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 ) File No. EB-04-IH-0454
)
)
OCMC, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200532080141
)
)
Apparent Liability for ) FRN No. 0006176879
Forfeiture )
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: August 12, 2005 Released: August
12, 2005
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
(``NAL''), we find that OCMC, Inc. (``OCMC''), a
telecommunications carrier that has been operating and at least
indirectly benefiting from federal programs supporting the
telecommunications industry for years, apparently failed to meet
its statutory and regulatory obligations related to the Universal
Service Fund (``USF''). Specifically, we find that OCMC has
apparently violated section 254(d) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the ``Act''),1 and section 54.706(a) of the
Federal Communications Commission's rules2 by willfully and
repeatedly failing to contribute fully and timely to the USF.
Based on our review of the facts and circumstances of this case,
and for the reasons discussed below, we find that OCMC is
apparently liable for a total monetary forfeiture in the amount
of $1,133,761.
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified Congress's
historical commitment to promote universal service to ensure that
consumers in all regions of the nation have access to affordable,
quality telecommunications services.3 In particular, section
254(d) of the Act requires, among other things, that ``[e]very
telecommunications carrier [providing] interstate
telecommunications services . . . contribute, on an equitable and
nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and
sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve
and advance universal service.''4 In implementing this
Congressional mandate, the Commission directed all
telecommunications carriers providing interstate
telecommunications services and certain other providers of
interstate telecommunications to contribute to the Universal
Service Fund based upon their interstate and international end-
user telecommunications revenues.5 Failure by some providers to
pay their share into the Fund skews the playing field by giving
non-paying providers an economic advantage over their
competitors, who must then shoulder more than their fair share of
the costs of the Fund.
3. The Commission has established specific procedures to
administer the universal service program. A carrier is required
to file FCC Form 499-As, also known as the annual
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (``Worksheets'') for the
purpose of determining its USF payments,6 and, with certain
exceptions, to file quarterly short-form Worksheets to determine
monthly universal service contribution amounts. These periodic
filings trigger a determination of liability, if any, and
subsequent billing and collection, by the entities that
administer the regulatory programs. For example, the Universal
Service Administrative Company (``USAC''), the administrator of
the USF, uses the revenue projections submitted on the quarterly
filings to determine each carrier's universal service
contribution amount.7 Carriers are required to pay their monthly
USF contribution by the date shown on their invoice.8 The
Commission's rules explicitly warn contributors that failure to
file their forms or submit their payments potentially subjects
them to enforcement action.9 Further, under the Commission's
``red light rule,'' action will be withheld on any application to
the Commission or authorization made by any entity that has
failed to pay when due its regulatory program payment, such as
USF contributions, and if payment or payment arrangements are not
made within 30 days from notice to the applicant, such
applications or requests will be dismissed.10
4. OCMC is an operator service provider, interexchange
carrier and toll reseller.11 On September 16, 2004, USAC
referred OCMC to the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') for
investigation concerning OCMC's possible failure to fully and
timely contribute to the USF. Thereafter, by letter dated
September 28, 2004, the Bureau initiated an investigation into
whether the company violated section 54.706 of the Commission's
rules, which requires entities that provide interstate
telecommunications to the public to contribute to USF.12 The LOI
directed OCMC to provide certain specified documents and
information. OCMC responded on October 18, 2004. A supplemental
LOI was issued on December 16, 2004, and OCMC responded December
21, 2004.13
III. DISCUSSION
5. 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.14 To impose such a
forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of
apparent liability, and the person against whom the notice has
been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no
such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.15 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.16 As set forth in greater detail below, we conclude under
this standard that OCMC is apparently liable for forfeiture for
its apparent willful and repeated violations of section 254(d) of
the Act17 and section 54.706(a) of the Commission's rules.18
6. The fundamental issue in this case is whether OCMC
apparently violated the Act and the Commission's rules by
willfully and repeatedly failing to timely pay in full the
required universal service contributions. Based on a
preponderance of the evidence, we conclude that OCMC is
apparently liable for a forfeiture of $1,133,761 for apparently
willfully and repeatedly violating section 254(d) of the Act and
section 54.706(a) of the Commission's rules.19
7. Specifically, we propose base forfeitures of $20,000
for each of two apparent violations for non-payment of USF
invoices, and $10,000 for each of seven apparent violations for
submitting only a partial payment of USF invoices, within the
last year. Additionally, consistent with past Commission
precedent,20 we propose an upward adjustment to this $110,000
base forfeiture of $1,023,761, which is one-half the outstanding
balance owed on OCMC's USF account. Although we propose
forfeitures only for apparent violations within the last year, we
discuss below the history of OCMC's noncompliance in prior years
to demonstrate the scope of OCMC's misconduct and to provide
sufficient context for the misconduct that is within the statute
of limitations period and thus covered by this NAL.
