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-07-SE-141       
                                          )                               
     Pine Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a       NAL/Acct. No. 200732100033  
                                          )                               
     Pine Cellular Phones, Inc.               FRN # 0001699776            
                                          )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: May 21, 2007 Released:   May 22, 2007

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Pine Telephone Company d/b/a Pine Cellular Phones, Inc. ("Pine")
       apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(f) of the
       Commission's Rules ("Rules") by failing to comply with the labeling
       requirements for digital wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets. For
       Pine's apparent violations, and for the reasons discussed below, we
       propose a forfeiture in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars
       ($16,000).

   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 with reduced emission levels 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 wireless carriers (i.e.,
       carriers with national footprints). 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 the Wireless Hearing
       Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, addressing waiver requests filed by
       nineteen Tier II and Tier III wireless carriers, including Pine, for
       relief from the hearing-aid compatibility requirements for wireless
       digital telephones. In that Order, the Commission addressed each of
       the waiver petitions individually, and with respect to Pine, granted
       in part and denied in part its petition for limited waiver of Section
       20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) of the Commission's rules, filed September 16,
       2005, as amended on December 6, 2005. In its September 16, 2005,
       waiver petition, Pine sought a six-month waiver of the September 16,
       2005 compliance deadline, asserting that U3 rated GSM headsets were
       commercially unavailable. Pine also asserted its experience that, as a
       small Tier III wireless carrier lacking market power to deal directly
       with manufacturers, it could expect a several month delay in delivery
       of compliant handsets once they become available. Thereafter, on
       December 6, 2005, Pine amended its petition to request waiver "relief
       only until December 5, 2005," stating that it had obtained and was
       marketing two compliant GSM handsets.

    5. In Pine's April 14, 2006 letter to the Wireless Telecommunications
       Bureau, it indicated that as of December 5, 2005, the company achieved
       compliance with both the handset deployment and the labeling hearing
       aid-compatible requirements. However, in its May 17, 2006 Report, Pine
       stated that its two compliant GSM handsets (a Motorola and a Nokia
       model) did not include the U-rating label and did not include the
       associated insert information, as required under Section 20.19(f) of
       the Rules. Pine later explained that it erred in its April 14, 2006
       letter, having mistakenly identified the inclusion of text telephone
       ("TTY") labeling and instructive material for that of hearing
       aid-compatible information. Finally, in its November 17, 2006 Report,
       Pine stated that it was marketing two compliant GSM handsets (the
       Motorola V31 and the LG1400i, which replaced the prior Nokia model),
       and that both Motorola handsets include the appropriate U-rating
       labels and insert information.

    6. The Commission granted Pine a waiver nunc pro tunc of the September
       16, 2005 deadline by which it was required to comply with the handset
       deployment requirement under Section 20.19(c)(2)(ii) to December 5,
       2005, the date Pine offered two compliant handsets. The Commission
       found persuasive that "manufacturers and small carriers such as Pine
       had little time prior to the compliance deadline in which to obtain"
       compliant hearing aid-compatible GSM handsets, and that once available
       "such handsets often are not delivered to small carriers as quickly as
       they are delivered to larger carriers." The Commission further found
       that the waiver relief covered a relatively short period of
       non-compliance, and thus did not unduly deprive Pine's subscribers of
       access to hearing aid-compatible handsets.

    7. The Commission, however, found that Pine did not come into compliance
       with the labeling requirements for hearing aid-compatible hearing
       aid-compatible handsets "until sometime between May 25, 2006, and
       November 14, 2006." The Commission found that Pine failed to
       demonstrate unusual or unique circumstances, or the existence of any
       other factor, warranting relief from the labeling requirements for
       such a "protracted time" beyond December 5, 2005, the date by which it
       was offering certified compliant handsets. Specifically, the
       Commission found that Pine's efforts to comply with the hearing
       aid-compatible handset labeling requirements were not timely, and that
       Pine's placement of signs in display areas to alert customers of
       compliant hearing aid-compatible handsets did not meet, or excuse its
       failure to comply with, the packaging label and internal information
       requirements of Section 20.19(f). Thus, the Commission concluded that
       Pine did not make the requisite showing to justify a waiver of Section
       20.19(f) of the Rules, denied this aspect of the Pine Petition, and
       referred Pine's apparent violation to the Enforcement Bureau.

