Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

Statement of Chairman Martin
Statement of Commissioner Copps
Statement of Commissioner Adelstein
Statement of Commissioner Tate
Statement of Commissioner McDowell

******************************************************** 
                      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                                                        
                                             )                               
     1st Source Information Specialists,                                    
     Inc.                                    )   File No. EB-05-TC-059       
                                                                             
     d/b/a                                   )   NAL/Acct. No. 200632170005  
                                                                             
     LocateCell.com                          )   FRN: 0014762439             
                                                                             
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       )                               
                                                                             
                                             )                               


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: July 13, 2006 Released: July 13, 2006

   By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate,
   and McDowell issuing separate statements.

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. d/b/a LocateCell.com
       (hereafter "LocateCell") apparently willfully or repeatedly violated a
       Commission order by failing to respond to the directive of the
       Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to provide certain information and
       documents. Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances
       surrounding this apparent violation, we find that LocateCell is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $97,500.

   II. Background

    2. On November 29, 2005, the Bureau served LocateCell with a subpoena
       requesting documents and information. The subpoena, issued pursuant to
       the authority set forth in sections 151, 403 and 409 of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), concerned call
       detail and other customer proprietary network information ("CPNI")
       that LocateCell may have obtained from telecommunications carriers,
       despite the requirements of section 222 of the Act, which imposes a
       general duty on all carriers to ensure the confidentiality of their
       subscribers' CPNI.

    3. The Bureau issued its subpoena to LocateCell as part of its
       investigation into whether carriers have taken adequate steps to
       ensure that their subscribers' CPNI is protected from unauthorized
       disclosure. Significantly, it appeared that LocateCell was operating
       as a third party "data broker" by advertising, on its website, the
       availability of records of wireless subscribers' incoming and outgoing
       telephone calls for a fee. In issuing a subpoena to LocateCell, we
       sought to determine how LocateCell was able to access sensitive,
       personal subscriber information that telecommunications carriers are
       obligated to protect under section 222 of the Act.

    4. The subpoena required LocateCell to produce information and documents
       responsive to twelve specific requests within 10 days of service of
       the subpoena. On December 16, 2005, LocateCell provided a partial
       response to the subpoena, delivering basic corporate documents in
       response to specifications one through five of the subpoena.
       LocateCell indicated that it would provide additional responses to
       questions six through twelve of the subpoena during the week of
       December 26, 2005. These questions included the most significant data
       requests of the subpoena. In particular, the Bureau sought documents
       and information concerning how LocateCell obtained CPNI from carriers,
       despite the carriers' obligation to protect these sensitive data.
       However, LocateCell failed to produce these additional documents.

    5. On January 20, 2006, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act, the
       Bureau issued a Citation to LocateCell for failure to respond fully to
       a Commission Order, and required LocateCell to provide complete
       answers to the subpoena within seven calendar days. In its Citation,
       the Bureau warned LocateCell that, "[i]f, after receipt of the
       Citation, you continue to refuse to comply with the Commission's
       orders in any manner described herein, the Commission may impose
       monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or
       each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $97,500 for a
       continuing violation.

    6. On January 27, 2006, LocateCell filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time
       to respond to the subpoena, requesting an extension of time until
       February 3, 2006. In its Motion, LocateCell also questioned the
       jurisdiction of the Commission over LocateCell, and stated that it
       anticipated filing a motion to quash and/or for a protective order.
       LocateCell recognized, however, that the Commission is not "confined
       to issuing subpoenas to just those over whom we have jurisdiction."
       LocateCell did not provide any additional documents or information on
       February 3, 2006, and still has not provided any additional responses
       to the subpoena. LocateCell also has not filed a motion to quash
       and/or for a protective order.

   III. Discussion

          A. LocateCell Is Apparently Liable for a Forfeiture for Failing to
             Comply with an Order of the Commission

    7. Section 503(b) of the Act provides in pertinent part that "[a]ny
       person who is determined by the Commission . . . to have . . .
       willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provisions of
       this Act or of any. . . order issued by the Commission under this Act
       . . . shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty."
       As detailed above, LocateCell has failed to provide all of the
       information and documentation that the Bureau ordered it to provide in
       the subpoena and subsequent Citation. Therefore, we find that
       LocateCell apparently willfully and repeatedly violated a Commission
       order.

