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: June 11, 2008 Released: June 12, 2008

   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 eleven unsolicited advertisements to the telephone facsimile
       machines of five 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 $49,500.

   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, an
       "established business relationship" exception 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
       Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") issued a citation to RMG, pursuant to
       section 503(b)(5) of the Act. The Bureau cited RMG for using a
       telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device, to send
       unsolicited advertisements for health and life insurance and t-shirts
       with company logo to a telephone facsimile machine, in violation of
       section 227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders.
       The citation, which was 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 issuance of the citation. We base our action here
       specifically on complaints filed by five consumers establishing that
       RMG continued to send eleven 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 eleven unsolicited
       advertisements to the five consumers identified in the Appendix. This
       NAL is based on evidence that five consumers received unsolicited fax
       advertisements from RMG after the Bureau's citation. The facsimile
       transmissions advertise health and life insurance, and t-shirts with
       company logo. 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
       eleven unsolicited advertisements to five consumers' facsimile
       machines.

    B. Proposed Forfeiture

    7. We find that RMG is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount
       of $49,500. 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 the eleven apparent violations.
       Thus, a total forfeiture of $49,500 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 eleven unsolicited advertisements to the five consumers
       identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG
       Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of
       $49,500.

    9. 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,
       that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY
       FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $49,500 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 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). RMG will
   also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
   Johnny.drake@fcc.gov. 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.

   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. 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 RMG Communications, Attention: Greg Horne, 3401
   Norman Berry Drive, Suite 114, East Point, GA 30344, 6009 W. Parker Road,
   Suite 149-114, Plano, TX 75093, and 16901 Dallas Parkway, Addison, TX
   75001.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

                                    APPENDIX

                        Complainants and Violation Dates


     Complainant received facsimile   Violation Date(s)                      
     solicitations                                                           

     Drago, Paul                      6/13/07                                

     Wolf, Arthur                     6/24/07, 7/2/07, 7/12/07, 7/13/07      
                                      (2), 7/20/07, 7/23/07                  

     Brady, Ashley                    7/9/07                                 

     Montovani, Michael               8/2/07                                 

     Jacobs, Don                      8/19/07                                


   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, 6009 W. Parker Road, Suite 149-114, Plano, TX 75093, and
   16901 Dallas Parkway, Addison, TX 75001. 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: 64.1200(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
   instrumentalities for violations of the Act or of the Commission's rules
   and orders).

   Commission staff mailed the citation to the following addresses: 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.

   Following the issuance of the citation, the Commission continued to
   receive complaints from multiple consumers alleging that RMG faxed
   unsolicited advertisements to them. These complaints, received after the
   Commission's citation, resulted in the issuance of a Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture against RMG on September 10, 2007 in the amount
   of $71,500. RMG Communications,  Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, FCC-07-153 (September 10, 2007).

   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 June 24, 2007, from Arthur Wolf (stating that
   he has never purchased anything from the company being advertised in the
   fax or made an inquiry or application to the company or given consent for
   the company to send the fax). The complainants involved in this action are
   listed in the Appendix.

   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  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.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-150

   1

   2

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-150