A. Universal Service Contributions
8. We conclude that OCMC has apparently violated section
254(d) of the Act and section 54.706 of the Commission's rules by
willfully or repeatedly failing to contribute fully and timely to
universal service support mechanisms.21 Section 54.706(c)
unambiguously directs that ``entities [providing] interstate
telecommunications to the public . . . for a fee . . . contribute
to the universal service support programs.''22 ``Interstate
telecommunications'' include, among other things, ``resale of
interstate services'' such as those provided by OCMC.23
9. Notwithstanding its contribution obligations, for years
OCMC has made irregular and unsatisfactory payments to the USF.
The record is clear that between September 2003 and the date of
this NAL, OCMC failed to make any monthly payment whatsoever to
USAC on eight occasions, and made contributions that were
insufficient to satisfy the total amount of its outstanding USF
balance on twelve occasions, including eight instances where its
payments were not sufficient to cover even its current month's
charges. Specifically, USAC's invoices show that OCMC failed to
make any payment on invoices due October 15, November 14, and
December 15, 2003; January 15, February 13, March 15 and June 15,
2004; and March 15 and June 15, 2005. The records demonstrate
that OCMC made payments that were insufficient to satisfy the
total amount of its outstanding balance on invoices due April 15,
May 14, July 15, August 13, September 15, October 15, November
15, and December 15, 2004; and January, February 15, April 15,
and May 13, 2005. Of these twelve partial payments, the record
further demonstrates that OCMC made payments that were not
sufficient to cover even its current month charges on invoices
due May 14, August 13, September 15, October 15, and November 15,
2004, and February 15, April 15 and May 13, 2005. As a result of
this misconduct, OCMC has consistently maintained large overdue
balances with USAC, with the result that it now owes more than $2
million.
10. As we previously have stated,
[c]arrier nonpayment of universal service
contributions undermines the efficiency and
effectiveness of the universal service support
mechanisms. Moreover, delinquent carriers may
obtain a competitive advantage over carriers
complying with the Act and our rules. We consider
universal service nonpayment to be a serious threat
to a key goal of Congress and one of the
Commission's primary responsibilities.24
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that OCMC has
apparently violated section 254(d) of the Act and section
54.706(a) of the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly
failing to contribute fully and timely to the USF on multiple
occasions between October 2003 and June 2005. Within the last
twelve months specifically, which is the time period covered by
this NAL, OCMC failed to remit any contribution toward its USF
obligations for the payment due by March 15 and June 15, 2005,
and contributed less than even the amount of its monthly
obligation for the payments due by August 13, September 15,
October 15, and November 15, 2004, and by February 15, April 15,
and May 13, 2005.
