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