    8. The November 29, 2005 subpoena was properly issued within the
       Commission's authority. In sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act,
       Congress afforded the Commission broad authority to institute an
       inquiry, on its own motion, in any case and as to any matter or thing
       within its statutory authority. As noted above, the Bureau, on
       authority delegated by the Commission, issued the subpoena as part of
       the Commission's ongoing investigation into whether carriers are
       complying with their obligations under section 222 of the Act. Section
       403 also gives the Commission broad authority to "make and enforce
       orders" relating to a matter under investigation. Further, sections
       4(i) and 4(j) authorize the Commission to "issue such orders ... as
       may be necessary in the execution of its functions" and to "conduct
       its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper
       dispatch of business and to the ends of justice."

    9. Further, the Commission has specific authority under sections 1 and
       409(e) of the Act, as well as section 0.111 of the Commission's rules,
       to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and
       the production of "all books, papers, schedules of charges, contracts,
       agreements, and documents relating to any matter under investigation."
       Hence, the Bureau was within its authority in requiring LocateCell to
       provide information and documents relevant to the Commission's CPNI
       investigation. Moreover, we note that parties are required to comply
       with Bureau orders even if they believe them to be outside our
       authority.

   10. As noted supra, prior to issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability
       against a non-Commission licensee such as LocateCell, we are obligated
       under section 503(b)(5) of the Act to issue a Citation describing the
       violation charged. The non-licensee must be "given a reasonable
       opportunity for a personal interview with an official of the
       Commission, at the field office of the Commission which is nearest to
       such person's place of residence." If the non-licensee "subsequently
       engages in the conduct of the type described in the citation," a
       Notice of Apparent Liability may be issued. These requirements have
       been satisfied here. The Bureau issued a Citation to LocateCell on
       January 20, 2006. The Bureau noted in the Citation that LocateCell
       could contact the Tampa, Florida field office if it wished to discuss
       the Citation. The Citation further required LocateCell to respond in
       full to the subpoena. Subsequently, LocateCell again failed to comply
       with the obligation to produce information as required by the subpoena
       and the Citation. Accordingly, we issue this Notice of Apparent
       Liability finding that LocateCell has apparently willfully and
       repeatedly violated Commission orders requiring the production of
       documents and information.

     A. Forfeiture Amount

   11. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
       forfeiture of up to $11,000 for each violation, or up to $97,500 for a
       continuing violation, of the Act or of any rule, regulation or order
       issued by the Commission under the Act by a non-common carrier or
       other entity not specifically designated in section 503 of the Act.
       The Commission may assess this penalty if it determines that the
       noncompliance is willful or repeated. In exercising such authority, we
       are 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."

   12. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines do not address the specific
       violation at issue in this proceeding. In determining the proper
       forfeiture amount in this case, however, we are guided by the critical
       nature of the matter at issue and the importance of the obligation to
       protect subscribers' sensitive, proprietary information. Consumers are
       increasingly concerned about the security of the personal data that
       they must entrust to their various service providers, whether they are
       financial institutions or telephone carriers. Given the increasing
       concerns about security of this data, and evidence that the data
       appears widely available to third parties, such as LocateCell, we must
       take aggressive, substantial steps to ensure that this data is
       protected. LocateCell's failure to respond fully to the Bureau's
       subpoena, requesting information concerning how LocateCell was able to
       access sensitive personal, subscriber information that
       telecommunications carriers are obligated to protect under section 222
       of the Act, directly hinders our investigation into this important
       matter.

   13. As set forth above, for failure to respond fully to the subpoena, the
       Bureau issued a Citation to LocateCell on January 20, 2006, requiring
       LocateCell to provide complete answers to the subpoena within seven
       calendar days. To date, LocateCell has not provided any additional
       responses to the subpoena; nor has LocateCell challenged the relevance
       or scope of the subpoena or claimed that it is unduly burdensome.
       LocateCell was required to comply with the Citation and produce all
       documents and information specified in the subpoena by January 27,
       2006. LocateCell failed to produce additional documents or information
       on that date and this failure continues. As stated above, section
       503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures of up to $11,000 for each
       violation or each day of a continuing violation up to a maximum of
       $97,500 for each continuing violation. LocateCell's violation is a
       continuing one, and based on all the facts and circumstances in this
       case, we believe the maximum forfeiture amount for the continuing
       violation is warranted. Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of
       $97,500 against LocateCell.

   14. LocateCell will have an opportunity to submit further evidence and
       arguments in response to this NAL to show that no forfeiture should be
       imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed.