11. In this NAL we have chosen to propose liability only
for the months within the twelve- month limitations period25 in
which OCMC failed to pay at least the amount due for the current
month by the due date stated on the USAC invoice and not for
months in which OCMC paid at least the current month's charges26
because those months represent the most egregious examples of
misconduct. Due to the accumulating record of contributors
making only partial payments on USAC invoices, however, we may
take a more expansive approach and include additional monthly
violations in the future in appropriate circumstance.27
12. In responses to the Bureau's inquiries, OCMC provides
information concerning a billing dispute with USAC as grounds for
its contribution failures. OCMC implies that it withheld certain
monthly contributions and submitted other insufficient monthly
contributions because USAC's invoices did not reflect OCMC's view
of the proper resolution of that dispute. In January 2004, OCMC
disputed a USAC invoice, maintaining it was owed $310,703 in
credits as a result of the true-up of its 2002 revenues.28 OCMC,
in subsequent correspondence to USAC in August 2004, admitted
that the amount in dispute was, in fact, properly credited to
OCMC's account in 2003.29
13. After reviewing all the facts and circumstances, we
find that the existence of this billing dispute does not excuse
OCMC's violations for several reasons. First, a carrier may not
engage in self-help.30 A carrier may not unilaterally decide to
withhold universal service contributions pending the resolution
of a billing dispute. Such a reading of Section 254 of the Act
and our rules would encourage every contributor making USF
payments to suspend such contributions by simply filing a
dispute. Moreover, even if such self-help were permitted, OCMC
suspended its contribution payments beginning in October 2003,
but did not submit its billing dispute until February 2004.
OCMC's delay undercuts its claim that its failures to contribute
resulted from the dispute. In addition, the amount at issue in
the dispute, $310,703, is far exceeded by the overdue balances
incurred by OCMC during the period, which at times exceeded $1
million. Additionally, OCMC had no reasonable basis for
disputing its invoices. The credits that OCMC alleged it was
owed were clearly set forth in the USAC invoices for September -
November 2003. Finally, OCMC conceded its position on the
dispute as early as August 2004, yet continued to carry a massive
outstanding balance and to make insufficient payment on its USAC
invoices after that time. For all of these reasons, we reject
OCMC's position that the existence of a billing dispute with USAC
excuses its failures. Based on these facts, it appears that OCMC
deliberately chose not to pay its USF contributions despite its
clear obligations under our universal service rules, and despite
numerous monthly invoices it received from USAC informing the
carrier of its increasing debt.31
B. Proposed Forfeiture
14. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that any
person that willfully or repeatedly fails 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.32
15. For the apparent violations in this case, section
503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
forfeiture of up to $120,000 for each violation or each day of a
continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1.2 million
for a single act or failure to act for violations occurring
before September 7, 2004, and up to $130,000 for each violation
or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum
of $1.325 million for a single act or failure to act for
violations occurring on or after September 7, 2004.33 In
determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the
factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including
``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.''34
16. Under section 503(b)(6) of the Act, we may only propose
forfeitures for apparent violations that accrued within one year
of the date of this NAL.35 Nevertheless, section 503(b) does not
bar us from assessing whether OCMC's conduct prior to that time
period apparently violated the Act or our rules in determining
the appropriate forfeiture amount for those violations within the
statute of limitations.36 Therefore, although we find that OCMC
apparently violated the Act and our rules on numerous occasions
over the past several years, we propose forfeitures here only for
violations that occurred within the last year.
17. Based on the facts above, it appears that OCMC has
failed to make the requisite contributions into the USF on
numerous occasions over the past several years. Nonpayment of
universal service contributions is an egregious offense that
bestows on delinquent carriers an unfair competitive advantage by
shifting to compliant carriers the economic costs and burdens
associated with universal service. A carrier's failure to make
required universal service contributions hampers realization of
Congress' policy objective in section 254(d) of the Act to ensure
the equitable and non-discriminatory distribution of universal
service costs among all telecommunications providers.37 The
Commission has established a base forfeiture amount of $20,000
for each month in which a carrier has failed to make required
universal service contributions.38 Consequently, we initially
find that OCMC is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of
$40,000 for its failures to make any universal service
contributions with respect to the payments due by March 15 and
June 15, 2005 on its USF account.
18. The Commission has not set a base forfeiture amount in
a case in which a carrier repeatedly paid less than the current
month's contribution amount by the due date stated on the USAC
monthly invoice, resulting in an overdue balance on that
carrier's account. As in the case of non-payment, such
violations of our rules severely hamper realization of Congress's
universal service goals as expressed in section 254 of the Act.
