Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
File No. EB-07-SE-009
In the Matter of )
NAL/Acct. No. 200732100047
United States Cellular Corporation )
FRN # 0004372322
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: August 29, 2007 Released: August 30, 2007
By the Commission: Chairman Martin issuing a statement.
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
United States Cellular Corporation ("USCC") apparently liable for a
forfeiture in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)
for the willful and repeated violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v) of
the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The apparent violation involves
USCC's failure to comply with the Commission's requirement that
wireless carriers employing a handset-based Enhanced 911 ("E911")
Phase II location technology must achieve 95% penetration, among their
subscribers, of location-capable handsets by December 31, 2005.
2. The Commission's wireless E911 rules ensure that the important public
safety needs of wireless callers requiring emergency assistance are
met as quickly as possible. Under Phase II of the E911 rules, wireless
licensees are required to provide Public Safety Answering Points
("PSAPs") with Automatic Location Identification ("ALI") information
for 911 calls. Licensees can provide ALI information by deploying
location information technology in their networks (a network-based
solution), or Global Positioning System ("GPS") or other location
technology in subscribers' handsets (a handset-based solution). The
Commission's rules also establish phased-in schedules for carriers to
deploy any necessary network components and begin providing Phase II
service. However, before a wireless licensee's obligation to provide
E911 service is triggered, a PSAP must make a valid request for E911
service, i.e., the PSAP must be capable of receiving and utilizing the
data elements associated with the service and must have a mechanism in
place for recovering its costs.
3. In addition to deploying the network facilities necessary to deliver
location information, wireless licensees that elect to employ a
handset-based solution must meet the handset deployment benchmarks set
forth in Section 20.18(g)(1) of the Commission's Rules, independent of
any PSAP request for Phase II service. After ensuring that 100% of all
new digital handsets activated are location-capable, licensees were
required to achieve 95% penetration, among their subscribers, of
location-capable handsets no later than December 31, 2005.
4. On January 5, 2007, the Commission issued an order denying a request
for waiver filed by USCC of the December 31, 2005 handset penetration
deadline. In the USCC Waiver Order, the Commission found that USCC
failed to meet the Commission's standards for waiver of the 95%
handset penetration requirement because (1) its efforts to encourage
subscribers to upgrade non-compliant handsets were insufficient; (2)
it "inexcusably delayed, until 2006, instituting more aggressive
measures of attaining compliance;" (3) it did not know the compliance
status of 7% of its customers; and (4) its uncertainty about how or
when it would achieve compliance was evidence of its lack of a clear
path to compliance. The Commission also found that USCC's conceded
failure to meet 95% handset penetration by the December 31, 2005
deadline should be addressed through the enforcement process and
referred the matter of the carrier's non-compliance with Section
20.18(g)(1)(v) of the Rules to the Enforcement Bureau. Specifically,
USCC achieved an approximate penetration rate of only 88.76% by the
December 31, 2005 deadline.
5. On July 12, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued a letter of inquiry
requesting that USCC provide certain supplemental information related
to its efforts to meet the E911 handset requirements. Specifically,
the letter requested that USCC provide, among other things, a timeline
of all actions taken, both before and after the December 31, 2005
deadline, to encourage customers to upgrade to E911 compliant
handsets, including any incentives and special promotions, information
concerning the costs and expenditures of these actions and incentives,
and information concerning the "take rate" or effect these actions and
incentives had on USCC's overall compliance rate. USCC submitted its
response on July 25, 2007.
A. Failure to Comply with E911 Handset Penetration Requirement
6. The Commission has determined based on the record established in the
waiver proceeding that USCC failed to comply with the handset
penetration deadline. USCC does not dispute that it achieved an
approximate penetration rate of only 88.76% by the December 31, 2005
deadline. Accordingly, we conclude that USCC apparently willfully and
repeatedly failed to comply with the 95% handset penetration
requirement by the December 31, 2005 deadline in violation of Section
20.18(g)(1)(v) of the Rules.
A. Proposed Forfeiture
7. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by
the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed 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. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must
issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such
notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing,
why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed. The Commission will
then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude
under this standard that USCC is apparently liable for forfeiture for
its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v)
of the Rules.
8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we may assess a common carrier
a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation, or for each day of
a continuing violation up to a maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act
or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required 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."