   IV. CONCLUSION and ORDERING CLAUSES

   15. We conclude that LocateCell apparently willfully or repeatedly
       violated a Commission order by failing to provide the information and
       documents the Bureau directed it to provide. Accordingly, a proposed
       forfeiture in the amount of $97,500 is warranted against LocateCell
       for its apparent willful or repeated violations of our directive.

   16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, and authority delegated by sections 0.111 and
       0.311 of the Commission's rules, LocateCell IS NOTIFIED OF ITS
       APPARENT LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $97,500 for
       willfully or repeatedly failing to respond fully to the Bureau's
       subpoena, as required by the Citation.

   17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
       NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, LocateCell 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. 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.

   19. 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 LocateCell at 7361 Granville Drive,
       Tamarac, Florida 33321.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

                                  STATEMENT OF

                            CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN

   Re: 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., d/b/a LocateCell.com,
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, EB File No. EB-05-TC-059; FRN 0014762439; NAL Acct. No.
   200632170005.

   As I testified to Congress earlier this year, the Commission is taking
   numerous steps to protect the privacy of consumers' personal phone
   records. One of these steps is our current investigation into whether
   telecommunications carriers are complying with their customer privacy
   obligations under the Communications Act. Examining how data brokers are
   able to access consumer call records from these carriers is an integral
   part of this investigation.

   Responding to Commission subpoenas is not optional. We expect that
   subpoenas, as well as all of our requests for information, will be
   responded to completely and promptly. Although we propose the maximum
   forfeiture against LocateCell for its failure to adequately respond, I
   fear that the amount we propose - $97,500 - is merely a cost of doing
   business. As I have said previously, it is my hope that, in the future,
   our statutory maximum will be increased. If companies such as LocateCell
   have no incentive to comply with our requests for information, our
   enforcement processes will be severely compromised.

   The Commission remains committed to ensuring that consumers' personal
   phone data is kept confidential. Our investigation is ongoing. In addition
   to this investigation, we intend to complete the proceeding we began
   several months ago that seeks to strengthen the safeguards currently in
   place to protect customer phone records. The ability of data brokers, such
   as LocateCell, to engage in the trafficking of these records is a practice
   that must be stopped.

                             SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

                         COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

   Re: 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., d/b/a LocateCell.com,
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, EB File No. EB-05-TC-059; FRN 0014762439; NAL Acct. No.
   200632170005.





               Few rights are so fundamental as the right to privacy in our
   daily lives - and few are under such constant attack.  Americans must have
   the security of knowing that their private phone records are not for
   sale.  I therefore support our decision today to assess the statutorily
   maximum forfeiture against a company that has egregiously failed to comply
   with our subpoena and that must be called to account.



               Even though today's decision is a step in the right direction,
   let's be sure we don't lose sight of the bigger picture here.  Data
   brokers continue to flout the law, invade our privacy, and put each of us
   at risk.  As the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) demonstrated
   so forcefully in its petition for rulemaking last summer, data brokers are
   capable of obtaining a history of calls made to and from a particular
   phone number, the customer name associated with that number, and perhaps
   even the geographic location of a mobile phone user.  This is an
   unsettling and entirely intolerable state of affairs.  The Commission
   simply cannot stop until the root problem has been solved.  This company's
   failure to respond to our subpoena about how it came to possess private
   data underscores just how badly further action is needed.



               In order to provide consumers with the level of protection
   they expect and deserve, I hope we will move on from here to issue rules
   in the Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) docket that we
   opened last February.  For too long the Commission treated privacy as a
   "back-burner" issue.  It has been four years since the Arizona Corporation
   Commission initiated a petition regarding dissemination of CPNI to
   unaffiliated third parties.  Last year we reclassified wireline broadband
   Internet access services but left for another day the chilling question of
   whether privacy protections even apply to this regulatory remix.  It is
   time to stop putting Americans' digital privacy unnecessarily at risk.



               So I hope this decision today signals a commitment to get
   privacy right for the digital age.  Where breaches of data security become
   easier and more common every day, privacy still has to matter.  The
   Commission's challenge is to catch up with the American people who are
   demonstrably tired of unlawful violations of their digital privacy.  They
   need our help and they need it now.

                                  STATEMENT OF

                       COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

   Re: 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., d/b/a LocateCell.com,
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, EB File No. EB-05-TC-059; FRN 0014762439; NAL Acct. No.
   200632170005.