We thus find that this violation is similar to, although less
egregious than, a carrier's failure to make any universal service
contributions in a specific month. Consequently, we find that
OCMC is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $10,000 for each of
the instances in which it failed to make a payment sufficient to
satisfy the current charges on August 13, September 15, October
15, and November 15, 2004 and February 15, April 15 and May 13,
2005. Consequently, OCMC is apparently liable for a base
forfeiture of $70,000 for these partial payments and a total base
forfeiture of $110,000 after including the partial payment base
forfeiture with the nonpayment base forfeiture. That base
forfeiture amount is, however, subject to an upward adjustment.
19. In the past, we have calculated upward adjustments to
forfeitures for failure to make USF payments based on one-half of
the company's unpaid contributions.39 When we began this
investigation, OCMC owed approximately $1.7 million on its USF
account. During the course of this investigation, however,
OCMC's apparent continued violations of our rules caused its USF
account debt to increase to $2,047,521. Therefore, taking into
account all the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
Act, we propose an upward adjustment of one-half of the company's
unpaid contributions, $1,023,761 for OCMC's apparent nonpayment
and partial payment violations. We thus find OCMC liable for a
total proposed forfeiture of $1,133,761 for its apparent willful
and repeated failure to make full and timely contributions into
the USF.
IV. CONCLUSION
20. In light of the seriousness, duration and scope of the
apparent violations, and to ensure that a company with
substantial revenues such as OCMC does not consider the proposed
forfeiture merely ``an affordable cost of doing business,''40 we
find that a proposed forfeiture of $1,133,761 is warranted.
21. We caution that additional violations of the Act or the
Commission's rules could subject OCMC to further enforcement
action. Such action could take the form of higher monetary
forfeitures and/or possible revocation of OCMC's operating
authority, including disqualification of OCMC's principals from
the provision of any interstate common carrier services without
the prior consent of the Commission.41 In addition, we note
that, to the extent OCMC is found to be delinquent on any debt
owed to the Commission (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF
contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss,
any application or request for authorization filed by OCMC, in
accordance with the agency's ``red light'' rules.42
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, 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 OCMC, Inc.is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY
FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,133,761 for willfully and
repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of
the Commission's Rules,43 within thirty days of the release date
of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, OCMC, Inc. SHALL PAY the
full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.
24. 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 Forfeiture Collection Section,
Finance Branch, 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.
25. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT
LIABILITY must be mailed to William Davenport, Chief,
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.
26. 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.
27. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL
under an installment plan should be sent to Chief, Credit and
Management Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554.44
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NOTICE OF
APPARENT LIABILITY AND ORDER shall be sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to Ann Bernard, General Counsel for
OCMC, Inc., 801 Congressional Boulevard, Carmel, Indiana, 46032.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
_________________________
147 U.S.C. § 254.
247 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).
3The Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the Communications
Act of 1934. See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (``1996 Act'').
447 U.S.C. § 254(d).
547 C.F.R. § 54.706(b). Beginning April 1, 2003, carrier
contributions were based on a carrier's projected, rather than
historical, revenues. Id.
6Upon submission of a Form 499-A registration, the carrier is
issued a filer identification number by USAC, which is then
associated with further filings by the company and is used to
track the carrier's contributions and invoices.
7Individual universal service contribution amounts that are based
upon quarterly filings are subject to an annual true-up. See
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Petition for
Reconsideration filed by AT&T, Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 5748 (2001) (``Quarterly Reporting
Order''); 47 C.F.R. § 54.709(a).
8See Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19896 (2003) (``Globcom''); 47
C.F.R. § 54.711(a) (``The Commission shall announce by Public
Notice published in the Federal Register and on its website the
manner of payment and the dates by which payments must be
made.''). See, e.g., ``Proposed Third Quarter 2003 Contribution
Factor,'' Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11442 (Wir. Comp. Bur. 2003)
(``Contribution payments are due on the date shown on the [USAC]
invoice.'') The Act and our rules, however, do not condition
payment on receipt of an invoice or other notice from USAC. See
47 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(b). A carrier that does
not file may not receive an invoice from USAC, but is nonetheless
required to contribute to the universal service fund, unless its
revenues are considered de minimus. The instructions for the
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet include tables for
carriers to determine their annual contributions.
