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-03-TC-144       
                                                                         
     See Through Windows & Doors LLC     )   NAL/Acct. No. 200832170005  
                                                                         
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture   )   FRN: 0017132275             
                                                                         
                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: November 16, 2007   Released:  November 16, 2007

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that See Through Windows & Doors LLC ("See Through Windows")
       apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 64.1200(c)(2) of
       the Commission's rules, by making two telephone calls for the purpose
       of delivering telephone solicitations to two residential telephone
       consumers who had registered their telephone numbers on the National
       Do-Not-Call Registry. Based on the facts and circumstances surrounding
       these apparent violations, we find that See Through Windows is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000.

   II. BACKGROUND

   2. Section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules generally prohibits the
   delivery of telephone solicitations to residential telephone numbers that
   are contained in the National Do-Not-Call Registry, except in certain
   limited situations. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
   ("Act"), and the Commission's rules, a "telephone solicitation" means "the
   initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging
   the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services,
   which is transmitted to any person." Not every promotional call, however,
   constitutes a prohibited telephone solicitation under this rule. Calls
   made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization are not
   considered to be telephone solicitations. Similarly, calls that are made
   to a person who either has provided prior express invitation or permission
   to call or has an established business relationship with the caller are
   not considered to be telephone solicitations. In addition to these
   statutory exemptions, section 64.1200(c)(2)(iii) also permits telephone
   solicitations to National Do-Not-Call registrants in the limited situation
   in which the caller has a personal relationship with the called party.

    3. Entities making telephone solicitations must honor do-not-call
       registrations no later than 31 days after a number is placed on the
       National Do-Not-Call Registry, and for a period of no less than five
       years. To accomplish this, section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(D) requires
       entities making telephone solicitations to use a version of the
       National Do-Not-Call Registry obtained no more than 31 days before any
       telephone solicitation is made, and to document this process. An
       entity that does not claim one of the exemptions set forth above is
       not liable for calling a telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call
       Registry only if it is able to demonstrate both that it has fully
       complied with the Commission's standards governing use of the National
       Do-Not-Call Registry as set out in section 64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A)-(E) of
       the rules, and that the particular telephone solicitation call was the
       result of specific error.

    4. In order to comply with the Commission's standards, a person or entity
       initiating a telephone solicitation must first demonstrate that, as
       part of its routine business practice it has: (1) established and
       implemented written procedures to comply with the do-not-call rules;
       (2) trained its personnel, and any entity assisting in its compliance,
       in the procedures established pursuant to the do-not-call rules; (3)
       maintained and recorded a list of telephone numbers the seller may not
       contact; (4) used a process to prevent telemarketing to any telephone
       number on any list established pursuant to the do-not-call rules
       employing a version of the National Do-Not-Call Registry obtained from
       the administrator of the Registry within a designated time frame, and
       has maintained records documenting this process; and (5) used a
       process to ensure that it does not sell, rent, lease, purchase, or use
       the Registry for any purpose except national do-not-call compliance,
       and that it has purchased access to the Registry from the Registry
       administrator without participating in any cost sharing arrangement
       with any other entity. We reiterate, however, that the "safe harbor"
       from liability only applies if such person or entity is able to show
       that the particular violative calls made in spite of adherence to the
       enumerated do-not-call procedures were the result of specific error.

   5. On July 2, 2004, in response to one or more consumer complaints
   alleging that See Through Windows had made telephone calls for the purpose
   of delivering telephone solicitations to residential telephone consumers
   who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
   Registry, the Commission staff issued a citation to See Through Windows,
   pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act. The staff cited See Through
   Windows for delivering one or more telephone solicitations to residential
   telephone consumers who had registered their telephone numbers on the
   National Do-Not-Call Registry, in violation of section 64.1200(c)(2) of
   the Commission's rules. The citation, which the staff served by certified
   mail, return receipt requested, warned See Through Windows that subsequent
   violations could result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures of up to
   $11,000 per violation, and included a copy of the consumer complaints that
   formed the basis of the citation. The citation informed See Through
   Windows that within 30 (thirty) days of the date of the citation, it could
   either request an interview with Commission staff, or could provide a
   written statement responding to the citation. By letters dated December 8,
   2003, February 28, 2004 and May 24, 2004, See Through Windows informed the
   Commission that technical problems prevented See Through Windows from
   accessing the Registry and that it would correct this issue.