9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
Rules do not establish a base forfeiture for violation of Section
20.18(g)(1)(v). Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that the
"omission of a specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing
base forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission
considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The
Commission expects, and it is each licensee's obligation, to know and
comply with all of the Commission's rules." Thus, the Commission
retains its discretion to issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis,
and has assessed forfeiture liability, for rule violations
irrespective of whether corresponding base forfeiture amounts have
10. Having considered the statutory factors enumerated above in
conjunction with the entire record in this proceeding, including the
supplemental information provided by USCC, we conclude that a
substantial proposed forfeiture is warranted. First, we find that the
violations here are egregious. Violations of E911 requirements are
extremely serious, given the critical function these requirements
serve in promoting and safeguarding life and property. As the
Commission has previously stated, it is critical for all handset-based
carriers to have met the final implementation deadline of December 31,
2005 for 95% location-capable handset penetration in order to allow
all stakeholders (including carriers, technology vendors, public
safety entities, and consumers) to have greater certainty about when
Phase II would be implemented and ensure that Phase II would be fully
implemented as quickly as possible. Absent Phase II location data,
emergency call takers and responders must expend critical time and
resources questioning wireless 911 callers to determine their
location, searching for those callers when the callers cannot provide
this information, or both. In this regard, we take into account the
substantial percentage of noncompliance at the deadline (6.24%) and
the significant number of customers affected by USCC's noncompliance.
We observe that USCC had nearly 5.5 million wireless customers at the
11. Moreover, our finding of an egregious violation is further buttressed
by the length of time that carriers have been on notice of the final
handset penetration deadline -- since at least 1999 -- and the fact
that the Commission has affirmed USCC's obligation to meet the handset
penetration deadline. For example, in July 2002, the Commission
extended the deadlines for Tier II carriers, including USCC, with
respect to the sale and activation of location-capable handsets, but
did not extend the December 31, 2005 deadline for achieving 95%
penetration of location-capable handsets.
12. We also believe that a substantial proposed forfeiture is warranted
based on the continuous and repeated nature of the violations. USCC
did not achieve 95% handset penetration among its subscribers until
August 31, 2006, eight months after the December 31, 2005 deadline. In
this context, where every day of a continuing violation has the
potential of threatening the delivery of critical, life-saving
services, an eight-month delay in compliance compels a significant
13. Further, we take into account USCC's size and ability to pay a
forfeiture in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount. USCC is a
Tier II wireless service provider, serving more than 5.8 million
subscribers in 26 states as of the end of 2006. USCC generated more
than $3.2 billion in revenues in 2006. As the Commission made clear in
the Forfeiture Policy Statement, large or highly profitable
communications entities, such as USCC, could expect forfeitures
significantly higher than those reflected in the base amounts. In view
of USCC's size and ability to pay, we believe that a substantial
proposed forfeiture is appropriate to serve as an effective deterrent
to future violations of the
14. Although a substantial forfeiture is warranted, we believe an amount
less than the statutory maximum forfeiture is appropriate here. Of the
three carriers referred to the Enforcement Bureau, USCC was the first
to reach compliance. While USCC did not begin compliance efforts until
late 2005, it showed an aggressive and innovative set of efforts, as
well as significant expenditures relative to its customer and revenue
bases. While laudable and important, we note that remedial efforts
taken after the deadline do not mitigate USCC's violation.
15. Accordingly, based on the egregious, continuous and repeated nature of
the violations and USCC's ability to pay a forfeiture, we propose a
forfeiture in the amount of $500,000 for USCC's willful and repeated
failure to achieve 95% handset penetration among its subscribers by
December 31, 2005 in violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v) of the Rules.
IV. ordering clauses
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, United States Cellular Corporation
is NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount
of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for willful and repeated
violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v) of the Rules.
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, United States Cellular Corporation SHALL PAY
the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
18. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.
Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500
Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by wire
transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon
Bank, and account number 911-6106.
19. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
20. 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; 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
21. Requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL under an
installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
return receipt requested to United States Cellular Corporation, 8410
W. Bryn Mawr, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60631 and to Thomas P. Van Wazer,
Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN
Re: In the Matter of Alltel Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Re: In the Matter of Sprint Nextel Corporation, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, EB-07-SE-006
Re: In the Matter of US Cellular Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, EB-07-SE-009
Ensuring that E911 service meets the needs of public safety and the
expectations of the American people is a top priority of mine and of the
Commission. I recognize that the public expects us to get these issues
right. One of my first actions when I became Chairman was to ensure that
all Americans could pick up the phone and dial 911 and connect to
emergency services whether they were using a wireline, wireless or
Internet phone. On the wireless side, Americans increasingly expect that
dialing 911 also means first responders can pinpoint a caller's location,
even when the caller is incapacitated or does not know where he or she is.
