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


                           )                               
                                                           
                           )                               
                               File No. EB-07-SE-140       
     In the Matter of      )                               
                               NAL/Acct. No. 200732100028  
     IT&E Overseas, Inc.   )                               
                               FRN # 0001523125            
                           )                               
                                                           
                           )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: April 25, 2007 Released:   April 25, 2007

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       IT&E Overseas, Inc. ("IT&E") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
       amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000) for its willful and
       repeated violations of Section 20.19(f) of the Commission's Rules
       ("Rules"). The apparent violations involve IT&E's failure to comply
       with the labeling requirements for digital wireless hearing
       aid-compatible handsets.

   II. Background

    2. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission took a
       number of actions to further the ability of persons with hearing
       disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications. Among
       other actions, the Commission required manufacturers and digital
       wireless service providers to collectively take steps to increase the
       number of hearing aid-compatible handset models available, and
       established phased-in deployment benchmark dates for the offering of
       hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handset models. In this
       regard, the Commission required entities within each of these classes
       that do not fall within the de minimis exception to begin to offer
       digital wireless handset models that meet at least a U3 rating for
       radio frequency interference by September 16, 2005. In connection with
       the offer of hearing aid-compatible handset models, the Commission
       also required entities to label the handsets with the appropriate
       technical rating, and to explain the technical rating system in the
       owner's manual or as part of the packaging material for the handset.
       In order to monitor efforts to make compliant handsets available, the
       Commission required manufacturers and digital wireless service
       providers to report every six months on efforts toward compliance with
       the hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first three years
       of implementation (on May 17, 2004, November 17, 2004, May 17, 2005,
       November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006, and November 17, 2006), and then
       annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation (on
       November 19, 2007 and November 17, 2008).

    3. In June 2005, the Commission  reconsidered certain aspects of the
       Hearing Aid Compatibility Order and modified the preliminary handset
       deployment benchmark specific to Tier I (i.e., nationwide) wireless
       carriers to provide greater regulatory certainty, while simultaneously
       ensuring a broad array of choices for persons with hearing
       disabilities who seek to purchase hearing aid-compatible wireless
       phones. Specifically, the Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration
       Order established that by September 16, 2005, Tier I wireless carriers
       must offer four digital wireless handset models per air interface, or
       twenty-five percent of the total number of digital wireless handset
       models offered by the carrier nationwide, that meet a U3 rating. The
       Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order, however, did not
       modify the preliminary deployment benchmark or associated labeling
       requirements for Tier II or Tier III wireless carriers. Tier II and
       Tier III wireless carriers that do not fall within the de minimis
       exception, therefore, were required to include in their handset
       offerings at least two U3-rated handset models per air interface, and
       to comply with the associated labeling requirements, by September 16,
       2005.

    4. On April 11, 2007, the Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and
       Order addressing waiver requests filed by nineteen Tier II and Tier
       III wireless carriers, including IT&E, for relief from the hearing aid
       compatibility requirements for wireless digital telephones. In its
       waiver request, IT&E sought a one-year waiver of the September 16,
       2005 compliance deadline, citing the unavailability of U3-rated
       handsets as the basis for its request. IT&E's November 17, 2005 Report
       stated, "IT&E is currently marketing two (2) CDMA handsets that meet a
       M3 rating." With respect to handset labeling, the IT&E November 17,
       2005 Report stated, "IT&E is not involved in product labeling or the
       development of labeling standards." On April 26, 2006, IT&E
       supplemented its petition and informed the Commission that it
       "currently markets four digital wireless handset models which meet a
       U3 ... rating for radio frequency interference." IT&E also reported
       that, with respect to each of the four handsets, "either the
       manufacturer-supplied packaging or labels attached by IT&E indicates
       that the units are hearing aid compatible."

    5. Given that IT&E reported the offer of two compliant handsets as of
       November 14, 2005, the Commission concluded that IT&E came into
       compliance with the preliminary handset deployment benchmark as of
       November 14, 2005. Accordingly, with respect to IT&E's compliance with
       the preliminary handset deployment requirement, the Commission granted
       IT&E a waiver nunc pro tunc to extend the deadline for compliance with
       Section 20.19(c)(2)(i) of the Rules until November 14, 2005. The
       Commission found that this brief delay was de minimis and that it did
       not unduly deprive IT&E's subscribers of access to hearing
       aid-compatible handsets.