   6. Despite the citation's warning that subsequent violations could result
   in the imposition of monetary forfeitures, we have received additional
   consumer complaints indicating that See Through Windows continued to
   engage in such conduct after receiving the citation. On February 9, 2007
   and July 6, 2007, the Commission staff sent letters of inquiry (LOIs) to
   See Through Windows in order to further investigate the alleged
   violations. See Through Windows responded to the LOIs on March 1, 2007,
   August 3, 2007, and August 13, 2007. After review of See Through Windows'
   responses to the LOIs, we base our action here specifically on complaints
   filed by two consumers establishing that See Through Windows continued to
   deliver two telephone solicitations after the date of the citation to 2
   consumers who had registered their telephone numbers on the National
   Do-Not-Call Registry.

   7. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
   forfeiture of up to $11,000 for each 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. 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."

   III. DISCUSSION

    A. Violations of the Commission's Rules

   8. We find that See Through Windows apparently violated section
   64.1200(c)(2) of the Commission's rules and orders by delivering at least
   two telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the
   Appendix who had registered their telephone numbers on the National
   Do-Not-Call registry. This NAL is based on evidence that two consumers who
   had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
   registry received telephone solicitations from See Through Windows after
   the Commission staff's citation. In its responses to the Commission's
   LOIs, See Through Windows has not contested that the calls at issue
   advertise a product or service. Hence the calls fall within the definition
   of a "telephone solicitation."   Further, we find that the calls at issue
   here were not made on behalf of a tax exempt, nonprofit organization. In
   addition, according to the complaints and subsequently filed responses by
   See Through Windows, the consumers  neither had an established business
   relationship with nor gave the  company prior express invitation or
   permission to deliver the telephone solicitations. Finally, See Through
   Windows made the calls at issue more than thirty-one (31) days after the
   consumers placed their residential telephone numbers on the National
   Do-Not-Call Registry. Based on the entire record, including the consumer
   complaints, we conclude that See Through Windows apparently violated
   section 64.1200(c)(2) the Commission's rules by delivering 2  telephone
   solicitations to 2 consumers who had registered their telephone numbers on
   the National Do-Not-Call registry

   .

    B. Proposed Forfeiture

   9. We find that See Through Windows is apparently liable for a forfeiture
   in the amount of $20,000. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement
   does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the prohibition
   on making telephone solicitations to customers who have registered on the
   National Do-Not-Call Registry. The Commission has found that a national
   do-not-call violation implicates the same concern as a violation of the
   company specific do-not-call rules and, accordingly, justifies the
   application of the $10,000 base amount that the Commission previously
   proposed for company specific do-not call violations. We apply that base
   amount to each of the 2 apparent telephone solicitation violations. Thus,
   we propose a total forfeiture of $20,000. See Through Windows will have
   the opportunity to submit 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

   10. We have determined that See Through Windows apparently violated
   section 64.1200(c)(a) of the Commission's rules by delivering at least two
   Telephone solicitations to the two consumers identified in the Appendix
   who had registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
   registry. We have further determined that See Through Windows is
   apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $20,000.

   11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47
       U.S.C.

   S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, and under the
   authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules,
   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that See Through Windows is hereby NOTIFIED
   of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for
   willful or repeated violations of section 64.1200(c)(2) of the
   Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.

   S: 64.1200(c)(2), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
   above.

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
   Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, See Through Windows 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 by check or money order, payable to the order of the "Federal
   Communications Commission," may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection
   Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
   358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
   Mellon Client Service Center, 500 Ross Street, Room 670, Pittsburgh, PA
   15262-0001, Attn: FCC Module Supervisor. Payment by wire transfer may be
   made to: ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
   number 911-6229. The payment should note NAL/Acct. No. 200832170005.

   14. The response, if any, must be mailed both to the Office of the
   Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
   Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, and to Colleen Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
   445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, 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 this Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture under an installment plan should be sent to:
   Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, SW,
   Washington, DC 20554.

   17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
   See Through Windows, Attention: Charles Brown, 231 Westhampton Place,
   Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743 and See Through Windows' counsel, Johanson
   Berenson LLP, Attention: Kevin M. Tierney, 1350 Beverly Road, Suite 115,
   PMB 208, McLean, Virginia 22101.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kris Anne Monteith

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

                                    APPENDIX


     Complainant received telephone solicitations after   Violation Date(s)  
     registering on the National Do-Not-Call Registry                        

     Bob Baltz                                            02/28/2007         

     Cynthia Carmichael                                   12/1/2006          


   See 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 ...." See also 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 does not hold a license, permit,
   certificate or other authorization issued by the Commission or an
   applicant for any of those listed instrumentalities so long as such person
   (A) 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).