To this end, the FCC required all carriers to ensure that 95% of their
subscribers have handsets that are location capable by December 31, 2005.
Alltel, Sprint Nextel, and U.S. Cellular failed to meet this critical
deadline by a significant margin, despite the clear requirements of the
Commission and the needs of their consumers. While we recognize the
efforts undertaken by the carriers, and encourage the continued efforts of
all carriers to enhance these life-saving technologies and work with the
public safety community, the fines issued today are significant and
appropriate. Our actions today underscore the critical importance that 911
services play in the lives of the public. I continue to believe that one
of the Commission's highest obligations is facilitating the ability of the
public safety community to help those in need. Effective enforcement of
our E911 rules is a valuable and necessary tool in achieving this mission.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.18(g)(1)(v).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.18(e).
Network-based location solutions employ equipment and/or software added to
wireless carrier networks to calculate and report the location of handsets
dialing 911. These solutions do not require changes or special hardware or
software in wireless handsets. See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.3, Network-based
Handset-based location solutions employ special location-determining
hardware and/or software in wireless handsets, often in addition to
network upgrades, to identify and report the location of handsets calling
911. See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.3, Location-Capable Handsets.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.18(f), (g)(2).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.18(j)(1).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.18(g)(1).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.18(g)(1)(v).
See Request for a Limited Waiver of United States Cellular Corporation,
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 360 (2007) ("USCC Waiver Order"), recon. pending.
USCC Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 361 P: 3, 368 P:21.
USCC Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 369 P: 23. The Commission previously has
placed carriers on notice that referrals may be made to the Enforcement
Bureau for failure to comply with an applicable Phase II deadline, even
when requests for relief are submitted in advance of deadlines set forth
in the Commission's Rules or orders. See Revision of Commission's Rules to
Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Order,
18 FCC Rcd 21838, 21844 P: 12 (2003) ("A carrier may seek a waiver in
advance of a deadline in the Phase II rules or its compliance plan.
However, the carrier always becomes liable for possible enforcement action
if it fails to comply with an applicable Phase II deadline. Referral to
the Enforcement Bureau when such an apparent violation is reported, or
otherwise appears likely, is a normal and familiar exercise of the
Commission's authority and discretion").
In the USCC Waiver Order, the Commission found that USCC had achieved an
approximate penetration rate of only 85% by the December 31, 2005
deadline. USCC Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 363 P: 8. This figure was
USCC's estimate of a "worst case scenario" based on the assumption that
all of the unidentified 7% of its subscribers lack location-capable
handsets. Id. USCC subsequently amended its estimate to 88.76%. See Letter
from Thomas P. Van Wazer, Counsel for United States Cellular Corporation,
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC
Docket No. 94-102 (May 23, 2007) ("Supplement to USCC Petition for
Reconsideration" or "Supplement"); see also Declaration of Steven T.
Campbell, Executive Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer,
United States Cellular Corporation (June 25, 2007) ("USCC Declaration").
USCC requested confidential treatment of the June 25, 2007 Declaration.
See Letter from Thomas P. Van Wazer, Counsel for United States Cellular
Corporation, to Federal Communications Commission (June 26, 2007).
Although USCC sought confidential treatment of its June 25, 2007
Declaration, it had already made the 88.76% figure publicly available in
its May 23, 2007 Supplement. Although we do not rule on USCC's request for
confidentiality at this time, we will accord confidential treatment of the
Declaration's contents that are not otherwise publicly available for
purposes of this NAL. See 47 C.F.R. S: 0.495(d).
Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, to Thomas P. Van Wazer, Counsel for United States
Cellular Corporation (July 12, 2007).
Letter from Thomas P. Van Wazer, Counsel for United States Cellular
Corporation, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau (July 25, 2007) ("LOI Response").
See supra P: 4.
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful
applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the
term in the Section 503(b) context. See Southern California Broadcasting
Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), recon.
denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern California").
Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
`repeated,' ... means the commission or omission of such act more than
once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one
day." 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P: 9 (2001);
Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f).
See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
7591 P: 4 (2002).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3), to increase the maximum forfeiture
amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements
contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S:
2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd
18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from
$100,000/$1,000,000 to $120,000/$1,200,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of
the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory
amounts from $120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,325,000); see also 47
C.F.R. S: 1.80(c).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note to
paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd
17087, 17115 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P: 22.