   Personal privacy is at the heart of our quality of life, as Congress
   recognized in requiring telecommunications companies to respect their
   customers' privacy. A consumer's telephone call records include some of
   the most private personal information about an individual. Not
   surprisingly, consumers were alarmed when it came to light over the past
   year that their telephone records were widely available for sale on the
   Internet, without their knowledge or approval, to anyone with an Internet
   connection and a credit card. People felt that having their incoming and
   outgoing calls available for public view was like having their personal
   diaries exposed. Consumers were outraged to find that others could learn
   about calls that might expose their business transactions, doctor
   appointments, and personal interactions.

   Strong and consistent Commission enforcement of our consumer privacy rules
   is critical to restore the protections that consumers expect and that
   Congress has mandated. This NAL takes aim at one of the apparent purveyors
   of consumers' private telephone call records for failure to comply with an
   on-going Commission investigation. LocateCell's willful and repeated
   failure to fully cooperate with the Commission's subpoena jeopardizes the
   Commission's investigation, and warrants the maximum penalty for repeated
   non-compliance with Commission orders. The Commission simply cannot
   condone failure to cooperate with an investigation that clearly safeguards
   the public interest.

   This NAL must also be part of a larger effort to address the widespread
   availability of confidential phone records, a phenomenon highlighted in
   press reports just a few months back estimating that there were dozens of
   such web sites. Shining a light on the unauthorized sale of telephone
   records may drive some of these providers off the Internet - a positive
   first step. Yet, companies like LocateCell appear to slip underground with
   disquieting ease, which may pose a real challenge for our efforts to
   assess this forfeiture, and we will need to be vigilant against the
   ability of bad actors peddling unauthorized telephone records to disappear
   and later resurface.

   Indeed, we have a lot more work to do to ensure that consumers private
   call records are adequately safeguarded. It is essential that we move
   ahead with our pending rulemaking on our consumer privacy rules for
   telephone companies. The mere fact that these records have been so readily
   available, even though telephone companies are required to have firewalls
   in place to protect consumers' private information, has raised serious
   questions about the mechanisms that are in place to safeguard the
   confidentiality of their consumers' information. So, our pending
   rulemaking proceeding gives us an important opportunity to find ways to
   tighten our rules, to ensure that phone companies are employing adequate
   safeguards, and to provide greater security for these sensitive consumer
   records. Every provider should be on notice that we are watching closely
   and will take the action necessary to protect consumers' privacy, and we
   expect them to do the same.

                                  STATEMENT OF

                        COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE

   Re: 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., d/b/a LocateCell.com,
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, EB File No. EB-05-TC-059; FRN 0014762439; NAL Acct. No.
   200632170005.

   The brokerage of personal information - whether it be personal identity,
   financial records, or a list of your phone calls - is intolerable. Six
   months ago we pledged to do our part to keep consumer's personal phone
   data confidential. Today, we keep that promise.

   LocateCell was subpoenaed in an effort to determine how it was able to
   access sensitive, personal subscriber information that telecommunications
   carriers are obligated to protect. But instead of responding with full
   candor, LocateCell has willfully and repeatedly ignored the Commission's
   most significant data requests. Accordingly, we issue this Notice of
   Apparent Liability, and propose the maximum forfeiture amount against
   LocateCell.

   The action we take today should reinforce our message to any and all
   information snatchers - we will continue to be vigilant in enforcing our
   obligation to protect consumers' most personal information. The personal
   records of American consumers are not for sale.

                                  STATEMENT OF

                        COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL

   Re: 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., d/b/a LocateCell.com,
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, EB File No. EB-05-TC-059; FRN 0014762439; NAL Acct. No.
   200632170005.

   Today's action is just one part of a broader effort by this Commission to
   ensure the protection of customer proprietary network information ("CPNI")
   and address concerns that this information may have been improperly made
   available to third parties in violation of our rules. By issuing this
   Notice of Apparent Liability, we make clear that we will not tolerate the
   refusal of companies such as data broker 1st Source Information
   Specialists, Inc., d/b/a/ LocateCell.com ("LocateCell") to cooperate with
   lawful requests for information related to alleged violations of our
   rules. It is critical that we take a firm stand against those that would
   obstruct the Commission's statutory authority to investigate matters
   pertaining to CPNI.

   LocateCell is not the only company from which the Commission has sought
   information. Our Enforcement Bureau has been actively investigating a
   number of these data brokers, many of which have advertised the
   availability of records of wireless subscribers' incoming and outgoing
   telephone calls, as well as certain landline toll call records, for a fee.
   The Bureau is also investigating the alleged failure of carriers to
   certify compliance with our CPNI rules, and is vigorously pursuing
   non-compliant companies. These investigations will continue, and I thank
   the Bureau for its work in moving these initiatives forward.

