.  
Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture is warranted against 
Dynasty for its apparent willful or repeated violations of 
the Commission's national do-not-call rules.

     31.  Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $11,000 for each 
violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order 
issued by the Commission under the Act, by a non-common 
carrier or other entity not specifically designated in 
section 503 of the Act.52  In exercising such authority, we 
are to take into account ``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.''53

     32.  The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement does 
not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the 
prohibition on making telephone solicitations to customers 
who have registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.54  
We have, however, previously proposed a $10,000 forfeiture 
for each violation of our company-specific do-not-call 
rules.55  We believe that a violation of National Do-Not-
Call Registry rules implicates the same concern:  that 
telemarketing was initiated to a consumer who took specific 
steps to prevent such contact by lodging a do-not-call 
request, in this case, by signing onto the National Do-Not-
Call Registry.  Accordingly, we believe that $10,000 is an 
appropriate base amount for a violation of section 
64.1200(c)(2).  The Forfeiture Policy Statement does, 
however, contemplate upward or downward adjustments based on 
the severity of the violation and nature of the violator.56  

     33.  In this case, we believe that the record supports 
imposition of the maximum forfeiture of $11,000 per 
violation against Dynasty.  As we have described above, both 
Dynasty's own responses and information provided by 
consumers who have received Dynasty's calls reveal Dynasty 
as an apparent chronic and persistent violator of our do-
not-call rules.57  Dynasty's do-not-call procedures and 
training efforts appear to be wholly inadequate to promote 
compliance with our rules governing the National Do-Not-Call 
Registry.  Dynasty's violations have continued despite being 
informed by the Commission's staff that it was relying upon 
a non-existent exemption to justify its calls.  Most 
notably, Dynasty has continued to misinform consumers that 
it is exempt from national do-not-call rules even after 
admitting, in correspondence to this Commission, that it is, 
in fact, subject to these rules.

     34.  Our enforcement goal is compliance, not imposition 
of forfeiture penalties and collection of monies for the U. 
S. Treasury.  We did not, therefore, commence this 
forfeiture proceeding immediately after discovering 
Dynasty's first post-citation violations.  Instead, in light 
of Dynasty's claims that its violations were the result of 
erroneous advice from a contractor, that it no longer 
employed the contractor, and that it had instituted 
procedures to ensure compliance, the staff began to monitor 
Dynasty's complaint levels to determine whether Dynasty's 
new compliance procedures were effective.  Although the 
complaint levels have dropped somewhat after January 2004, 
significant numbers consumers have continued to report 
receiving Dynasty's telephone solicitations despite 
registration on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, many of 
which occurred after Dynasty's February 20, 2004 
correspondence that acknowledged the company's previous 
violations and promised a rigorous compliance plan.  Our NAL 
includes only violations after Dynasty's February 20, 2004 
letter.

     35.  Dynasty has persisted in making prohibited 
telephone solicitations and attempting to deceive consumers 
regarding the unlawful nature of such calls despite 
admitting its violations to this Commission.  Accordingly, 
based on the nature and gravity of Dynasty's conduct and the 
continued need to ensure compliance with section 
64.1200(c)(2), we find Dynasty apparently liable in the 
amount of $11,000 for each of 70 violations.  This results 
in a proposed total forfeiture of $770,000.  As set forth 
below, Dynasty may pay the proposed forfeiture in full or 
submit evidence and arguments in response to this NAL to 
show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some 
lesser amount should be assessed.58

IV.  CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES

     36.  We have determined that Dynasty apparently 
committed 70 separate violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of 
the Commission's rules by failing to abide by our national 
do-not-call requirements, as described above.  We have 
further determined that Dynasty is apparently liable in the 
amount of $11,000 for each of 70 violations of section 
64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, for a total of 
$770,000.

     37.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C.  503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 
47 C.F.R.  1.80, that Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. IS HEREBY 
NOTIFIED of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the 
amount of $770,000 for willful or repeated violations of 
sections 64.1200(c)(2) as described in the paragraphs above 
and detailed in Appendix A.