See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626, 22630
P:P: 19-20 (2002) (assessing an aggregate $133,000 forfeiture irrespective
of the absence of an established base forfeiture for violations of the
cable signal leakage standards); Midwest Television, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 3959
(Enf. Bur. 2005) (assessing a $20,000 proposed forfeiture irrespective of
the absence of an established base forfeiture for failure to broadcast
emergency information accessible to hearing impaired viewers); A-O
Broadcasting Corp., 31 Communications Reg. (P&F) 411 P: 22 (2003),
forfeiture ordered, 20 FCC Rcd 756 (2005) (assessing a $28,000 forfeiture,
inter alia, irrespective of the absence of an established base forfeiture
for violations of radio frequency exposure limits).
USCC requested confidential treatment of its July 25, 2007 LOI Response.
See Letter from Thomas P. Van Wazer, Counsel for United States Cellular
Corporation, to Federal Communications Commission (July 25, 2007).
Although we do not rule on USCC's request for confidentiality at this
time, we will accord confidential treatment of the LOI Response for
purposes of this NAL except where the information contained therein is
otherwise publicly available. See 47 C.F.R. S: 0.495(d).
See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20850, 20852 P: 2 (1999), clarified, 16 FCC Rcd 18982
(2001); see also Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc. and American Cellular
Corporation, 21 FCC Rcd 4684, 4707 P: 59 (2006), consent decree ordered,
22 FCC Rcd 7968 (2007); T-Mobile USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 3501, 3504 P: 7 (2003); Sprint Spectrum LP
d/b/a Sprint PCS, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd
19901, 19906 P: 12 (Enf. Bur. 2004), consent decree ordered, 20 FCC Rcd
12328 (Enf. Bur. 2005).
See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Phase II Compliance Deadlines for
Non-Nationwide Carriers, Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14853 P: 38
(2002) ("Non-Nationwide Carriers Order").
Phase I E911 service provides a PSAP with data elements containing the
telephone number of the originator of the 911 call and the location of the
cell site or base station receiving the 911 call. See 47 C.F.R. S:
20.18(d). Thus, the actual location of the caller can be miles distant
from the location information provided to the PSAP, with consequent delay
in providing the caller with emergency services, assuming that the caller
actually can be located. Phase II service, by comparison, has a required
location accuracy of 100 meters for 67% of calls and 300 meters for 95% of
calls (for a network-based location solution) or 50 meters for 67% of
calls and 150 meters for 95% of calls (for a handset-based location
solution). See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.18(h)(1)-(2).
See United States Cellular Corporation 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K
(filed July 28, 2006), www.uscellular.com.
See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd
17388, 17408 P: 42 (1999), modified, Revision of the Commission's Rules to
Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Fourth
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17442, 17445 P: 36 (2000).
See Non-Nationwide Carriers Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 14849 P: 27.
See USCC Declaration at 3; Supplement to USCC Petition for Reconsideration
Tier II carriers are Commercial Mobile Radio Service providers that had
over 500,000 subscribers as of the end of 2001 but were not designated as
nationwide Tier I carriers by the Commission. See Non-Nationwide Carriers
Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 14847-48 P:P: 22-23.
See United States Cellular Corporation 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K
(filed April 23, 2007), www.uscellular.com.
Specifically, the Commission stated:
[O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we recognize
that for large or highly profitable communication entities, the base
forfeiture amounts ... are generally low. In this regard, we are mindful
that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an effective
deterrent against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high
level .... For this reason, we caution all entities and individuals that,
independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts ..., we intend to
take into account the subsequent violator's ability to pay in determining
the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures issued against
large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an
affordable cost of doing business. Such large or highly profitable
entities should expect in this regard that the forfeiture amount set out
in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many cases be above,
or even well above, the relevant base amount.
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100.
See United States Cellular Corporation Quarterly E911 Implementation
Report, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed August 1, 2007). USCC described its
handset offers and its expenditures in its July 25, 2007 LOI Response. See
supra n. 28.
See e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd
21866, 21875-6 P:P: 26-28 (2002) (remedial action to correct tower
painting violation was not a mitigating factor warranting reduction of
forfeiture); Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099
P: 7 (1994) (corrective action taken to comply with the Rules is expected,
and does not mitigate any prior forfeitures or violations).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.
(Continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-157
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-157