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-260
)
AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a Blue Sky NAL/Acct. No. 200832100017
Communications )
FRN # 0007435902
)
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: February 26, 2008 Released: February 27, 2008
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a Blue Sky Communications ("Blue Sky")
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(d)(2) of
the Commission's Rules ("Rules") by failing to include in its digital
wireless handset offerings at least two models that meet the inductive
coupling standards for hearing aid compatibility by September 18,
2006. For Blue Sky's apparent violations, and for the reasons
discussed below, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen
thousand hundred dollars ($15,000).
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted
several measures to enhance the ability of individuals with hearing
disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications. The
Commission established technical standards that digital wireless
handsets must meet to be considered compatible with hearing aids
operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil)
modes. Specifically, the Commission adopted a standard for radio
frequency interference (the "U3" or "M3" rating) to enable acoustic
coupling between digital wireless phones and hearing aids operating in
acoustic coupling mode, and a separate standard (the "U3T" or "T3"
rating) to enable inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in
telecoil mode. The Commission further established, for each standard,
deadlines by which manufacturers and service providers were required
to offer specified numbers or percentages of digital wireless handsets
per air interface that are compliant with the relevant standard if
they did not come under the de minimis exception. The Commission
required that manufacturers and service providers begin making
commercially available at least two handset models per air interface
that meet the U3 or M3 rating for radio frequency interference by
September 16, 2005. The Commission also required that manufacturers
and service providers make commercially available at least two handset
models per air interface that meet the U3T or T3 rating for inductive
coupling by September 18, 2006. In connection with the offer of
hearing aid-compatible handset models, the Commission further 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.
3. In order to monitor the availability of these handsets, 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, and then annually thereafter through the fifth year of
implementation.
4. In its November 17, 2006 report, Blue Sky indicated that it had
available for sale two handset models that comply with the standard
for radio frequency interference set forth in Section 20.19(b)(1) of
the Rules. Blue Sky did not address its compliance with the inductive
coupling compatibility requirements in the report. Subsequently, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau referred the matter to the
Enforcement Bureau for investigation into whether Blue Sky was in
compliance with the inductive coupling compatibility requirements.
5. On August 13, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of
the Enforcement Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Blue Sky.
In its response, Blue Sky asserted that it began offering for sale one
inductive coupling-compliant handset, the Motorola V3i, on September
1, 2006. Blue Sky further asserted that it began offering for sale one
additional inductive coupling-compliant handset, the Sony Ericsson
Z710, on March 1, 2007.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Offer For Sale Two Hearing Aid Compatible Handsets
6. Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules requires digital wireless service
providers to begin offering for sale at least two handsets models for
each air interface that meet at least a T3 rating for inductive
coupling by September 18, 2006. Blue Sky began offering for sale one
inductive coupling-compliant handset prior to the September 18, 2006
deadline. Blue Sky admits that it did not offer for sale a second
inductive coupling-compliant handset until March 1, 2007. Accordingly,
we conclude that Blue Sky apparently willfully and repeatedly failed
to comply with Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
7. 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 Blue Sky is apparently liable for forfeiture
for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(d)(2)
of the Rules.
8. 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."
9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the
hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19
of the Rules. 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. 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.
10. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the
hearing aid compatibility handset requirements, we take into account
that these requirements serve to ensure that individuals with hearing
disabilities have access to digital wireless telecommunications
services. In adopting the hearing aid compatibility rules, the
Commission underscored the strong and immediate need for such access,
stressing that individuals with hearing impairments should not be
denied the public safety and convenience benefits of digital wireless
telephony. Moreover, as the Commission has noted, the demand for
hearing aid-compatible handsets is likely to increase with the growing
reliance on wireless technology and with the increasing median age of
our population.
11. We note that in a recent decision, a base forfeiture amount of $15,000
per handset was established for violations of the hearing aid
compatibility handset requirements. This base forfeiture amount was
based on a determination that a significantly higher base forfeiture
amount is warranted for violations of the hearing aid compatibility
handset requirements than for violations of the labeling requirements
for wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets. In reaching this
determination, we found that a violation of the labeling requirements,
while serious because it deprives hearing aid users from making
informed choices, is less egregious than a violation of the handset
requirements because failure to make compliant handsets available
actually deprives hearing aid users from accessing digital wireless
communications. Further, because providers were required to offer at
least two handset models that meet at least a T3 rating for inductive
coupling, we determined that a proposed forfeiture for violation of
these requirements should be applied on a per handset basis.
