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


                                         )                                
                                                                          
                                         )   File Nos.: EB-08-TC-998      
     In the Matter of                                                     
                                         )   EB-07-TC-5233                
     The Street Map Company                                               
                                         )   NAL/Acct. No.: 201132170002  
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture                                    
                                         )   FRN: 0020318242              
                                                                          
                                         )                                


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: May 27, 2011 Released: June 1, 2011

   By the Commission: Commissioner Baker not participating.

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that The Street Map Company ("Street Map") apparently willfully and
       repeatedly violated section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of
       1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or "Act"), and section
       64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, by delivering 51 unsolicited
       advertisements, or "junk faxes," to the telephone facsimile machines
       of 48 consumers. Based on the facts and circumstances surrounding
       these apparent violations, we find that Street Map is apparently
       liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $315,500.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") was enacted by
       Congress to address problems of abusive telemarketing, including junk
       faxes. Unsolicited faxes often impose unwanted burdens on the called
       party, including costs of paper and ink, and making fax machines
       unavailable for legitimate business messages. 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...."

    3. On February 5, 2008, in response to consumer complaints alleging that
       Street Map had faxed unsolicited advertisements, the Bureau issued a
       citation to Street Map, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act. The
       Bureau cited Street Map for using a telephone facsimile machine,
       computer, or other device, to send unsolicited advertisements to a
       telephone facsimile machine, in violation of section 227(b)(1)(C) of
       the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. The
       citation informed Street Map that within 30 days of the date of the
       citation, it could either request an interview with Commission staff,
       or provide a written statement responding to the citation. Street Map
       did not respond to this citation.

    4. Despite the citation's warning that subsequent violations could result
       in the imposition of monetary forfeitures, we have continued to
       receive additional consumer complaints indicating that Street Map
       continued to send junk faxes after issuance of the citation. Eleven of
       these complaints resulted in the Commission issuing an NAL against
       Street Map on November 10, 2010, and proposing a forfeiture in the
       amount of $55,000. The November 2010 NAL ordered Street Map either to
       pay the proposed forfeiture within thirty days or to submit evidence
       or arguments to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some
       lesser amount should be assessed. To date, Street Map has neither paid
       the forfeiture proposed nor responded to the November 2010 NAL.

    5. In addition to the complaints forming the basis of the November 2010
       NAL, the Commission has received still more complaints. Specifically,
       the Commission has received additional complaints filed by 48
       consumers, alleging that Street Map sent at least 51 additional
       unsolicited advertisements not accounted for in the November 2010 NAL
       to telephone facsimile machines between June 5, 2010 and November 30,
       2010.

   III. DISCUSSION

          A. Apparent Violations of Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and the
             Commission's Rules Restricting Unsolicited Facsimile
             Advertisements

    6. In this NAL, we find that Street Map has again apparently violated
       section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of our rules
       by using a facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send
       unsolicited advertisements to consumers. Each of the consumers listed
       in the Appendix has provided evidence that Street Map apparently used
       a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send the
       consumer one or more unsolicited advertisements for maps. Further,
       according to the complaints, the consumers did not have an established
       business relationship with Street Map, and did not give Street Map
       permission to send the facsimile transmissions. Based on the entire
       record, including the consumer complaints, we therefore conclude that
       Street Map has apparently violated section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and
       section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending 51
       unsolicited advertisements to 48 consumers' facsimile machines.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

    7. After we have first issued a citation to an entity, as we have in this
       case, section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to propose a
       forfeiture for each subsequent violation of the Act, or of any rule,
       regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. Section
       503(b)(2)(E) mandates that, "[i]n determining the amount of such a
       forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee shall 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." Our forfeiture guidelines set
       forth the base amount for penalties for certain kinds of violations,
       and identify criteria, consistent with the section 503(b)(2)(E)
       factors, that may influence whether we adjust the base amount downward
       or upward. For example, we may adjust a penalty upward for
       "[e]gregious misconduct," an "[i]ntentional violation," or where the
       subject of an enforcement action has "[p]rior violations of any FCC
       requirements." Currently, the maximum penalty that the Commission may
       impose against an entity such as Street Map is $16,000 per violation.