    6. With respect to the associated labeling requirements, the Commission
       found that IT&E came into compliance as of April 26, 2006. The
       Commission concluded, however, that IT&E failed to demonstrate unusual
       or unique circumstances, or the existence of any other factor,
       warranting relief from the labeling requirements for a period of more
       than five months beyond November 14, 2005, the date by which it was
       offering certified compliant handsets. In addition, the Commission was
       unpersuaded by IT&E's attempt to disclaim responsibility for
       compliance with the labeling requirement because it is "not involved"
       in labeling. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the IT&E
       Supplement did not definitively demonstrate compliance with the
       labeling requirements, which require both labeling and additional
       information in the handset packaging. Thus, the Commission concluded
       that IT&E did not make the requisite showing to justify a waiver of
       Section 20.19(f) of the Rules, denied this aspect of the IT&E
       Petition, and referred IT&E's apparent violation to the Enforcement
       Bureau.

   III. Discussion

          A. Failure to Comply with Labeling Requirements for Wireless
             Hearing-Aid Compatible Handsets

    7. Section 20.19(f) of the Rules provides that wireless hearing
       aid-compatible handsets shall clearly display the U-rating, as defined
       in Section 20.19(b), on the packaging material of the handset and that
       an explanation of the technical rating system shall be included in the
       owner's manual or as part of the packaging material for the handset by
       September 16, 2005. The Commission has determined based on the record
       established in the waiver proceeding that IT&E apparently failed to
       come into compliance with the labeling requirements for each of the
       two hearing aid-compatible handsets it was offering until at least
       April 26, 2006, more than five months beyond November 14, 2005, the
       date by which it was offering certified compliant handsets.
       Accordingly, we conclude that IT&E apparently willfully and repeatedly
       failed to comply with the labeling requirements for wireless
       hearing-aid compatible handsets in violation of Section 20.19(f) of
       the Rules.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

    8. Under Section 503(b)(1)(b) of the Act, any person who is determined by
       the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
       any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
       the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
       penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must
       issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such
       notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing,
       why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed. The Commission will
       then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence
       that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. We conclude
       under this standard that IT&E is apparently liable for forfeiture for
       its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 20.19(f) of
       the Rules.

    9. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we may assess a common carrier
       a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation, or for each day of
       a continuing violation up to a maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act
       or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to
       take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
       the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
       culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
       other matters as justice may require."

   10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
       Rules do not currently establish a base forfeiture amount for
       violations of labeling requirements for hearing-aid compatible
       handsets set forth in Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. Enforcement of
       these requirements is important to ensure that individuals with
       hearing disabilities have access to information that they need to make
       informed decisions as to which wireless telephone best meets their
       individual needs. Moreover, as the Commission has observed, the number
       of Americans with hearing disabilities is growing, and so is wireless
       phone use. We note that a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 has been
       established for violations of the emergency accessibility rules. The
       emergency accessibility requirements and the labeling requirements for
       wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets both serve the important goal
       of promoting public safety by ensuring that consumers with
       disabilities have access to information that they need. Moreover, we
       note that violations of the labeling requirements for wireless hearing
       aid-compatible handsets are continuing violations. We therefore think
       that these violations are analogous and that the $8,000 base
       forfeiture amount is appropriate for apparent violations of Section
       20.19(f). IT&E failed to comply with the labeling requirements for
       each of the two handsets that it was offering. Each such failure is a
       separate violation. Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $8,000 for
       each of IT&E's failures to comply with the labeling requirements for
       wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets, for a total proposed
       forfeiture of $16,000.

   IV. ordering clauses

   11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, IT&E Overseas, Inc. is NOTIFIED of
       its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen
       thousand dollars ($16,000) for willful and repeated violation of
       Section 20.19(f) of the Rules.

   12.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
       within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture, IT&E Overseas, Inc. SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   13. 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.

   14. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
       Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
       D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

   15. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
       response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
       (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
       financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
       accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective
       documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
       financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
       identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
       documentation submitted.

   16. Requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL under an
       installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -
       Financial Operations, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
       D.C. 20554.

