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-08-TC-2507      
     Presidential Who's Who              )                                
                                             NAL/Acct. No.: 201132170023  
     dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc.    )                                
                                             FRN: 0020197919              
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture   )                                
                                                                          
                                         )                                


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: June 13, 2011 Released: June 13, 2011

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Presidential Who's Who dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc.
       ("Presidential Who's Who")  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 31 unsolicited
       advertisements, or "junk faxes," to the telephone facsimile machines
       of 30 consumers. Based on the facts and circumstances surrounding
       these apparent violations, we find that Presidential Who's Who is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $295,000.  

   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 June 18, 2008, in response to a consumer complaint alleging that
       Presidential Who's Who had faxed an unsolicited advertisement, the
       Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") issued a citation to Presidential Who's
       Who, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act. The Bureau cited
       Presidential Who's Who for using a telephone facsimile machine,
       computer, or other device, to send an unsolicited advertisement for
       entry in and sale of the publication "Presidential Who's Who" 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 Presidential Who's Who 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. Frank Ciaccio, on behalf of Presidential Who's Who,
       requested an interview and claimed that the fax on which the citation
       was based was not an advertisement. However, staff determined that the
       fax in question was, in fact, an advertisement.

    4. Subsequently, the Commission received numerous complaints from
       consumers alleging that Presidential Who's Who had faxed additional
       unsolicited advertisements to them. The complaints filed by 69
       consumers (alleging 73 violations of our junk fax rules) resulted in
       the issuance of an NAL against Presidential Who's Who on September 13,
       2010 in the amount of $345,000. The September 2010 NAL ordered
       Presidential Who's Who either to pay the proposed forfeiture amount
       within 30 days or to submit evidence or arguments to show that no
       forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be
       assessed. Presidential Who's Who responded to this first NAL on
       January 26, 2011, claiming the fax numbers to which the alleged
       unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent were obtained legally.
       It did not, however, provide any basis for this argument.

    5. In addition to the complaints forming the basis of the September 2010
       NAL, the Commission has received still more complaints. Specifically,
       the Commission has received additional complaints filed by 30
       consumers, alleging that Presidential Who's Who sent 31 additional
       unsolicited advertisements not accounted for in the September 2010 NAL
       to telephone facsimile machines between June 14, 2010 and October 20,
       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 Presidential Who's Who 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 Presidential Who's
       Who apparently used a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other
       device to send the consumer at least one unsolicited advertisement.

    7. For purposes of our "junk fax" rules, an "unsolicited advertisement"
       is "any material advertising the commercial availability of 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." The Commission has explained that faxes
       promoting publications at no cost can qualify:

   "Free" publications are often part of an overall marketing campaign to
   sell property, goods, or services. For instance, while the publication
   itself may be offered at no cost to the recipient, the products promoted
   within the publication are often commercially available. Based on this, it
   is reasonable to presume that such messages describe the "quality of any
   property, goods, or services." Therefore, facsimile communications
   regarding such free goods and services, if not purely "transactional,"
   would require the sender to obtain the recipient's permission beforehand,
   in the absence of an EBR.

    8. The faxes of Presidential Who's Who appear to qualify as unsolicited
       fax advertisements. The facsimile transmissions at issue advertise
       entry in and sale of the publication "Presidential Who's Who." While
       the faxes do not charge individuals for listings in the "Presidential
       Who's Who" publication, they do either offer for sale the publication
       itself, or serve as a prelude to such an offer. For example, as we
       explained in the September 2010 NAL, evidence demonstrates that
       Presidential Who's Who attempts to sell the publication in follow-up
       calls between the complainant and the company. As such, the faxes
       appear to be part of an "overall marketing campaign" to sell the
       publication. Under these circumstances, and given that the recipients
       have not authorized Presidential Who's Who to send them the faxes, the
       faxes underlying the complaints at issue in the current NAL qualify as
       unsolicited advertisements. Because the consumers, according to their
       complaints, did not have an established business relationship with
       Presidential Who's Who, we conclude in the current NAL that
       Presidential Who's Who has apparently violated section 227(b)(1)(C) of
       the Act and section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules by sending
       31 unsolicited advertisements to 30 consumers' facsimile machines.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

    9. 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." The maximum penalty that the Commission may impose
       against an entity such as Presidential Who's Who is currently $16,000
       per violation.

   10. The Commission has previously considered $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 30 of the
       apparent violations at issue in this NAL, and a $10,000 forfeiture to
       one of the apparent violations involved in this NAL where the consumer
       received a facsimile from Presidential Who's Who after specifically
       requesting that the company cease sending them. Based on application
       of these standards, the total forfeiture proposed in this case would
       be $145,000.

   11. 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 the instant case.