     38.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80, that within thirty 
(30) days of the release of this Notice of Apparent 
Liability, Dynasty SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed 
forfeiture OR SHALL FILE a response showing why the proposed 
forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced.59

     39.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) 
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C.  154(i), 403, that within forty-five (45) days of 
the release of this Notice of Apparent Liability, Dynasty 
SHALL FILE a report, supported by affidavit or statement 
under penalty of perjury, detailing the steps that Dynasty 
has taken to ensure compliance with section 64.1200(c)(2) of 
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(c)(2).

     40.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by 
certified mail to Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. at:   (1)  2633 
E. Indian School Rd., Suite 370, Phoenix, Arizona 85016; (2) 
5701 W. Talavi Blvd., Suite 110, Glendale, Arizona 85306; 
and (3) 4660 E. LaJolla Village Dr., Suite 400, San Diego, 
California 92122.   

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
                         COMMISSION



                                   Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary                         Appendix A

                  DYNASTY MORTGAGE, L.L.C.
    NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL VIOLATIONS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE
 
              Telephone         Telephone      Caller ID 
            Solicitation      Solicitation     Displayed
              Recipient           Date
      1   Adams, Robert          8/3/04
      2   Atkinson, Nigel        8/31/04
      3   Berens, Barbara       12/27/04     602-218-9221
      4   Bonomo, Robert         8/3/04
      5   Carlson, Jay E.        3/9/04      602-445-9276
      6   Chute, William P.      8/14/04        Dynasty 
                                               Mortgage
                                             602-218-9221
      7   Demchak, Barry         3/26/04     858/362-8695
      8   Denisac, Frank         3/2/04      858-362-8695
      9   Epps, John             7/13/04     602-218-9221
      10                         8/2/04      602-218-9221
      11                         8/11/04     602-218-9221
      12  Ferguson, Bruce        8/14/04     602-218-9221
      13  Fernando, E. Joe       4/13/04     858-362-8585
          A. IV
      14  Finnegan, Philip       4/12/04
          (Jay)
      15  Frank, Kevin          11/30/04     888-508-5592
      16  Gittus, Michael        6/7/04      602-445-9277
      17  Grimes, Larry A.       5/10/04     858-362-8468
      18                         5/11/04     858-362-8598
      19  Hansen, Patricia       8/7/04      602-218-9221
      20  Holland,               3/5/04
          Christopher J.
      21  Holmes, Mark          11/22/04     888-508-5592
      22  Jaycox,                8/2/04
          Antoinette
      23  Johnson, Todd         10/26/04
      24  Kertesz, Joe           8/16/04     602-218-9221
      25  Koepke, Kevin          1/6/05      602-218-9221
      26                         1/19/05     602-218-9221
      27                         1/20/05     602-218-9221
      28  Langevin, Edwin        9/27/04        Dynasty 
                                               Mortgage
                                             888-508-5592
      29  Lauterbach,           12/13/04     602-218-9221
      30  Lynette               12/13/04     602-218-9221
      31  Lewis, Jeffrey         7/10/04
      32  Logan, Michelle       11/30/04     602-218-9221
      33                         12/1/04     602-218-9221
      34                         12/6/04     602-218-9221
      35                        12/18/04     602-218-9221
      36                        12/19/04     602-218-9221
      37  Madden, William        7/8/04      602-218-9221
      38                         7/19/04     602-218-9221
      39                         8/11/04     602-218-9221
      40                         8/18/04     602-218-9221
      41  Marler, James          7/19/04
      42  McKenzie, James        12/7/04
      43  McKenzie, Thomas       7/8/04
      44  Mitchell, Kelly        4/6/04
      45  Neuberg, Karen        12/20/04     602-445-0070
      46  Novitz, Stuart         7/20/04        Dynasty 
                                               Mortgage
                                             602-218-9221
      47  Oleska, Myron          8/18/04
      48  Pickwell, Sheila       3/2/04
      49  Ramsey, Marian         5/8/04         Dynasty 
                                               Mortgage
                                             602-445-9256
      50  Recker, Irene          7/12/04
      51  Rice, Marilyn         Sometime 
                                 between 
      52                        10/27/04     602-218-9221
                               and11/8/04
                                 11/8/04
      53  Rippetoe, Patrick      8/9/04
      54  Rumsey, Eric           4/10/04
      55  Scotti, Diane         12/30/04     602-218-9221
      56                         1/4/05      602-218-9221
      57                         1/6/05      602-218-9221
      58                         1/13/05
      59  Stewart, Hal          12/22/04     602-445-0070
      60                        12/22/04     602-445-0070
      61                        12/29/04     602-445-0070
      62  Taub, Charles          3/9/04
      63  Torkington,            5/13/04     858-362-8585
          Adrian
      64  Van Hoven, Lynn        3/8/04      602-445-9276
      65                         3/8/04      602-445-9276
      66  Vizcarra, Victor       7/13/04     602-218-9221
      67  Walker, Claire         9/23/04     888-508-5592
      68  Wassel, Theodore       6/1/04         Dynasty 
          A.                                   Mortgage
                                             858-362-8585
      69  Worthington, Mary      8/25/04
      70  Zanelli,               8/6/04
          Elizabeth