   17.  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 John M. Borlas, President,
       IT&E Overseas, Inc., P.O. Box 24881, GMF, Guam 96921, and to Benjamin
       H. Dickens, Jr., Esq., Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy &
       Prendergast, LLP, 2120 L Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC
       20037.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S 20.19(f).

   As used herein, "labeling requirements" refers both to the requirement
   that wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets display the technical rating
   on the packaging material of the handset and the separate requirement that
   an explanation of the technical rating system be included in the owner's
   manual or as part of the packaging material for the handset.

   Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Telephones, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd
   18047 (2003) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility Order"). The Commission adopted
   these requirements for digital wireless telephones under authority of a
   provision of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, codified at
   Section 710(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
   U.S.C. S 610(b)(2)(C).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,  18 FCC Rcd at 16780; 47 C.F.R. S
   20.19(c). In adopting these requirements, the Commission observed, inter
   alia, that "as wireless service has evolved to become increasingly more
   important to Americans' safety and quality of life, the need for persons
   with hearing disabilities to have access to wireless services has become
   critical." Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16757.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(e)(1)-(2). The de minimis exception applies on a per
   air interface basis, and provides that manufacturers or mobile service
   providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handsets in the U.S.
   are exempt from the requirements of the hearing aid compatibility rules.
   For mobile service providers that obtain handsets only from manufacturers
   that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models in the U.S., the
   service provider would likewise be exempt from the hearing aid
   compatibility requirements. Manufacturers or mobile service providers that
   offer three digital wireless handset models must offer at least one
   compliant handset model. Mobile service providers that obtain handsets
   only from manufacturers that offer three digital wireless handset models
   in the U.S. are required to offer at least one compliant handset model.

   Section 20.19(b)(1) of the Rules provides that a wireless handset is
   deemed hearing aid-compatible if, at minimum, it receives a U3 rating "as
   set forth in the standard document ANSI C63.19-2001[,] `American National
   Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless
   Communications Devices and Hearing Aids.'" 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(b)(1). On
   April 25, 2005, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
   announced that it would also certify handsets as hearing aid-compatible
   based on the revised version of the standard, ANSI C63.10-2005. Thus,
   applicants for certification may rely on either the 2001 version or 2005
   version of the ANSI C63.19 standard. See OET Clarifies Use of Revised
   Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard Measurement Procedures
   and Rating Nomenclature, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005). In
   addition, we note that, since its 2005 draft version, the ANSI C63.19
   technical standard has used an "M" nomenclature for the radio frequency
   interference rating rather than a "U," and a "T" nomenclature for the
   handset's inductive coupling rating, rather than a "UT." The Commission
   has approved the use of the "M" and "T" nomenclature and considers the M/T
   and U/UT nomenclatures as synonymous. See Section 68.4(a) of the
   Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Order on
   Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
   11221, 11238 (2005) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order").

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780. See also 47
   C.F.R. S 20.19(c)(1)-(3).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785. See also 47
   C.F.R. S 20.19(f). In addition, to ensure that the rating information was
   actually conveyed to consumers prior to purchase, the Commission required
   digital wireless service providers to ensure that the U-rating of the
   handsets is available to such consumers at the point-of-sale, whether
   through display of the label, separate literature, or other means.  See
   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785.

   See id. at 16787; see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces
   Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and
   Handset Manufacturers, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (WTB 2004).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11238.

   See id. at 11232. See also OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone
   Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard Measurement Procedures and Rating
   Nomenclature, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005).

   Tier II carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with
   more than 500,000 subscribers. Tier III carriers are non-nationwide
   wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer subscribers. See
   Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced
   911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance Deadlines for
   Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers, Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14847
   (2002).

   See 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(c)(2)(i).

   Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Telephones, Petitions for Waiver of Section 20.19 of the Commission's
   Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 01-309, FCC 07-51 P 51
   (April 11, 2007) ("Wireless HAC Waiver Order").

   IT&E is the licensee of Broadband PCS Stations KNLF923 (Frequency Block D
   - Guam BTA), KNLG849 (Frequency Block D - Northern Mariana Islands BTA),
   WPOK677 (Frequency Block C - Guam BTA) and WPOK678 (Frequency Block C -
   Northern Mariana Islands BTA).

