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.

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



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


                                )
                                )
In the Matter of                 )
                                )
NORTH AMERICAN                   )    File No. EB-01-IH-0017m
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION   )    NAL/Acct. No. 200132080044
OCN# 8770                        )    FRN No. 0004375564
                                )                      
                                )



                        FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted:  February 12, 2003          Released:   February  14, 
2003

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


                        I.   INTRODUCTION

In this Forfeiture Order, we find that North American 
Telecommunications Corporation  (``NATC'') violated 47 C.F.R.  
52.15(f) by willfully failing to report its number utilization 
and forecast data.  We conclude that NATC is liable for a 
forfeiture in the amount of $6,000.

                       II.     BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2001, the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, acting pursuant 
to delegated authority, issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture (``NAL'') to NATC, proposing a $6,000 forfeiture.1  We 
issued the NAL because it appeared that NATC had failed to report 
on its actual and forecast number usage by filing FCC Form 502, 
the North American Numbering Plan Numbering Resource 
Utilization/Forecast (``NRUF'') Report that was due on September 
15, 2000.2 Carriers are required to report for each separate 
legal entity represented by an Operating Company Number 
(``OCN'').3 It appeared that NATC failed to file an NRUF report 
for one OCN, which was referenced in our NAL.  We therefore 
determined that NATC had apparently violated section 52.15(f) of 
the Commission's rules, which requires U.S. carriers receiving 
numbering resources from the North American Numbering Plan 
Administrator (``NANPA''), a Pooling Administrator, or another 
telecommunications carrier, to report semiannually on their 
actual and forecast number usage.4

NATC responded to the NAL, and stated that in order to 
reorganize, it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on 
February 23, 2001.  NATC requested that the proposed forfeiture 
be dismissed based on bankruptcy filing, or, in the alternative, 
that it be given additional time to respond. We extended the 
period for NATC to respond to the NAL to June 25, 2001. However, 
NATC did not file a further response.       

                       III.    DISCUSSION

The NAL states that the proposed forfeiture was assessed in 
accordance with applicable statutory provisions, the Commission's 
rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Guidelines. 5  Section 
503(b) of the Act requires that, in examining NATC's response, we 
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 other such matters as justice may require.6 Although there is 
precedent for reducing or rescinding a forfeiture based on 
bankruptcy in certain circumstances7, we do not believe that NATC 
has justified a reduction or rescission in this case because NATC 
failed to respond to the extended deadline for responding to the 
NAL.  In this regard, as stated in the NAL, 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.  NATC did not provide any financial 
documentation in support of its request for rescission of the 
forfeiture and, therefore, we have no basis upon which to analyze 
its request based upon the effect of the bankruptcy on its 
ability to pay the proposed forfeiture. 

Further, filing for bankruptcy does not preclude the Commission 
from issuing an order imposing a forfeiture on NATC for violating 
its rules.8  Here, we do not believe that NATC has justified a 
reduction or rescission in this case because it has not provided 
financial documentation for the Bureau's analysis and because, 
even though it filed bankruptcy, it retains control over its 
assets. Friendship Cable of Texas, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 8571 (EB 
2002).  Moreover, the Commission has ruled that a carrier's 
bankruptcy does not excuse its obligation to comply with the Act 
and the Commission's rules and that enforcement action will be 
taken where appropriate, particularly where the carrier continues 
operation during the Chapter 11 reorganization process.9   

Furthermore, we have information indicating that NATC also 
apparently failed to file the NRUF report due February 1, 2001.  
When an NAL has been issued and the recipient appears to continue 
to engage in the same rule violation, we are not inclined to 
rescind or adjust the forfeiture amount even where the recipient 
has filed for bankruptcy protection.10  Accordingly, we affirm 
the forfeiture.  