Accordingly, we impose a base forfeiture amount of $15,000 per handset
for violation of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements.
12. Blue Sky offered only one handset that met a T3 rating for inductive
coupling by September 18, 2006. Blue Sky did not come into compliance
with the inductive coupling compatibility requirements by offering a
second compliant handset until March 1, 2007. Moreover, Blue Sky did
not seek a waiver of the September 18, 2006 deadline, nor did it make
a showing of good faith, diligent efforts to come into compliance.
Although Blue Sky's failure to offer two handsets that meet the FCC's
inductive coupling compatibility requirements is a continuing
violation for purposes of determining an appropriate forfeiture, we
exercise our prosecutorial discretion in light of the limited period
of time of the violation and decline to assess a forfeiture on a
continuing violation basis in this case. We also note that Blue Sky is
a Tier III carrier, i.e., a wireless radio service provider with
500,000 or fewer subscribers. Accordingly, Blue Sky is apparently
liable for a $15,000 forfeiture for failing to comply with the
inductive coupling compatibility requirements in willful and repeated
violation of Section 20.19(d)(2).
IV. ORDERING clauses
13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a Blue Sky
Communications IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE
in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for willful and
repeated violation of Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.
14. 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, AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a Blue Sky
Communications SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or
SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of
the proposed forfeiture.
15. 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/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer --
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
regarding payment procedures.
16. 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.
17. 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.
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 Jeff Harlow, AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a Blue
Sky Communications, 1500 Cordova Road, Suite 312, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
33322, and to its counsel, Michael Bennet, Esq. and Kenneth Johnson,
Esq., Bennet & Bennet PLLC, 4350 East West Highway, Suite 201,
Bethesda, MD 20814.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(2).
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"); Order on
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
11221 (2005) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order"). The
Commission adopted these requirements for digital wireless telephones
under the authority 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 16777 P: 56; 47 C.F.R.
S: 20.19(b)(1), (2). The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order described the
acoustic coupling and the inductive (telecoil) coupling modes as follows:
In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding sounds,
desired and undesired, and converts them into electrical signals. The
electrical signals are amplified as needed and then converted back into
electrical signals. In telecoil mode, with the microphone turned off, the
telecoil picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field generated by the
voice coil of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible telephones,
audio loop systems, or powered neck loops. The hearing aid converts the
magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies them as needed, and
converts them back into sound via the speaker. Using a telecoil avoids the
feedback that often results from putting a hearing aid up against a
telephone earpiece, can help prevent exposure to over amplification, and
eliminates background noise, providing improved access to the telephone.
Id. at 16763 P: 22.
Section 20.19(b)(1) provides that a wireless handset is deemed hearing
aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, at minimum, it
receives a U3 rating as set forth in "American National Standard for
Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications
Devices and Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19-2001." 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1).
Section 20.19(b)(2) provides that a wireless handset is deemed hearing
aid-compatible for inductive coupling if, at minimum, it receives a U3T
rating as set forth in ANSI C63.19-2001. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(2). 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 C63.19-2005. 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). On June 6, 2006, the Commission's Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology
announced that the Commission would also certify handsets as hearing
aid-compatible based on the revised version of the standard, ANSI
C63.19-2006. Thus, applicants for certification may rely on either the
2001 version, the 2005 version, or the 2006 version of the ANSI C63.19
standard. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering
and Technology Clarify Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid
Compatibility Standard, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6384 (WTB/OET 2006). In
addition, since the 2005 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 Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration
Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11238 P: 33.
The term "air interface" refers to the technical protocol that ensures
compatibility between mobile radio service equipment, such as handsets,
and the service provider's base stations. Currently, the leading air
interfaces include Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for
Mobile Communications (GSM), Integrated Dispatch Enhanced Network (iDEN),
Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and Wideband Code Division Multiple
Access (WCDMA) a/k/a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 P: 65; 47 C.F.R.
