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-06-TC-250       
                                                                         
     RMG Communications                  )   NAL/Acct. No. 200732170075  
                                                                         
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture   )   FRN: 0016773590             
                                                                         
                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted:  August 28, 2007     Released:  September 10, 2007

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that RMG Communications ("RMG") apparently willfully or repeatedly
       violated section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       ("Act"), and the Commission's related rules and orders, by delivering
       at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the telephone facsimile
       machines of at least 4 consumers. Based on the facts and circumstances
       surrounding these apparent violations, we find that RMG is apparently
       liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act makes it "unlawful for any person
       within the United States, or any person outside the United States if
       the recipient is within the United States . . . to use any telephone
       facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone
       facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement."  The term
       "unsolicited advertisement" is defined in the Act and the Commission's
       rules as "any material advertising the commercial availability or
       quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to
       any person without that person's prior express invitation or
       permission in writing or otherwise." Under the Commission's Rules,
       there is an "established business relationship" exception that permits
       a party to deliver a message to a consumer if the sender has an
       established business relationship with the recipient and the sender
       obtained the number of the facsimile machine through the voluntary
       communication by the recipient, directly to the sender, within the
       context of the established business relationship, or through a
       directory, advertisement, or a site on the Internet to which the
       recipient voluntarily agreed to make available its facsimile number
       for public distribution.

    3. On September 9, 2006, in response to one or more consumer complaints
       alleging that RMG  had faxed unsolicited advertisements, the
       Commission staff issued a citation to RMG, pursuant to section
       503(b)(5) of the Act. The staff cited RMG Communications  for using a
       telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device, to send
       unsolicited advertisements for various services  to a telephone
       facsimile machine, in violation of section 227 of the Act and the
       Commission's related rules and orders. The citation, which the staff
       served by certified mail, return receipt requested, warned  RMG 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 RMG that within 30  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. RMG 
       did not request an interview or otherwise respond to the citation.

    4. Despite the citation's  warning that subsequent violations could
       result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures, we have received
       additional consumer complaints indicating that RMG  continued to
       engage in such conduct after receiving the citation.  We base our
       action here specifically on complaints  filed by  4  consumers
       establishing that RMG  continued to send  11  unsolicited
       advertisements to telephone facsimile machines after the date of the
       citation.

    5. 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 Restricting Unsolicited Facsimile
   Advertisements

    6. We find that RMG apparently violated section 227 of the Act and the
       Commission's related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile
       machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited
       advertisements to the 4 consumers identified in the Appendix. This NAL
       is based on evidence that the consumers received unsolicited fax
       advertisements from RMG after the Bureau's citation. The facsimile
       transmissions advertise various services, including health insurance.
       Further, according to the complaints, the consumers  neither had an
       established business relationship with RMG,  nor gave RMG  permission
       to send the facsimile transmissions.  The faxes at issue here
       therefore fall within the definition of an "unsolicited
       advertisement."  Based on the entire record, including the consumer
       complaints, we conclude that RMG apparently violated section 227 of
       the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by sending 11
       unsolicited advertisements to 4 consumers' facsimile machines.

    B. Proposed Forfeiture

    7. We find that RMG is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount
       of $71,500.  Although the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement
       does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the
       prohibition against using a telephone facsimile machine to send
       unsolicited advertisements, the Commission has previously considered
       $4,500 per unsolicited fax advertisement to be an appropriate base
       amount. We apply that base amount to each of 7 of the apparent
       violations. In addition, where the consumer requests the company to
       stop sending facsimile messages, and the company continues to send
       them, the Commission has previously considered $10,000 per unsolicited
       fax advertisement the appropriate forfeiture for such egregious
       violations. Here, 1 consumer specifically requested that RMG cease
       sending facsimiles. Notwithstanding these requests, an additional 4
       facsimiles were sent to that consumer. Thus, we apply the $10,000
       amount to each of 4 of the apparent violations. Thus, a total
       forfeiture of $71,500 is proposed. RMG 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

    8. We have determined that RMG Communications apparently violated section
       227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by using
       a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at
       least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 4 consumers identified in
       the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500.

    9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and
       section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b),
       that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY
       FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $71,500 (seventy-one thousand five
       hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section
       227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
       sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
       64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
       above.

   10. 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, RMG Communications
       SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
       written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture.

   11. 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.
       200732170075.

   12. 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.

   13. 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.

   14. 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.

   15. 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 RMG Communications, Attention: Greg Horne, 3401 Norman
       Berry Drive, Suite 114, East Point, GA 30344, and 6009 W. Parker Road,
       Suite 149-114, Plano, TX 75093.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

                                    APPENDIX


     Complainant sent facsimile   Violation Date(s)                          
     solicitations                                                           

     Pankaj Parikh                4/4/2007; 4/5/2007; 4/10/2007; 2/10/2007;  
                                  4/24/2007                                  

     Garry Jaffe                  2/15/2007                                  

     James Friedman               2/18/2007                                  



     Complainant was sent facsimile solicitations      Violation Date(s)     
     after requesting no more be sent                                        

     Robert Josefek                                    10/16/06; 12/13/06/;  
                                                       12/26/06/; 1/10/07    


   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).

   RMG Communications has  offices at 3401 Norman Berry Drive, Suite 114,
   East Point, GA 30344, and 6009 W. Parker Road, Suite 149-114, Plano, TX
   75093. Greg Horne is listed as the contact person for RMG. Accordingly,
   all references in this NAL to RMG  also encompass the foregoing individual
   and all other principals and officers of this entity, as well as the
   corporate entity itself.

   See  47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3);  see also 
   Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
   of 1991, Report and  Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd
   3787 (2006).

   47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3).

   47 U.S.C. S:227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S:64.1200 (f)(13).

   An "established business relationship" is defined as a prior or existing
   relationship formed by a voluntary two-way communication "with or without
   an exchange of consideration, on the basis of an inquiry, application,
   purchase or transaction by the business or residential subscriber
   regarding products or services offered by such person or entity, which
   relationship has not been previously terminated by either party." 47
   C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(5).

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64 (a)(3)(i), (ii).

   Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-06-TC-250, issued to
   RMG Communications on September 9, 2006.

   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 3401 Norman Berry Drive, Suite
   114, East Point, GA 30344, and 6009 W. Parker Road, Suite 149-114, Plano,
   TX 75093. See n.2, supra.

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

   We note that evidence of additional instances of unlawful conduct by RMG
   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, e.g., complaint dated Feb. 18, 2007, from James Friedman (stating
   that the fax was an advertisement for health insurance, that the fax was
   unsolicited, and that the complainant has no business relationship with
   the fax sender). The complainants involved in this action are listed in
   the Appendix below.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(13) (definition
   previously at S: 64.1200(f)(10)).

   See  Get-Aways, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture, 15 FCC
   Rcd 1805 (1999); Get-Aways, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4843
   (2000); see also US Notary, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 15 Rcd 16999 (2000); US Notary, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC
   Rcd 18398 (2001); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
   For Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 11295 (2000); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc.,
   Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23198 (2000).

   See Carolina Liquidators, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 15 FCC 16,837, 16,842 (2000); 21st Century Fax(es) Ltd., AKA
   20th Century Fax(es), 15 FCC Rcd 24,406, 24,411 (2000).

   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 FCC 07-153

   1

   2

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-153