    8. The Commission has generally considered a penalty of $4,500 per
       unsolicited fax advertisement as an appropriate base forfeiture for
       violating the prohibition against sending them. In addition, where the
       consumer has requested that the company stop sending facsimile
       messages, and the company has continued to send them, the Commission
       has previously considered $10,000 per unsolicited fax advertisement
       the appropriate forfeiture for such egregious violations. Consistent
       with this past approach, we will apply the $4,500 base forfeiture to
       49 of the apparent violations at issue in this NAL, and a $10,000
       forfeiture to two of the apparent violations in this NAL where the
       consumer received a facsimile from Street Map after specifically
       requesting that the company cease sending them. Based on the
       application of these standards, the total forfeiture proposed in this
       case would be $240,500.

    9. In the past, the Commission generally has not adjusted upward the base
       forfeiture for multiple, repeated violations of our junk fax rules.
       The base forfeiture of $4,500 alone was generally considered
       sufficient to protect consumers and deter companies from engaging in
       further unlawful conduct. It has become increasingly apparent,
       however, that the amount of our proposed forfeitures for apparent
       violations of the junk fax prohibitions has failed to deter the more
       persistent wrongdoers, as is evident in this case.

   10. As a result, we believe that different and harsher penalties than
       those we have imposed in the past are appropriate for entities who
       engage in a significant number violations, such as Street Map. With
       today's NAL, we have now taken four enforcement actions, involving a
       total of sixty-two apparent violations, against Street Map for
       noncompliance with section 227 that Congress enacted and that we have
       implemented and are charged with enforcing. All of these apparent
       violations, except those that formed the basis for the original
       citations, occurred after the Enforcement Bureau first warned Street
       Map, via citation, that its conduct violated the law, and some
       apparent violations relate to conduct that occurred after the November
       2010 NAL. The penalty that we apply must take into account, in the
       language of section 503(b)(2)(E), this "degree of culpability" and
       "history of prior offenses," and in the language of our forfeiture
       guidelines, such an "intentional violation[s]" and the "prior
       violations of ... FCC requirements."

   11. Accordingly, weighing the facts before us, including the fact that
       Street Map has engaged in a significant number of violations after
       warnings by the Commission, we impose an upward adjustment of $75,000
       for the unsolicited fax advertisements at issue here, for a total
       proposed forfeiture of $315,500. ($240,500 + $75,000 = $315,500) As a
       practical matter, this adjustment amounts to a penalty of around
       $6,000 for each of the apparent violations at issue in this NAL. The
       penalty we propose here is well within our discretion, because as
       indicated above, the Act permits us to impose a forfeiture of as much
       as $16,000 per violation, or a total of $832,000 for the fifty-two
       violations at issue in this NAL. Moreover, while in the past we
       generally have not adjusted upward the base forfeiture for junk faxes
       as a result of the number of violations at issue, doing so now is
       clearly within our discretion under the factors set forth in section
       503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, and in fact consistent with our past approach
       of applying a harsher penalty to junk fax violations for a significant
       number of apparent violations. We believe the adjustment amount and
       overall penalty we impose here against Street Map is appropriate due
       to the number of apparent violations, and the fact that Street Map
       apparently engaged in much of the misconduct deliberately, given its
       disregard for the Commission's previous warnings. Those who violate
       our junk fax rules are on notice that we intend to use the full range
       of our enforcement power to deter future noncompliance and protect
       consumers from the annoyance and harms caused by such conduct,
       including assessing the statutory maximum forfeiture amount of $16,000
       per violation.

   IV. CONCLUSION

   12. We have determined that The Street Map Company apparently violated
       section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act  and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the
       Commission's rules by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer,
       or other device to send 51 unsolicited advertisements to the 48
       consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that
       The Street Map Company is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
       amount of $315,500.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and
       section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that The
       Street Map Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
       FORFEITURE in the amount of $315,500 for willful and repeated
       violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47
       U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C), and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's
       rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3).

   14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's
       rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice
       of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, The Street Map Company 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 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). The Street Map Company shall
       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, SW, 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 both to: Marlene H. Dortch,
       Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
       Washington, D.C. 20554, Attn: Enforcement Bureau - Telecommunications
       Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman, Chief,
       Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C.
       20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
       Documents sent by overnight mail (other than United States Postal
       Service Express Mail) must be addressed to: Marlene H. Dortch,
       Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary,
       9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Hand or
       messenger-delivered mail should be directed, without envelopes, to
       Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
       Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554
       (deliveries accepted Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
       only). See www.fcc.gov/osec/guidelines.html for further instructions
       on FCC filing addresses.