   According to publicly available information, See Through Windows is also
   doing business as See-Thru Windows LLC. All references in this NAL to See
   Through Windows encompass See-Thru Windows LLC as well as any other
   affiliated entities. See Through Windows & Doors LLC has  offices at 231
   Westhampton Place, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743; 231 Westhampton Place,
   Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743; 2640 Crain Highway, Waldorf, Maryland
   20601; 4004 Walney Road, Chantilly, Virginia 20151; and 12468 Dillingham
   Square, Lake Ridge, Virginia 22192. Charles Brown, Owner, is listed as the
   contact person for See Through Windows. Accordingly, all references in
   this NAL to See Through Windows also encompass the foregoing individual
   and all other principals and officers of this entity, as well as the
   corporate entity itself.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2).

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2).

   47 U.S.C. S:227(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. S:64.1200(f)(12).

   Id.

   Section 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) of our rules requires that prior express
   invitation or permission "must be evidenced by a signed, written agreement
   between the consumer and seller which states that the consumer agrees to
   be contacted by this seller and includes the telephone number to which the
   calls may be placed." 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(c)(2)(ii).

   For Do-Not-Call purposes, the term "established business relationship"
   means "a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way
   communication between a person or entity and a residential subscriber with
   or without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of the subscriber's
   purchase or transaction with the entity within the eighteen (18) months
   immediately preceding the date of the telephone call or on the basis of
   the subscriber's inquiry or application regarding products or services
   offered by the entity within the three months immediately preceding the
   date of the call, which relationship has not been previously terminated by
   either party." 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4). The established business
   relationship exception does not apply when a telephone subscriber has made
   a company-specific do-not-call request. A company-specific do-not-call
   request terminates an established business relationship for telemarketing
   purposes even if the requester continues to do business with the company.
   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(4)(i); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing
   the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC
   Rcd 14014, 14070, para. 96 (2003); Rules and Regulations Implementing the
   Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd
   8752, 8766 n.47, 8770 n.63 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess.,
   102nd Cong. at 15 (1991); Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc., 95
   Ohio St. 3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002).

   The term "personal relationship" means "any family member, friend, or
   acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call." 47 C.F.R. S:
   64.1200(f)(14).

   The 31-day requirement applies to telephone solicitations made on or after
   January 1, 2005. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
   Protection Act of 1991, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19215 (2004). Previously, the
   Commission's rules provided that do-not-call registrations had to be
   honored within 3 months. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone
   Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014,
   14040, para. 38 (2003). The 3-month provision applied to telephone
   solicitations made before January 1, 2005.

   47 C.F.R. S:64.1200(c0(2)(1)(A)-(E).

   Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-03-TC-144, issued to
   See Through Windows on July 2, 2004.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5) (authorizing the Commission to issue citations
   to persons who do not hold a license, permit, certificate or other
   authorization issued by the Commission or an applicant for any of those
   listed instrumentalities for violations of the Act or of the Commission's
   rules and orders).

   Commission staff mailed the citation to 1350 Beverly Road, Suite 115, PMB
   208, McLean, Virginia 22101; 3101 Hubbard Road, Landover, Maryland 20785;
   and 11132a Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. See n.2, supra.

   Letters dated December 8, 2004; February 28, 2004; and May 24, 2004 from
   D.S. Berenson, L.C., Johanson Berenson LLP to Kurt Schroeder, Deputy
   Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, File No. EB-04-TC-144.

   See Appendix for a listing of the consumer complaints against See Through
   Windows requesting Commission action.

   Letters from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-03-TC-144 to See Through
   Windows, dated February 9, 2007 and July 6, 2007.

   Letters dated March 1, 2007, August 3, 2007 and August 13, 2007 from Kevin
   M. Tierney, Johanson Berenson LLP to Kurt Schroeder, Deputy Chief,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, File No. EB-03-TC-144.

   We note that evidence of additional instances of unlawful conduct by See
   Through Windows may form the basis of subsequent enforcement action.

   Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures up to $10,000 for each
   violation in cases not covered by subparagraph (A) or (B), which address
   forfeitures for violations by licensees and common carriers, among others.
   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). In accordance with the inflation adjustment
   requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,
   Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321, the Commission implemented an
   increase of the maximum statutory forfeiture under section 503(b)(2)(C) to
   $11,000. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
   Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000); see also Amendment of Section 1.80(b)
   of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (this recent amendment of section
   1.80(b) to reflect inflation left the forfeiture maximum for this type of
   violator at $11,000).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D); The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement
   and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
   Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01 para. 27 (1997)
   (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(12).

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

   Dynasty Mortgage, LLC, Order of Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9453, 9469, para.
   43 (2007).

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4652

   3

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4652