   In addition to these investigatory actions, the Commission is actively
   engaged in a rulemaking that examines the need for tougher privacy rules,
   including an analysis of measures proposed by the Electronic Privacy
   Information Center (EPIC) intended to more adequately protect CPNI. I look
   forward to closely coordinating with my colleagues on the important issues
   under consideration in this related proceeding.

   The depth and breadth of these undertakings illustrate the seriousness
   with which the Commission views its role in ensuring the security of CPNI.
   I commend the Chairman for his steady, reasoned leadership on these
   multiple fronts.

   Like most Americans, I am deeply troubled by reports of companies
   unlawfully obtaining and marketing personal telephone records. The
   Commission has a vital obligation to protect the privacy and security of
   customer telephone records from those entities that would seek to acquire
   that information through unlawful means. Improperly exposing call records
   - which indicate who is being called, how long the call lasts, and, in the
   wireless context, the physical areas within which a given call is placed
   and delivered - is a grievous invasion into the victim's personal life.

   We cannot compromise our ability to protect customers' private telephone
   records from unauthorized disclosure. We will not tolerate LocateCell's
   refusal to cooperate with our investigation. For these reasons, I support
   today's decision to issue a Notice of Apparent Liability to and forfeiture
   against LocateCell.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1). The Commission has the authority under this section
   of the Act to assess a forfeiture against any person who has "willfully or
   repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provisions of this Act or of
   any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under this Act
   ...."

   1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. is a Florida state corporation
   that owns and operates several websites, including "LocateCell.com."

   See Subpoena, LocateCell.com/1st Source Information Specialists, Inc.,
   Enf. Bureau, Nov. 29, 2005 (LocateCell Subpoena). Service of the subpoena
   was confirmed on that date.

   47 U.S.C. SS 151, 403, 409.

   CPNI is defined as information that relates to the quantity, technical
   configuration, type, destination, and amount of use of a
   telecommunications service subscribed to by a customer of a
   telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by
   the customer solely by virtue of the customer-carrier relationship. See 47
   U.S.C. S 222; 47 C.F.R. S 64.2003(d).

   47 U.S.C. S 222. This section provides that: "Every telecommunications
   carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary
   information of, and relating to, other telecommunications carriers,
   equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication
   carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a
   telecommunications carrier."

   See also 47 C.F.R. S 64.2009 et seq., the Commission's rules implementing
   section 222 of the Act.

   According to a petition for rulemaking filed with the Commission regarding
   protection of CPNI, some data brokers have taken advantage of carriers'
   inadequate security standards to gain access to CPNI under false
   pretenses, such as by posing as the customer and then offering the records
   for sale on the Internet. See Electronic Privacy Information Center
   ("EPIC") Petition for Rulemaking at  http://www.epic.org/privacy/iei/.

   In specifications one through five of the subpoena, we directed LocateCell
   to provide corporate documents, including information concerning the
   relationship between 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. and
   LocateCell.com. We also requested information and documents relating to
   all websites owned by 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc., and
   documents relating to toll-free numbers registered to and/or operated by
   1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. and LocateCell.com. See
   LocateCell Subpoena at 1.

   See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5) (stating that the Commission has the authority
   under this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty against any
   person who is not a common carrier so long as (A) such person is first
   issued a citation of the violation charged; (B) is given a reasonable
   opportunity for a personal interview with an official of the Commission,
   at the field office of the Commission nearest to the person's place of
   residence; and (C) subsequently engages in conduct of the type described
   in the citation).

   See Citation, LocateCell.com/1st Source Information Specialists, Inc.,
   Enf. Bureau, Jan. 20, 2006 (LocateCell Citation).

   See LocateCell Citation at 2 (citing 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5)).

   See 1st Source Information Specialists, Inc. Motion for Enlargement of
   Time, filed Jan. 31, 2006.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b).

   47 U.S.C. SS 154(i), 154(j), 403.

   47 C.F.R. S0.111.

   47 U.S.C. SS 151, 409(e).

   See SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(C); see Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
   Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000): Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
   Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd 10954 (2004) (increasing maximum forfeiture amounts
   to account for inflation).

   See Footnote 1, supra; 47 U.S.C SS 503(b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(5).

   The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
   of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy
   Statement"); recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

   LocateCell Citation.

   47 U.S.C S 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f)(3).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b).

   47 U.S.C. S 1.80(f)(4).

   47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-104

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-104