   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 Certified Mail Return Receipt
       Requested and First Class mail to The Street Map Company, Attention:
       Patrick Keane, 24-A Trolley Square, Wilmington, DE 19806, 1800
       Lovering Ave., Wilmington, DE 19806-2122, and 717 N. Union St.,
       Wilmington, DE.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

                                    APPENDIX

                   Complainants and Apparent Violation Dates


     Complainant received facsimile              Apparent Violation Date(s)  
     solicitations                                                           

     A. Glass, Georgia Inst. of Tech. -          6/5/2010                    
     College of Computing                                                    

     S. Goba, Illinois Document Preparation      6/21/2010                   
     Co.                                                                     

     S. Arteman, Arteman's Cycle Repair          6/30/2010                   

     B. Krasny                                   7/7/2010                    

     S. Weigel                                   7/13/2010                   

     L. Tanner                                   7/16/2010                   

     C. Rowe                                     8/1/2010                    

     G. Roland, Roland, Inc.                     8/3/2010                    

     A. Gallo, The George Washington             8/9/2010 (2 faxes)          
     University                                                              

     C. Sweigler                                 8/12/2010                   

     J. Wright                                   8/12/2010                   

     A. Deperty                                  8/12/2010                   

     M. Markin                                   8/15/2010                   

     G. Howard                                   8/17/2010                   

     M. Perry                                    8/19/2010                   

     A. Thornock                                 8/23/2010                   

     M. Gerebenics                               8/12/2010; 8/13/2010        

     W. Scull                                    9/4/2010                    

     K. Hall                                     9/6/2010                    

     R. Pike, Flight Express                     9/8/2010; 10/4/2010         

     M. Coleman                                  9/10/2010                   

     R. Blaustein                                9/14/2010                   

     K. Laufer                                   8/30/2010                   

     D. Peterson, Brooks & Peterson CPS's, LLC   9/17/2010                   

     W. Smith                                    9/21/2010                   

     M. Freeman                                  9/11/2010                   

     P. Leitman                                  8/30/2010                   

     S. Wascher                                  9/6/2010                    

     R. Antonin, Law Offices of R. Fluerantin    9/28/2010                   
     & Associates, P.A.                                                      

     H. Lavado                                   9/14/2010                   

     D. Kappel                                   10/4/2010                   

     H. Bischoff                                 10/11/2010                  

     L. Dudley, Dudley's Trophies                10/13/2010                  

     A. Vance                                    10/15/2010                  

     D. Taylor, Diamond Dust                     10/12/2010                  

     J. Sheaffer                                 10/20/2010                  

     E. Walton, Monroe County Scoio-Legal        10/19/2010                  
     Center                                                                  

     C. Schembri                                 10/28/2010                  

     G. Cast, PDA Myrtle Beach/Florence          11/6/2010                   

     J. James                                    11/14/2010                  

     J. Andelin                                  11/14/2010                  

     J. Hawley                                   11/16/2010                  

     M. Crenshaw, Luck Stone Corporation         11/16/2010                  

     M. Kleiman                                  11/26/2010                  

     J. Ochse, WareOnEarth                       11/2/2010                   

     D. Wood, USPTO                              11/30/2010                  



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

     S. Scaramuzzo                                        6/24/2010          

     D. Neumetzger                                        10/30/2010         


   According to publicly available information, Street Map is also doing
   business as Rockford Map Gallery, LLC, First State Map & Globe Co., Globe
   World, Rockford Map and Globe, and Trump Map. Co. Therefore, all
   references in this NAL to "Street Map" encompass all of these companies.
   Street Map has offices at 24-A Trolley Square, Wilmington, DE 19806; 1800
   Lovering Ave., Wilmington, DE 19806-2122; and 717 N. Union St.,
   Wilmington, DE 19805. Patrick Keane is listed as the contact person for
   Street Map. Accordingly, all references in this NAL to "Street Map" 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).

   Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat.
   2394, codified at 47 U.S.C. S: 227. See also Junk Fax Prevention Act of
   2005, Pub. L. No. 109-21, 119 Stat. 359 (2005), codified at 47 U.S.C. S:
   227.

   47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C). The prohibition is subject to certain
   exceptions, such as if the sender has an "established business
   relationship" ("EBR") with the recipient; and the sender obtained the
   facsimile number from the recipient through voluntary communication in the
   context of an EBR, or from a directory, advertisement, or website on which
   the recipient voluntarily and publicly provided its facsimile number. In
   addition, the unsolicited ad must notify the recipient how to opt out of
   receiving future such ads, subject to certain requirements. The Commission
   has adopted implementing rules. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3); See also  Junk
   Fax Prevention Act R&O, 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3793-96 (2006), modified on other
   grounds, 23 FCC Rcd 15059 (2008).

