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-008
In the Matter of )
NAL/Acct. No. 200732100046
Alltel Corporation )
FRN # 0012284394
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
Alltel Corporation ("Alltel") apparently liable for a forfeiture in
the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for the willful and
repeated violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(v) of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). The apparent violation involves Alltel'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 Alltel of the December 31, 2005 handset
penetration deadline ("Waiver Order"). In this Waiver Order, the
Commission found that Alltel had failed to meet the Commission's
standards for waiver because its request was not "specific, focused
and limited in scope," failed to articulate a "clear path to full
compliance," and lacked evidence that Alltel took the necessary
concrete steps to come as close as possible to full compliance by the
deadline. The Commission also found that the record did not establish
that factors beyond Alltel's control caused its failure to meet the
December 31, 2005 95% deadline and that Alltel had failed to adduce
facts justifying its non-compliance or warranting its requested
waiver. Finally, the Commission found that Alltel'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 Alltel's non-compliance with Section 20.18(g)(1)(v) of the
Rules to the Enforcement Bureau. Specifically, Alltel achieved a
penetration rate of only 84% by the December 31, 2005 deadline.
5. On July 12, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued a letter of inquiry
requesting that Alltel provide certain supplemental information
related to its efforts to meet the E911 handset requirements.
Specifically, the letter requested that Alltel 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 Alltel's overall compliance rate. Alltel
submitted its response on July 26, 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 Alltel failed to comply with the handset
penetration deadline. Alltel does not dispute that it achieved a
penetration rate of only 84% by the December 31, 2005 deadline.
Accordingly, we conclude that Alltel 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. As set
forth in detail below, we conclude under this standard that Alltel 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 Alltel, 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 non-compliance at the deadline (11%) and the
significant number of customers affected by Alltel's non-compliance.
We observe that Alltel had more than 10.6 million wireless customers
at the end of 2005.
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 Alltel's obligation to meet the
handset penetration deadline. In considering the merger of Alltel and
Western Wireless, the Commission stated that Alltel, "like all
carriers, [is] obligated to comply with our E911 rules, including the
requirement that carriers electing a handset-based E911 solution
achieve 95 percent penetration by the end of ." The Commission
further stated that "[w]e will not hesitate to take enforcement action
if this deadline is not met."
12. We also believe that a substantial proposed forfeiture is warranted
based on the continuous and repeated nature of the violations. Alltel
did not achieve 95% handset penetration until May 31, 2007, 17 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, a 17-month delay in
compliance compels a significant proposed forfeiture.
13. Further, we take into account Alltel's size and ability to pay a
forfeiture in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount. Alltel is
a Tier II wireless service provider, serving nearly 12 million
subscribers as of the end of 2006. Alltel generated $7.9 billion in
revenues in 2006. As the Commission made clear in the Forfeiture
Policy Statement, large or highly profitable communications entities,
such as Alltel, could expect forfeitures significantly higher than
those reflected in the base amounts. In view of Alltel's size and
ability to pay, we believe that a substantial proposed forfeiture is
appropriate in order for the proposed forfeiture to serve as an
effective deterrent to future violations of the E911 requirements.
14. Finally, we recognize that Alltel began its compliance efforts in 2004
and used a variety of methods to encourage customers to upgrade to
E911-compliant handsets between 2004 and-2005. We note, however, that
it was not until 2006 and 2007, after the December 31, 2005 deadline
had passed, that Alltel initiated more aggressive and innovative
efforts, such as sending out E911-themed contract renewal mailings,
initiating specific large market campaigns, offering an E911-compliant
bag phone and sending targeted letters to customers with non-compliant
analog handsets, and offering discounted handsets with no contract
requirement. Such remedial efforts taken after the deadline, while
laudable and important, do not mitigate Alltel's violation.
15. Accordingly, based on the egregious, continuous and repeated nature of
the violations and Alltel's ability to pay a forfeiture, we propose a
forfeiture in the amount of $1,000,000 for Alltel'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, Alltel Corporation IS NOTIFIED of
its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one million
dollars ($1,000,000) 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, Alltel Corporation SHALL PAY the full amount
of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
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 Alltel Corporation, Stephanie Johanns,
Senior Vice President, Federal Government Affairs, 601 Pennsylvania
Ave., N.W., Suite 720, Washington, DC 20004.
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 Alltel Corporation Petition for Limited Waiver of Location Capable
Handset Penetration Rule, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 337 (2007) ("Alltel Waiver
Order"), recon. pending.
Id. at 338 P: 3.
Id. at 347 P: 26.
Id. 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").
See Notice of Ex Parte Presentation by Alltel, WT Docket No. 05-287 (filed
January 19, 2006) and Alltel Waiver Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 340 P: 8.
Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, to Glenn S. Rabin, Vice President - Federal Regulatory
Affairs, Alltel Corporation (July 12, 2007).
Letter from Stephanie Johanns, Senior Vice President - Federal Government
Affairs, Alltel Corporation, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (July 26, 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, Report and
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303
(1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement").
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).
Alltel requested confidential treatment of its July 26, 2007 LOI Response.
See Letter from Glenn S. Rabin, Vice President, Federal Communications
Counsel, Alltel Corporation, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (July 26, 2007). Although we do
not rule on Alltel'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 Non-Nationwide Carriers Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 14853 P: 38.
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 Alltel Corporation 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K (filed March 20,
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 Applications of Western Wireless Corporation and ALLTEL Corporation,
WT Docket No. 05-50, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13053, 13111
P: 157 (2005).
See Alltel Communications, Inc. Twentieth E911 Quarterly Report, CC Docket
No. 94-102 (filed August 1, 2007) at 2.
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 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, 14843 P: 7 (2002)
("Non-Nationwide Carriers Order").
Alltel Corporation 2006 Annual Report (February 20, 2007), www.alltel.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 e.g., Alltel Corporation Fourth Monthly Compliance Report, WT Docket
No. 05-287 (filed May 1, 2007); Alltel Corporation Third Monthly
Compliance Report, WT Docket No. 05-287 (filed April 2, 2007); Alltel
Corporation Second Monthly Compliance Report, WT Docket No. 05-287 (filed
March 1, 2007); Alltel Corporation First Monthly Compliance Report, WT
Docket No. 05-287 (filed February 1, 2007); Alltel Corporation Petition
for Limited Waiver, Ex Parte Presentation, WT Docket No. 05-287 (filed
October 12, 2006).
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 07-158
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-158