   See IT&E Overseas, Inc., Petition for Temporary Waiver or Temporary Stay
   (filed September 16, 2005) at 1 ("IT&E Petition").

   IT&E Overseas, Inc., Semi-Annual Report (filed November 14, 2005) at 2
   (listing the Kyocera SOHO KX1 and Motorola V265 handset models) ("IT&E
   November 17, 2005 Report").

   Id.

   IT&E Overseas, Inc., Supplement to Petition for Temporary Waiver or
   Temporary Stay (filed April 26, 2006) at 1 (listing the Kyocera SOHO KX1,
   Motorola V265, Motorola V276 and the Motorola V3c handset models) ("IT&E
   Supplement").

   Id.

   Wireless HAC Waiver Order at P 51.

   Id.

   Id. at P 52.

   Id.

   Id. The Commission noted that IT&E appeared to believe that it is not
   responsible for ensuring that handsets are properly labeled. The
   Commission concluded, however, that Section 20.19(f) imposes the
   responsibility to ensure that hearing aid compatible handsets are properly
   labeled on both service providers and manufacturers, and carriers must
   therefore make reasonable attempts to obtain labeling and inserts from
   manufacturers. The Commission found that the record did not establish that
   IT&E made such efforts. The Commission further observed that other Tier
   III carriers were able to come into compliance with those requirements
   prior to the end of April 2006. Id. at n. 167.

   Id. at P 52.

   Id.

   As noted above, the Commission found that the IT&E Supplement did not
   definitively demonstrate compliance with the labeling requirements, which
   require both labeling and additional information in the handset packaging.
   See supra n. 25 and accompanying text.

   Wireless HAC Waiver Order at P 52. Moreover, as noted above, the
   Commission concluded that Section 20.19(f) imposes the responsibility to
   ensure that hearing aid compatible handsets are properly labeled on both
   service providers and manufacturers, and carriers must therefore make
   reasonable attempts to obtain labeling and inserts from manufacturers. The
   Commission found that the record did not establish that IT&E made such
   efforts. See supra n. 25.

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
   deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
   to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful
   applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
   97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the
   term in the Section 503(b) context. See Southern California Broadcasting
   Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), recon.
   denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern California").

   Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
   pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
   `repeated,' ... means the commission or omission of such act more than
   once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one
   day." 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); Southern
   California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1).

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

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591 (2002).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
   of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3), to increase the maxima forfeiture
   amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements
   contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S
   2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
   Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order,  15 FCC Rcd
   18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from
   $100,000/$1,000,000 to $120,000/$1,200,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of
   the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory
   amounts from $120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,325,000); see also 47
   C.F.R. S 1.80(c).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4), Note to
   paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
   Forfeitures.

   See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
   1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd
   17087, 17115 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
   Policy Statement").

   The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify a base
   amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The
   Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission of a specific
   rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ... should not signal
   that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or
   unimportant. Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099. The
   Commission retains the discretion, moreover, to depart from the Forfeiture
   Policy Statement and issue forfeitures  on a case-by-case basis, under its
   general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act. Id.

   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,  18 FCC Rcd at 16785.

   Id. at 16786.

   See Fox Television Stations, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 9847, 9852 (Enf. Bur., 2005); NBC Telemundo License
   Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 9839, 9845
   (Enf. Bur., 2005); Midwest Television, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3959, 3966 (Enf. Bur., 2005), consent decree
   issued, 22 FCC Rcd 4405 (Enf. Bur., 2007).

   See supra n. 4.

   Under Section 503(b)(6) of the Act,  47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6), we are
   prohibited from assessing a forfeiture for a violation that occurred more
   than a year before the issuance of a NAL. See also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4).
   Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar us from considering IT&E's prior
   conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations
   that occurred within the one-year statutory period. See Behringer USA,
   Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC Rcd
   1820, 1828 (2006), response pending; Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global
   Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd
   19893, 19903 (2003), forfeiture ordered, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006);
   Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669,
   9671-71 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion
   and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37, 37-38 (1967) recon. denied, 11 FCC 2d 193, 195
   (1967). Accordingly, while we take into account the continuous nature of
   the violations in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, our
   proposed forfeiture relates only to IT&E's apparent violations that have
   occurred within the past year.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1867

   7

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1867