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5) (requiring the Commission to issue citations to
   persons who do not hold a license, permit, certificate, or other
   authorization issued by the Commission, or who are not applicants for any
   of those listed instrumentalities, or engaged in activities for which such
   instrumentalities are necessary, for violations of the Act or of the
   Commission's rules and orders).

   Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-08-TC-998, issued to
   Street Map on February 5, 2008. Earlier, the Commission had issued a
   similar citation to First State Globe & Map Co., and received no response.
   Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-07-TC-5233, July 15,
   2007. At the time the citation was issued to First State, the Commission
   was not aware that First State and Street Map were associated.

   The Street Map Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25
   FCC Rcd 16371 (2010) ("November 2010 NAL").

   See Appendix for a listing of the consumer complaints against Street Map
   requesting Commission action. We note that evidence of additional
   instances of unlawful conduct by Street Map may result in further
   enforcement action.

   The faxes at issue here therefore fall within the definition of an
   "unsolicited advertisement." See 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(5); 47 C.F.R. S:
   64.1200(f)(13). An "unsolicited advertisement" is "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." 47 U.S.C. S:
   227(a)(5).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4) note. The absence of a particular type of
   violation from the forfeiture guidelines must "not be taken to mean that
   the violation is unimportant or nonexistent," and "the Commission retains
   discretion to impose forfeitures for other violations." Commission's
   Forfeiture Policy Statement, Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,110
   (1997).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4) note.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(C). Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures
   of up to $10,000 for each violation in cases, as in the instant case,
   where the violation does not involve a Commission licensee, common
   carriers, among others. See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(C). 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) first to $11,000 and more recently to $16,000.
   See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3). See also Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the
   Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
   23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (amendment of section 1.80(b) to reflect inflation
   increased the forfeiture maximum for this type of violator at $16,000).

   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), Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC
   Rcd 24,406, 24,411 (2000).

   See e.g., Get-Away, Inc. 15 FCC Rcd at 1812. But see Fax.com, Inc., Notice
   of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 15927 (2002) (applying an
   upward adjustment of the base forfeiture for each of 489 apparent junk fax
   violations, for a total proposed forfeiture of $5,379,000).

   For example, we recently issued a forfeiture order against another entity,
   assessing a total penalty of over $1.6 million, imposed through three
   different NALs, and involving nearly 300 violations of our junk fax rules.
   Mexico Marketing, LLC, Forfeiture Order, FCC 11-48 (2011). The repeated
   nature of the apparent violations in this case and those at issue in
   Mexico Marketing persuade us that an upward adjustment is necessary to
   adequately deter entities from violating our junk fax prohibitions. Our
   decision to impose an adjustment in today's NAL demonstrates our
   recognition of the greater power that Congress has given us, and that
   appears to need to be exercised in order to enforce Congress's prohibition
   against unsolicited fax ads.

   This is consistent with the action taken by the Commission with respect to
   Fax.com, Inc. where we imposed a harsher penalty for a significant number
   of violations. See Fax.com, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd at 15943.

   Section 504(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 504(c), prohibits the Commission
   from using the issuance of an NAL against a party in one proceeding to the
   prejudice of that party in another proceeding, until either the party pays
   the forfeiture or a court issues a final order that it do so. However,
   this prohibition does not restrict the Commission from considering the
   facts that underlie prior NALs. Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement &
   Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
   Guidelines, Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17102-17104 (1997). Thus,
   consideration in the current NAL of Street Map's past conduct that led to
   our earlier enforcement actions is fully consistent with section 504(c) of
   the Act. See Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement & Amendment of
   Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,
   Memorandum Opinion & Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 303, 303-305 (1999).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80 sec. II (Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
   Forfeitures).

   The upward adjustment of $75,000 amounts to approximately $1,500 for each
   of the 49 apparent violations at issue in this NAL that are not already
   subject to upward adjustment (i.e., all of the violations except the two
   for which we assess a $10,000 penalty). The combination of the base
   forfeiture and the upward adjustment for each of the 49 apparent
   violations is therefore approximately $6,000. We note, however, that while
   the upward adjustment we apply in this case amounts to approximately
   $1,500 per violation, it is not the Commission's intent in every case of
   junk faxes to mechanically apply a $1,500 upward adjustment. We fully
   intend, as we did in this case, to apply an appropriate upward adjustment
   on a case-by-case basis, taking into account our obligation under section
   503(b)(2)(E) of the Act. In this respect, we may apply a higher forfeiture
   amount, including the $16,000 statutory maximum if the facts of a
   particular case warrant.

   See supra note 18.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-85

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-85