9 47 C.F.R. § 54.713.
1047 C.F.R. § 1.1910. The rule went into effect on November 1,
2004. See ``FCC Announces Brief Delay in Enforcement of Red
Light Rule,'' Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 19452 (2004).
11OCMC's 2005 FCC Form 499-A Telecommunications Reporting
Worksheet. See also Letter from Ann Bernard, OCMC, Inc., General
Counsel, to Christopher Shields, Investigations and Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC (October 18, 2004) (``LOI
Response'').
12Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations &
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Robert Young, OCMC
Telecom, Inc. (Sept. 28, 2004) (``LOI'').
13Letter from Ann Bernard, OCMC, Inc., General Counsel, to
Christopher Shields, Investigations and Hearings Division,
Enforcement Bureau, FCC (December 20, 2004) (``Supplemental LOI
Response'').
1447 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1). 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. § 312(f)(1). The
legislative history to 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, e.g., Application for Review of
Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) (``Southern California
Broadcasting Co.''). The Commission may also assess a forfeiture
for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful. See,
e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359
(2001) (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter alia, a
cable television operator's repeated signal leakage).
``Repeated'' means that the act was committed or omitted more
than once, or lasts more than one day. Callais Cablevision,
Inc., 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9; Southern California Broadcasting
Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5.
1547 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
16See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).
1747 U.S.C. § 254(d).
1847 C.F.R. §§ 54.706(a).
1947 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).
20Globcom, 18 FCC Rcd at 19904.
2147 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(c).
2247 C.F.R. § 54.706(c).
23See 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a)(16).
24Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903 ¶ 26.
25 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6).
26 Therefore, OCMC payments on invoices due April 15, July 15,
August 13, and December 15, 2004 and January 2005 do not form the
basis for liability in this NAL although those payments were
insufficient to satisfy the total amount of its outstanding
balance.
27 The Commission's forfeiture authority might apply to
additional months, because it is USAC's practice to apply partial
payments to the oldest debt carried on USAC's books first, and
not the current billed amount. See North American Telephone
Network, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 4838, ¶ 8 & n. 12
(2001); Intellicall Operator Services, Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC
Rcd 21,771, at 21,772, ¶ 6 and n.8 (2000).
28 Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment dated Feb. 10, 2004
(reading, in part, as follows: ``This is to dispute, and request
to review the records documenting, the $310,703.48 demanded in
your letter dated January 22, 2004'').
29 Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment dated Aug. 5, 2004
(reading, in part: ``Thanks you for your reply. The amount,
originally in dispute, has been satisfied. As per your mention of
the credits'').
30 See Application for Review of the Denial of Vista
Communications, Inc.'s Request for Waiver of the Installment
Payment Rules for the 218-219 MHz Service, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16,957 (2003) (Commission denied application
for review that challenged decision that alleged confusion
regarding the payment rules and payment schedule did not justify
Interactive Voice and Data Service licensee's assumption that it
could withhold payments).
31 See, e.g., Conquest Operator Services Corp., Forfeiture Order,
14 FCC Rcd 12,518, at 12,522, ¶ 9 (discussing the monthly USAC
invoices and the ``more than adequate notice of ConQuest's
universal service obligation'').
3247 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(2).
3347 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2). The
Commission recently amended its rules to increase the maximum
penalties to account for inflation since the last adjustment of
the penalty rates. See 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). However, the new
rates apply to violations that occur or continue after September
7, 2004. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's
Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004).
3447 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement,
12 FCC Rcd at 17100, ¶ 27; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).
3547 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c)(3).
36See, e.g., Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903; Roadrunner
Transp., Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671 (2000);
Liab. of E. Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 F.C.C.
2d 37 (1967).
37See 47 U.S.C. § 254(d).
38See Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903-19904, ¶¶ 25-27.
39 See, e.g., Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19904.
40Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099; see also 47
C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
41See Business Options, Inc., Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 2916
(2003); NOS Communications, Inc., Affinity Network Incorporated
and NOSVA Limited Partnership, Consent Decree, 2003 WL 22439710
(2003).
4247 C.F.R. § 1.1910.
43See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).
44See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.