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 )
)
One Call Communications, Inc. )
d/b/a Opticom ) File No. EB-02-TC-003
) NAL/Acct. No. 200232170005
) FRN: 0003772910
)
)
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: September 17, 2002 Released: September 23,
2002
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we
propose to assess a forfeiture in the amount of $5,120,000
against One Call Communications, Inc. d/b/a Opticom
(``Opticom''),1 for apparent widespread violations of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and the
Commission's rules governing operator service providers
(``OSPs''). 2 These violations appear to be particularly
egregious because they appear to have occurred as part of a
deliberate plan to mislead consumers.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Opticom provides operator services that can be accessed
through aggregator telephones across the United States. 3 These
include hotel and motel room phones, as well as payphones located
in airports, train stations, shopping malls, gas stations, and
other locations where they serve the public or transient users.
As an OSP, Commission rules require Opticom to identify itself
audibly and distinctly at the beginning of each call, before the
consumer incurs any charge; to permit the consumer to terminate
the call at no charge before it is connected; to provide its
rates to consumers upon request; and to provide instructions to
the consumer on how to obtain the total cost of the call, which
must be available either by dialing no more than two digits or by
remaining on the line. 4
3. Over the last several months, the Commission has
received complaints from consumers who were connected to Opticom
and billed for charges substantially higher than expected. For
instance, one consumer filed a complaint alleging that Opticom
failed to identify itself before she accepted a collect call, for
which she was billed $61.74 for 24 minutes.5 The consumer
assumed she would be billed by AT&T, her OSP of choice, and would
not have accepted the call if she had known that she was being
billed by Opticom.6 Another consumer complained that Opticom
failed to identify itself before a collect call she placed to her
home, for which she was charged $31.94 for 4 minutes.7 On the
second collect call she made, she was asked by the operator which
long distance carrier she preferred.8 She requested AT&T, but
was billed $45.67 by Opticom for a 16-minute call.9 This pattern
of complaints suggested that consumers' dialing errors (for
instance, dialing 1-800-COOLECT instead of 1-800-COLLECT) were
connecting them to Opticom, rather than the desired carrier, and
that Opticom's failure to identify itself as required caused
these errors to go unnoticed. The Enforcement Bureau initiated
an investigation into Opticom's practices to determine whether
Opticom was in compliance with the requirements for OSPs. As set
forth in detail below, that investigation showed apparent
widespread violation of the Commission's rules, which appears to
be part of a deliberate scheme to take advantage of consumers'
dialing errors.
III. DISCUSSION
III.A. Legal Requirements
4. Pursuant to Section 226(b)(1)(A) of the Act and Section
64.703(a)(1) of the rules, each provider of operator services
must identify itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer at
the beginning of each telephone call and before the consumer
incurs any charge for the call.10 This practice is known as
``branding.'' The purpose of branding is to ensure that the
consumer knows who is carrying the call, in time to request rate
information, and to decide whether to use that carrier's
services. The branding requirement is intended to reduce the
opportunity for carriers to impose excessive charges on
uninformed consumers. In collect calling arrangements handled by
a provider of operator services, both the party on the
originating end of the call and the party on the terminating end
of the call are considered ``consumers.''11 Therefore, to ensure
that both parties are fully informed when making decisions
regarding whether to initiate or accept a collect call, an OSP is
required to brand on both ends of such calls.
5. Each provider of operator services must also disclose
immediately to the consumer, upon request and at no charge, a
quotation of its rates or charges for the call.12 For collect
calls, OSPs must provide this rate information to both the called
party and the calling party. 13 In addition, each provider of
operator services must disclose audibly and distinctly to the
consumer, at no charge and before connecting any call,
instructions on how to obtain the total cost of the call or the
maximum possible total cost of the call, before providing further
oral advice to the consumer on how to proceed to make the call.14
This oral disclosure must instruct consumers that they may obtain
applicable rate quotations either, at the option of the provider
of operator services, by dialing no more than two digits or by
remaining on the line.15
III.B. The Investigation
6. As part of our investigation, Commission staff went to
several aggregator locations and placed multiple calls, including
collect calls, via Opticom from 43 different payphones.
Commission staff was also on the receiving end of some of these
collect calls to determine whether Opticom identified itself to
the called party as well. The staff placed the calls from
payphones in locations that are heavily used by consumers and
travellers in the Washington, D.C. area, such as Reagan National
Airport, Union Station, and L'Enfant Plaza Shopping Mall, as well
as the Commission's own lobby. To determine whether Opticom was
handling calls that were likely the result of misdialed access
codes, the staff placed calls using 26 different toll free
numbers that are similar to well known operator service access
numbers, such as MCI's 1-800-COLLECT, AT&T's 1-800-CALLATT, and
Verizon's 1-800-CALLGTE.16 The numbers were called multiple
times, at different locations and times, to determine whether
there was a pattern of misconduct, and to preclude the
possibility that any lack of compliance was an anomaly.