S:S: 20.19(c), (d). The de minimis exception provides that manufacturers
or mobile service providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless
handset models per air interface are exempt from the hearing aid
compatibility requirements and manufacturers or service providers that
offer three digital wireless handset models per air interface must offer
at least one compliant model. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 P: 65; see also
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 P: 65; see also
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785 P:P: 83, 85-86;
see also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(f).
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 P: 89; see also
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Hearing Aid Compatibility
Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, Public
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 2004).
AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a Blue Sky Communications Hearing Aid Compatibility
Report, WT Docket No. 01-309, November 17, 2006 ("November 17, 2006
Report"), at 1. Specifically, Blue Sky indicated that it was offering the
Motorola V3 and V220 handset models that were "certified by the FCC's
Office of Engineering and Technology as M-rated hearing aid compatible."
Id.
Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, to Harley L. Rollins, Blue Sky Communications (August
13, 2007).
Letter from Michael Bennet, Esq., Bennet & Bennet, PLLC, counsel to Blue
Sky to Kathryn Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
Bureau (August 28, 2007) ("LOI Response"), at 2. Blue Sky stated that in
its November 17, 2006 Report, it erroneously identified the model number
of one of the handsets as the Motorola V3 instead of the Motorola V3i. Id.
Id.
Blue Sky clarified in its LOI response that it began offering the Motorola
V3i, and not the Motorola V3 as reported in its November 17, 2006 Report,
on September 1, 2006. Id. Motorola obtained a grant of equipment
certification for the Motorola V3i under FCC ID IHDT56GW1 on August 3,
2006.
Blue Sky stated that it began offering the Sony Ericsson Z710 on March 1,
2007. On November 21, 2006, Sony Ericsson was granted a Class II
permissive change for the Z710 which updated the hearing aid compatibility
rating for the Z710 from M3 to T3 under FCC ID PY7AF052041.
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,
97th 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 P: 5 (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 P: 9 (2001);
Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 P: 5.
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 P: 4 (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 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy
Statement").
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P: 22.
See id.
Id. at 16755 P: 4.
Id. at 16786 P: 5 (noting that approximately one in ten Americans, 28
million, have some level of hearing loss, that the proportion increases
with age, and that the number of those affected will likely grow as the
median age increases). See also Report on the Status of Implementation of
the Commission's Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements, Report, 22 FCC
Rcd 17709, 17719 P: 20 (2007) (noting, just four years later, that the
number of individuals with hearing loss in the United States was "at an
all time high of 31 million - with that number expected to reach
approximately 40 million at the end of this decade").
See South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 20, 24-25 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) ("South Canaan").
The Enforcement Bureau has established a base forfeiture amount of $8,000
for violation of the labeling requirements for wireless hearing
aid-compatible handsets. See e.g., South Central Utah Telephone
Association, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd
19251 P: 10 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response pending; Pine
Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22
FCC Rcd 9205, 9210 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response
pending; IT&E Overseas, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
22 FCC Rcd 7660, 7665 P: 10 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response
pending.
South Canaan, 23 FCC Rcd at 24.
In its LOI Response, Blue Sky asserted that it planned to file "in the
near future" a petition for temporary and limited waiver of the September
18, 2006 deadline; however, to date no such filing has been received by
the Commission.
We caution Blue Sky and other carriers that future enforcement actions may
consider all failures to comply with our hearing aid compatibility rules,
including the inductive coupling requirements, as continuing violations
for purposes of calculating appropriate forfeiture amounts.
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 P:P:
22-24 (2002).
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 notice of apparent liability for
forfeiture. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar us from considering
Blue Sky'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, 1827 P: 20 (2006), forfeiture ordered, 22 FCC Rcd
10451 (2007) (forfeiture paid); Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global
Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd
19893, 19903 P: 23(2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd
4710 (2006); Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd
9669, 9671-71 P: 8 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 P: 7 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37, 37-38 P: 3 (1967) recon.
denied, 11 FCC 2d 193, 195 P: 6 (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
Blue Sky's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year.
(Continued from previous page ...)
(continued ...)
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-463
5
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-463