Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


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-4518      
     Mechanicsville Telephone Company        NAL/Acct. No. 200732170041  
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       FRN: 0003748340             


   Adopted: September 30, 2010 Released: October 1, 2010

   By the Assistant Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division,
   Enforcement Bureau:

    1. In this Order, which follows upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for
       Forfeiture ("NAL"), we determine that no forfeiture penalty should be
       imposed on Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville

    2. On July 19, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL  in the amount
       of $100,000 to Mechanicsville Telephone for its apparent violation of
       the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a CPNI
       certification that complies with section 64.2009(e). Consistent with
       section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
       Mechanicsville Telephone was granted an opportunity to show, in
       writing, why no such forfeiture should be imposed.

    3. In response to the NAL, Mechanicsville Telephone provided evidence
       that it was in compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules.
       Accordingly, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed.

    4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and
       1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the

    5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
       Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to
       Mechanicsville Telephone Company to its address of record.


   Kimberly A. Wild

   Assistant Division Chief

   Telecommunications Consumers Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   In the Matter of Mechanicsville Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 13126 (2007) ("NAL").


   (...continued from previous page)


   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1846


   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1846