   III. Discussion

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

    8. Section 20.19(f) of the Rules provides that wireless digital 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 an insert with the packaging material for the
       handset by September 16, 2005. As stated above, in the Wireless
       Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order, the Commission determined that
       Pine 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 May 25, 2006 - almost six months beyond
       December 5, 2005, the date it was offering certified compliant
       handsets. Accordingly, we conclude that Pine apparently willfully and
       repeatedly failed to comply with the labeling requirements in
       violation of Section 20.19(f) of the Rules.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

    9. 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 Pine is apparently liable for forfeiture for
       its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 20.19(f) of
       the Rules.

   10. 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."

   11. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
       Rules do not 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. Consistent with our recent decision in
       a similar case, we view these violations as analogous and find that
       the $8,000 base forfeiture amount is appropriate for apparent
       violations of Section 20.19(f). We find that Pine failed to come into
       compliance with the labeling requirements for each of two handsets it
       was offering, until at least several months after the labeling
       requirements went into effect. Each such failure is a separate
       violation. Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $8,000 for each of
       Pine'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

   12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Pine Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a
       Pine Cellular Phones, 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.

   13.  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, Pine Cellular, Inc. SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   14. 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.

   15. 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.

   16. 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.

   17. 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.

   18.  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 Jerry Whisenhunt, Pine
       Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Pine Cellular Phones, Inc., P.O. Box
       548, Broken Bow, OK 74728 and to Michael R. Bennet, Bennet & Bennet,
       PLLC, 10 G Street, N.E., 7^th Floor, Washington, DC 20002.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

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

   The "labeling requirements" are two-part, mandating that the packaging for
   wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets display the technical rating of
   the handset and that an explanation of the technical rating system be
   included as an insert in the packaging material or incorporated in the
   owner's manual 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 Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order").

   Pine is the licensee of Cellular Station KNKB971 (Frequency Block B CMA605
   - Oklahoma - 10 - Haskell).

   See Pine Petition for Limited Waiver of Section 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) of
   the Commission's Rules (filed September 16, 2005) at 1-2.

   Id. at 5-7.

   Pine Amendment to Petition for Limited Waiver of Section
   20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) of the Commission's Rules (filed December 6, 2005) at
   1.

   See Letter from Michael R. Bennet, Esq., Bennet & Bennet, PLLC, to Angela
   E. Giancarlo, Associate Chief, Public Safety & Critical Infrastructure
   Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
   Commission (April 14, 2006) at 1 (stating that its marketed GSM handsets
   "are labeled with the performance ratings of the compliant phones and the
   associated packaging contains the technical specifications of the handset
   and description of the U-rating system").

   See Pine May 17, 2006 Report at 2.

   See Letter from Michael R. Bennet, Esq., Bennet & Bennet, PLLC, to David
   Siehl, Public Safety & Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (May 25,
   2006) at 1 (stating that Pine contacted the manufacturers to obtain the
   package labels and inserts after it learned that its GSM handsets lacked
   the hearing aid-compatible information, and in an effort to inform its
   customers which handsets are hearing aid-compatible compliant, it placed
   signs in its display areas).

   Pine November 17, 2006 Report at 2.

   Wireless Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order at P 21.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id. at P 22.

   Id.

   Id. See supra n. 21.

   Wireless Hearing Aid-Compatible Waiver Order at P 22.

   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, aff'd, 20 FCC Rcd
   at 11238-39.

   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.

   See IT&E Overseas, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA
   07-1867 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. April 25, 2007).

   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 Pine'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 Pine'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 07-2118

   7

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2118