                    IV.     ORDERING CLAUSES

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the 
Act, 47 U.S.C.  503(b), and section 1.80(f)(4) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(4), that North American 
Telecommunications Corporation SHALL FORFEIT to the United States 
Government the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully 
violating the Commission's rules that require U.S. carriers to 
report actual and forecast number usage.  For collection, the 
Commission will file a proof of claim at the appropriate time in 
North American Telecommunications Corporation's bankruptcy 
action.11

Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a check or money 
order, payable to the order of the Federal Communications 
Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, 
Illinois 60673-7482, within 30 days of the release of this 
Forfeiture Order.12  The payment must include the FCC 
Registration number (FRN) and the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.  
If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the 
case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  504.  A request for payment of the full 
amount of this Forfeiture Order under an installment plan should 
be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.13


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall 
be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Fred E. 
Horton, Jr., Esq., North American Telecommunications Corporation, 
875 Merrick Avenue, Westbury, NY  11590.  

     

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                    
     

                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1  See North American Telecommunications Corporation, 16 FCC Rcd 
8645 (EB 2001). 

2 The NRUF  reports are due on  or before February  1 and on  or 
before August  1 of  each year.   See 47  C.F.R.   52.15(f)(6).  
However, we note that the deadline for filing reports due August 
1, 2000 was extended to  September 15, 2000. Numbering  Resource 
Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200, 15 FCC Rcd 17005 (2000).     

3 See 47 C.F.R.  52.15(f)(3)(ii).   See also, NRO Order, 15 FCC 
Rcd at 7594; NRO Recon. Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 353-54. 



4 Numbering Resource Optimization, Report and Order and  Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  in CC Docket  No. 99-200, 15  FCC 
Rcd 7574  (2000)(``NRO  Order''); recon.  and  clarification  in 
part, Second Report  and Order, Order  on Reconsideration in  CC 
Docket 96-98 and CC Docket 99-200, and Second Further Notice  of 
Proposed Rulemaking  in  CC Docket  99-200,  16 FCC  Rcd  306  ( 
2000)(``NRO Recon. Order'').

5  47  U.S.C.   503(b);  47  C.F.R.   1.80;  The  Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the 
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 
(1997),  recon.  denied,  15  FCC  Rcd  303  (1999)(``Forfeiture 
Guidelines'')(codified at 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4) Note).

6   47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

7  See  Dennis  Elam,  Trustee for  Bakcor  Broadcasting,  Inc., 
Debtor,  11  FCC  Rcd  1137  (1996)(forfeiture  rescinded  after 
bankruptcy trustee was appointed and the violator was no  longer 
associated with the subject radio stations); Interstate Savinds, 
Inc.  d/b/a   ISI  Communications,   12   FCC  Rcd   2934   (CCB 
1997)(forfeiture  rescinded  where  trustee  was  appointed   in 
Chapter 7  liquidation, removing  violator from  operating as  a 
common  carrier   and  from   involvement  in   dissolution   or 
distribution of assets.  Requiring trustee to pay the forfeiture 
would diminish estate assets available to innocent creditors and 
serve no public purpose).   

8 See 11 U.S.C.  362(b)(4).  See Coleman Enterprises, Inc.,  16 
FCC Rcd 24385, 24389 n. 28 (2000)(Forfeiture Order) (filing  for 
bankruptcy does  not preclude  the  Commission from  issuing  an 
Order of  Forfeiture).  See  also United  States of  America  v. 
Commonwealth Companies, Inc., 913 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1990).

9   Coleman  Enterprises,  Inc.,  16  FCC  Rcd  10016,  10019-21 
(2001)(Order on  Reconsideration),  citing  Interstate  Savings, 
Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 2934 (1997). 

10  William  Flippo,  15  FCC  Rcd  23340  (EB  2000)(Forfeiture 
Order), citing J.C. Maxwell Broadcasting Group, Inc  (WMPR(FM)), 
8 FCC Rcd 784 (1993).   

11 See United States v. Commonwealth Companies, Inc., 913 F.  2d 
518, 523 (8th Cir. 1990).

12   See  47 C.F.R.  1.80(h).  

13   See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.