_________________________

1Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C is owned by Curtis L. White, who 
serves as President and Chief Executive Officer.  Dynasty 
has two offices in Arizona and one in California:   (1)  
2633 E. Indian School Rd., Suite 370, Phoenix, Arizona 
85016; (2) 5701 W. Talavi Blvd., Suite 110, Glendale, 
Arizona 85306; and (3) 4660 E. LaJolla Village Dr., Suite 
400, San Diego, California 92122.  During the relevant time 
period, Dynasty had two affiliated companies:  Dynasty 
Lending and Dynasty Title Agency.

247 C.F.R.  64.1200(c)(2).

3See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1).  The Commission has the 
authority under this section of the Act to assess a 
forfeiture against any person who has ``willfully or 
repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provisions of 
this Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the 
Commission under this Act . . . .''   Section 503 provides 
that the Commission must assess such penalties through the 
use of a written notice of apparent liability or notice of 
opportunity for hearing.  Id.  503(b)(3), (4). 

4Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-
243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991), codified at 47 U.S.C.  227.  
The TCPA amended Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, 
47 U.S.C.  201 et seq.  Section 227(c)(1) required the 
Commission to conduct a rulemaking proceeding ``concerning 
the need to protect residential telephone subscribers' 
privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to 
which they object.''  

5See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone 
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Report 
and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752 (1992) (1992 TCPA Order); see also 
47 C.F.R.  64.1200.  Pursuant to petitions for 
reconsideration, the Commission adopted amendments to the 
TCPA rules in 1995 and 1997.  Rules and Regulations 
Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 
CC Docket No. 92-90, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 
Rcd 12391 (1995) (1995 TCPA Reconsideration Order); Rules 
and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Order on 
Further Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 4609 (1997) (1997 TCPA 
Reconsideration Order).

6See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone 
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd 14014, 14021-22 (2003) (2003 TCPA Order) (describing 
expansion of telemarketing industry since 1992).

7In 2003, the FTC amended its Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 
C.F.R. Part 310, to include a National Do-Not-Call Registry.  

8Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 108-10, 117 
Stat. 557 (2003), codified at 15 U.S.C.  6101 (Do-Not-Call 
Act). The Do-Not-Call Act authorizes the establishment of a 
national do-not-call registry and directs the FCC to adopt 
rules that maximize consistency with those of the FTC.

92003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014.

1047 C.F.R.  64.1200(c)(2).    

11Section 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) of our rules requires that prior 
express invitation  or permission  ``must be evidenced  by a 
signed, written  agreement between  the consumer  and seller 
which states  that the  consumer agrees  to be  contacted by 
this seller and  includes the telephone number  to which the 
calls may be placed.''  47 C.F.R.  64.1200(c)(2)(ii). 

12For do-not-call purposes, the term ``established business 
relationship'' means ``a prior or existing relationship 
formed by a voluntary two-way communication between a person 
or entity and a residential subscriber with or without an 
exchange of consideration, on the basis of the subscriber's 
purchase or transaction with the entity within the eighteen 
(18) months immediately preceding the date of the telephone 
call or on the basis of the subscriber's inquiry or 
application regarding products or services offered by the 
entity within the three months immediately preceding the 
date of the call, which relationship has not been previously 
terminated by either party.'' 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(f)(3).  

1347 U.S.C  227(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(f)(9).

14The term ``personal relationship'' means ``any family 
member, friend, or acquaintance of the telemarketer making 
the call.''  47 C.F.R.  64.1200(f)(11).