7. Our investigation revealed that Opticom failed to brand
at the origination point of the telephone call on 25 of the 26
telephone numbers dialed, and failed to brand at the termination
point on 13 of the 26 telephone numbers.17 Our investigation
also revealed that Opticom failed to provide rates or charges, or
failed to provide instructions on how to obtain rates or charges,
on all 26 telephone numbers.18 Based on these facts, we find
that Opticom is apparently liable for 38 separate violations of
the branding requirement of Section 226(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
Section 64.703(a)(1) of the Commission's rules; and for 26
separate violations of the rate disclosure requirements of
Section 226(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Section 64.703(a)(3)(i)
and 64.703(a)(4) of the Commission's rules. We note that
although we have only proposed forfeitures for the first of each
type of violation associated with each access number for a total
of 64 violations, the calls made during our investigation
revealed numerous (54) additional violations that are not the
subject of this NAL.
IV. FORFEITURE AMOUNT
8. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy
Statement, the base amount for violations of the operator
services requirements is $7,000.19 The maximum potential
forfeiture is $120,000 for each violation.20 Based on the
criteria in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act and the upward
adjustment criteria in the Forfeiture Policy Statement,21
however, we find that a substantial upward adjustment of the base
forfeiture amount of $7,000 appears to be warranted because the
violations here appear to be egregious and repeated, because
Opticom appears to have realized substantial economic gain from
its misconduct, and because substantial consumer harm appears to
have resulted from Opticom's pattern of misconduct.
9. We believe that Opticom's practices are particularly
egregious for several reasons. First, it appears that Opticom
has willfully and deliberately devised a scheme repeated on
numerous access numbers intended to mislead unwitting consumers
into using their operator services while the consumer is
attempting to dial another OSP. For example, if a consumer
trying to dial 1-800-CALLATT misdials by one number, that
customer will reach Opticom instead of AT&T. The consumer
remains unaware that he or she has misdialed because Opticom
fails to identify itself. We believe that in using such
deceptive means to obtain the consumer's business, Opticom's
practices are analogous to slamming and should be penalized
accordingly.22 The consumer is even further left in the dark by
not being able to obtain rate information that is essential for
consumers who wish to make informed choices in a competitive
telecommunications market. This is particularly egregious in
light of the fact that the rates Opticom charges are
significantly higher than the industry average. We believe,
therefore, that Opticom realizes a substantial economic gain from
these practices. Moreover, it appears that these misdialed
numbers, such as 1-800-COOLECT or 1-800-FONCALT, are not
advertised as a means of reaching Opticom. Therefore, it appears
that Opticom's only customers are those who make a mistake in
attempting to dial another OSP's access code.
10. Furthermore, while both parties to a collect call are
involved in making choices regarding whether to use an OSP's
services, we believe that it is particularly troubling that the
called party, the party that ultimately incurs the charges for
the call, is not able to obtain the rates before accepting the
call. Many consumers, reluctant to refuse a call from a relative
or loved one for fear of an emergency, are therefore forced to
enter unwittingly into an agreement to pay significantly higher
rates than they would otherwise pay by accepting such a collect
call, and Opticom reaps the benefits of such higher rates.
11. Accordingly, after applying the Forfeiture Policy
Statement and statutory factors to the facts before us, we
conclude that an $80,000 forfeiture is apparently warranted for
each of the 64 violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and
(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and Sections 64.703(a)(1),
64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the rules, resulting in a
total proposed forfeiture amount of $5,120,000.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, One Call Communications,
Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,120,000 for willful or repeated
violations of Sections 226(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act,
47 U.S.C. §§ 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C)(i), and Sections
64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i), and 64.703(a)(4) of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.703(a)(1), 64.703(a)(3)(i),
64.703(a)(4). The amount specified was determined after
consideration of the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of
the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D), and the guidelines enumerated
in the Forfeiture Policy Statement.
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1.80(f)(3)
and 1.80(h) of the Commission's Rules, that One Call
Communications, Inc., within thirty days of the date of release
of this Notice of Apparent Liability, SHALL PAY the full amount
of the proposed forfeiture23 OR SHALL FILE a written response
showing why the proposed forfeiture should be reduced or not
imposed.24
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to One Call Communications, Inc
d/b/a Opticom at 801 Congressional Blvd., Carmel, IN 46032.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
APPENDIX
OPTICOM OSP VIOLATIONS - 2002
1 (800) CALLL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)*
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) COLLETC
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) BELLOSUTH
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) CAALL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) BBELLSOUTH
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) YOU - SAVV
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) CALL - ATL
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) COLLACT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) BELLS0OUTH
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) CLLL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) ONE-DIMM
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
* Denotes two violations on that particular date.