152003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14040.  Such speech, 
however, may not be exempt if it merely ``serve[s] as a 
pretext to an otherwise prohibited advertisement.''  Id. at 
n. 141.

16``Scrubbing'' refers to comparing a company's call list to 
the National Do-Not-Call Registry and eliminating from the 
call list all numbers contained in the National Registry 
that are not covered by an exemption.

172003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14040; 47 C.F.R.  
64.1200(c)(2).

18We recently amended our rules to require telemarketers to 
use a version of the Registry that is no more 31 days old.  
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act of 1991, Order, FCC 04-204 (Sept. 21, 2004).  
Prior to January 1, 2005, and during the time period 
relevant to most of the calls at issue here, telemarketers 
were permitted to use a version of the Registry that was no 
more than three months old.    

19Enforcement Bureau staff reviewed do-not-call complaints 
received by both this Commission and the FTC.

20Letters from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, 
Telecommunications Consumers Division, to Dynasty Mortgage, 
dated Oct. 6, 2003 and Nov. 18, 2003. 

21If, as here, an alleged violator does not hold a 
Commission license, permit, certificate, or authorization, 
the Commission may not initiate a forfeiture proceeding 
without first issuing a warning citation.  47 U.S.C.  
503(b)(5).  If the citation recipient continues the unlawful 
behavior after receiving the citation, the Commission may 
propose monetary penalties, but only for those violations 
that occur after issuance of the citation.

22Letter from Kurt A. Schroeder to Dynasty Mortgage, dated 
Dec. 22, 2003.

23Letter from Curtis L. White, President, Dynasty, to Kurt 
A. Schroeder, FCC, dated Feb. 20, 2004.  

24Dynasty provided its subscription account number (``SAN'') 
and expiration date as evidence of its subscription.  

25See para. 18, infra.

26These apparently violative calls are listed in Appendix A.

27During the time relevant to most of the calls at issue 
here, our rules required telephone solicitors to use a 
version of the National Do-Not-Call Registry that was no 
more than three months old.  In other words, telephone 
solicitors were, in effect, required to have scrubbed their 
calling lists against the National Do-Not-Call Registry no 
more than three months before making any call.  
Consequently, a consumer's registration was not enforceable 
until three months passed.  As indicated above, effective 
January 1, 2005, the Commission has amended the rules to 
reduce the three-month time frame to 31 days.   The 31-day 
time frame applies to three calls at issue here.  See 
Appendix A (Scotti, Diane); see also n. 18, supra.  

28The FTC's internet do-not-call complaint system 
automatically checks the complainant's telephone number to 
determine whether and when that number was added to the 
National Do-Not-Call Registry.  The system then compares the 
registration date against the date of the alleged 
telemarketing call, and only accepts complaints in which the 
complainant's telephone number was timely registered at the 
time of the alleged call.  Our staff has independently 
confirmed that each complainant's telephone number was 
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 
three months before the alleged call was made.  

29Thirty-six declarants describe Dynasty's telephone 
solicitations that promoted its mortgage financing services.  
Fourteen declarants report receiving a total of 26 telephone 
calls from Dynasty but apparently terminated those calls 
before delivery of any advertisement.  See n. 33, infra.  

30A transaction or inquiry within the respective time frames 
constitutes an established business relationship.  See 47 
U.S.C.  64.1200(f)(3).

31Dynasty offers no reason other than telephone solicitation 
to explain these calls.  For example, Dynasty does not 
suggest that any of the calls at issue were made for non-
solicitation purposes, such as to collect monies owed or to 
complete pending transactions.

32LOI Response.  We note here that we have previously found 
that offers for free goods or services and so-called 
``information-only'' messages may be prohibited unsolicited 
advertisements when they are ``part of an overall marketing 
campaign to sell property, goods, or services.''  2003 TCPA 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14097.  We have stressed that ``[t]he 
TCPA's definition [of unsolicited advertisement] does not 
require a sale to be made during the call in order for the 
message to be considered an advertisement.''  Id.  

33As indicated above, 36 consumers affirmatively indicate 
that Dynasty promoted its mortgage financing services in the 
calls that they received while 14 other consumers apparently 
terminated Dynasty's calls before the Dynasty representative 
could convey an advertisement.  See n. 29, supra.  Given 
Dynasty's admission that it makes calls to promote its 
mortgage services, and its failure to provide any other 
rationale for any of its calls, we believe that it is 
reasonable to conclude that each call was initiated for the 
purpose of delivering an advertisement.

34As set forth above and discussed in more detail below, the 
safe harbor insulates sellers and their telemarketers from 
liability for delivering telephone solicitations to 
residential telephone consumers who are registered on the 
National Do-Not-Call Registry when such a solicitation is 
the result of error and the seller or telemarketer adheres 
to specified policies and procedures designed to prevent 
prohibited calls to registered telephone numbers.  See 
paras. 4-5, supra; paras. 19-28, infra.

35See paras. 21-28, infra. 

36Ignorance of the law is not a defense or mitigating 
circumstance.  Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC 
Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) citing Vernon Broadcasting, Inc., 60 
RR 2d 1275, 1277 (1986) and Fay Neel Eggleston, 19 FCC 2d 
829 (1969).

37Declaration of Nigel Atkinson (attesting that Dynasty 
supervisor stated that it does not check its calling lists 
against the National Do-Not-Call Registry); Declaration of 
William P. Chute (attesting that Dynasty caller stated that 
Dynasty ``did not have the list; they had their own 
database'').  

38Declaration of Theodore A. Wassel (during June 1, 2004 
call, Dynasty manager stated Dynasty is exempt from the 
National Do-Not-Call Registry); declaration of Stuart Novitz 
(during July 20, 2004 call, Dynasty claimed to be a 
``federally exempt company for telemarketing purposes''); 
declaration of Edwin Langevin (during September 27, 2004 
call, Dynasty claimed that ``certain financial institutions 
are exempt'').

39Declaration of Thomas McKenzie.

4047 C.F.R.  64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A).

41Dynasty's document is undated.

42See para. 20, infra.

43Declaration of Nigel Atkinson.

4447 C.F.R.  64.1200(c)(2)(i)(B).

45See para. 21, supra.

4647 C.F.R.  64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D).  

47See n. 18, 27, supra.

48Between March 8 and March 15, 2004, Dynasty accessed 
portions of the Do-Not-Call Registry for three Arizona and 
three California area codes.  On January 6, 2005, Dynasty 
accessed these same portions of the Registry and, in 
addition, portions for two new Arizona area codes, one new 
California area code, and one Nevada area code.

49As shown in Appendix A, Dynasty made 46 of the calls at 
issue here between June 15, 2004 and January 5, 2005.

5047 C.F.R.  64.1200(c)(2)(i)(E).

51Id. 

52Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures up to 
$10,000 for each violation in cases not covered by 
subparagraphs (A) or (B), which address forfeitures for 
violations by licensees and common carriers, among others.  
See 47 U.S.C.  503(b).  Pursuant to the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act of 1996, P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-358, 
the statutory maximum amount for a forfeiture penalty shall 
be adjusted for inflation at least once every four years.  
Accordingly, the $10,000 forfeiture ceiling has been 
adjusted to $11,000. 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(5).  Amendment of 
Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of 
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 
(2000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules 
and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 19 
FCC Rcd 10945 (2004).

5347 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).

54The 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 (1997), 
recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy 
Statement).

55AT&T Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 23398 (2003).

56Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01.

57We remind Dynasty that it may be subject to additional 
enforcement actions if it continues to call residential 
telephone consumers in violation of section 64.1200(c)(2) or 
if it engages in other violations of our telemarketing 
rules.  We instruct the staff to continue monitoring 
complaints against Dynasty to determine whether Dynasty 
should be subject to additional enforcement action.  

58See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(3).  The 
Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a 
forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless 
the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most 
recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared 
according to generally accepted accounting practices 
(``GAAP''); or (3) some other reliable and objective 
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's 
current financial status.  Any claim of inability to pay 
must specifically identify the basis for the claim by 
reference to the financial documentation submitted.

59The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money 
order drawn to the order of the Federal Communications 
Commission.  Reference should be made on Dynasty's check or 
money order to ``NAL/Acct. No. 200432170005. Such 
remittances must be mailed to Forfeiture Collection section, 
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. Requests for payment of 
the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability under 
an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and 
Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C., 20554.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.