1 (800) CA66 - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) 3ALL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) CAALLGTE
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) CAL0 - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X), 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) FAIRCLL
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6
1 (800) CALL - AOT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6
1 (800) CALL - AT0
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) COLLEET
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) FAIRRCALL
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) CLAA - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) C1LL - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) FONCALT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) COILECT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6
1 (800) FFAIRCALL
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X), 6/4
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/4, 6/6
1 (800) CALA - ATT
Violation of 47 CFR § 64.703(a)(1) (Failure to Brand at
Origination Point): 5/30 (2X)
Violation of 47 CFR §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i) and/or(a)(4)(Failure to
Provide Rate Information at Termination Point): 6/6
_________________________
1 Opticom is located at 801 Congressional Boulevard, Carmel, IN
46032.
2 47 U.S.C. §§ 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C)(i); 47 C.F.R. §§
64.703(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4). Our action in this Notice of
Apparent Liability (``NAL'') does not preclude further
enforcement action. The staff is continuing to investigate
Opticom's practices to determine whether they violate the Act and
our rules in other respects.
3 ``Operator services'' are defined by the Act and the
Commission's rules as ``any interstate telecommunications service
initiated from an aggregator location that includes, as a
component, any automatic or live assistance to a consumer to
arrange for billing or completion, or both, of an interstate
telephone call through a method other than: (1) automatic
completion with billing to the telephone from which the call
originated; or (2) completion through an access code used by the
consumer, with billing to an account previously established with
the carrier by the consumer.'' 47 U.S.C. § 226(a)(7)(A)-(B); 47
C.F.R. §§ 64.708(i)(1)-(2), (l). An ``aggregator'' is ``any
person that, in the ordinary course of its operations, makes
telephones available to the public or to transient users of its
premises, for interstate telephone calls using a provider of
operator services.'' 47 U.S.C. § 226(a)(2); 47 C.F.R. §
64.708(b).
4 47 U.S.C. §§ 226(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C)(i); 47 C.F.R. §§
64.703(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4).
5 Complaint No. IC-02-G31616, dated January 11, 2002, from Brenda
Jackson.
6 Id.
7 Complaint No. IC-02-N70174, dated March 22, 2002, from Cheryle
Creech.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 47 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(a)(1).
11 47 C.F.R. § 64.708(f).
12 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(a)(3)(i).
13 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.703(a)(3)(i), 64.708(f); Amendment of
Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Providers and Call
Aggregators, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, 11 FCC Rcd 4532, 4541 (1996).
14 47 C.F.R. § 64.703(a)(4).
15 Id.
16 See Appendix.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of
the Rules to Incorporate Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order,
12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17097 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).
20 Section 503(b)(2)(B) provides for forfeitures up to $100,000
for each violation or a maximum of $1,000,000 for each continuing
violation by common carriers or an applicant for any common
carrier license, permit, certificate or similar instrument. 47
U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B). The Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996 (DCIA) requires, however, that civil monetary penalties
assessed by the federal government be adjusted for inflation
based on the formula outlined in the DCIA. See Pub L. No. 104-
134, § 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). The current statutory
maxima pursuant to Section 503(b)(2)(B) are $120,000 and
$1,200,000 for individual violations and continuing violations,
respectively. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. §
1.80(b)(2), (5); see also Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the
Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000).
21 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4); see also
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01.
22 Slamming is the unauthorized change of a subscriber's
preferred carrier. Section 258 of the Act, as amended by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, states that ``[n]o
telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a change in a
subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange
service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such
verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'' 47
U.S.C. § 258. The Commission has used a base amount of $80,000
per violation for slamming involving forged letters of agency, a
deceptive practice analogous to that at issue in this case. See,
e.g., Amer-I-Net Services Corporation, Order of Forfeiture, 15
FCC Rcd 3118 (2000); see also Brittan Communications
International Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 4852 (2000).
23 The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
Opticom should include the reference ``NAL/Acct. No.
200232170005'' on its check or money order. Such remittance must
be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago,
Illinois 60673-7482. Requests for full payment under an
installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Credit and Debt
Management Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
24 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), (h). Send or mail any written
responses regarding the reasons why the forfeiture should be
reduced or not imposed to Federal Communications Commission,
Enforcement Bureau, Telecommunications Consumers Division, 445
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554, ATTN: NAL/Acct. No.
200232170005. Any written response should focus on the
mitigating factors outlined in the Forfeiture Policy Statement
and Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act.