   12. As a result, we believe that different and harsher penalties than
       those we have imposed in the past are now appropriate for entities who
       engage in a significant number of violations, such as Presidential
       Who's Who. With today's NAL, we have now taken three enforcement
       actions, involving a total of more than one hundred violations,
       against Presidential Who's Who for noncompliance with section 227 of
       the Act 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 citation, occurred after the
       Bureau first warned Presidential Who's Who, via citation, that its
       conduct violated the law, and some apparent violations relate to
       conduct that occurred after the September 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 the forfeiture guidelines, such
       "intentional misconduct" and "prior violations of ... FCC
       requirements."

   13. Accordingly, weighing the facts before us, including the fact that
       Presidential Who's Who has engaged in a significant number of
       violations after warnings by the Commission, we impose an upward
       adjustment of $150,000 for the unsolicited fax advertisements at issue
       here, for a total proposed forfeiture of $295,000. ($145,000 +
       $150,000 = $295,000) As a practical matter, this adjustment amounts to
       a penalty of approximately $9,500 for each of the apparent violations
       at issue in this NAL. The penalty we propose here is well within our
       statutory 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 $496,000 for the 31 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 upward adjustment and overall proposed penalty that we impose here
       against Presidential Who's Who is appropriate due to the number of
       apparent violations, and the fact that Presidential Who's Who
       apparently engaged in much of its 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 annoyance and harms caused by such conduct, including
       assessing the statutory maximum forfeiture amount of $16,000 per
       violation.

   IV. CONCLUSION

   14. We have determined that Presidential Who's Who 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 31 unsolicited advertisements to the 30
       consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that
       Presidential Who's Who is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
       amount of $295,000.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 193, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), and
       section 1.80 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Presidential Who's
       Who dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this
       APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $295,000 for
       willful and repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 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).

   16. 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, Presidential Who's
       Who dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the
       proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
       reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   17. 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). Presidential Who's Who dba
       Presidential Who's Who, Inc. 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.

   18. The response, if any, must be mailed both to: Marlene H. Dortch,
       Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
       Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Telecommunications
       Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman, Chief,
       Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC
       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, DC 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.

   19. 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.

   20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for a Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
       Requested and First Class mail to Presidential Who's Who dba
       Presidential Who's Who, Inc., Attention: Frank Ciaccio, President, and
       Mark Anthony McGuinness, 134 Rockaway Avenue, Valley Stream, NY 11580.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

                                    APPENDIX

                        Complainants and Violation Dates


     Complainant received facsimile solicitations   Violation Date(s)  

     Adams, R.                                      6/22/10            

     Bernard, T.                                    7/23/10            

     Byron, F.                                      9/10/10            

     Buchicchio, K.                                 9/21/10            

     Cochran, R.                                    9/21/10            

     Dawdy, C.                                      9/29/10            

     Elkowitz, A.                                   9/29/10            

     Gallo, A.                                      6/14/10            

     Glick, L.                                      9/13/10            

     Gonzales, J.                                   8/6/10             

     Goodman, L.                                    9/13/10            

     Jacobs, M.                                     6/29/10            

     Kay, K.                                        10/6/10            

     Lester, R.                                     6/16/10            

     Leyman, L.                                     9/7/10             

     Marzane, D.                                    6/29/10            

     McKeown, C.                                    8/11/10            

     Meyers, J.                                     9/13/10            

     Neil, Sr., L.                                  9/7/10             

     Pitric, M.                                     6/22/10            

     Rothstein, M.                                  10/20/10           

     Schroeder, J.                                  7/19/10, 9/21/10   

     Shaw, L.                                       6/14/10            

     Smith, M.                                      10/5/10            

     Sparks, H.                                     9/13/10            

     Spivey, S.                                     9/7/10             

     Stern, L.                                      8/6/10             

     Wells, G.                                      9/13/10            

     Yi, M.                                         9/29/10            



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

     McDonald, A.                                         8/3/10             


   According to publicly available information, Presidential Who's Who is
   also doing business as Presidential Who's Who, Inc. Therefore, all
   references in this NAL to "Presidential Who's Who" encompass Presidential
   Who's Who as well as Presidential Who's Who, Inc. Presidential Who's Who
   has offices at 134 Rockaway Ave., Valley Stream, NY 11580. Frank Ciaccio,
   President, and Mark Anthony McGuiness, Chief Operating Officer, are the
   contact persons for Presidential Who's Who. Accordingly, all references in
   this NAL to Presidential Who's Who also encompass the foregoing
   individuals 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-2507, issued to
   Presidential Who's Who on June 18, 2008.

   Telephone interview conducted on July 11, 2008 between Frank Ciaccio,
   representing Presidential Who's Who, and Kurt Schroeder, Deputy Chief,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, and Mary
   Romano, Special Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division,
   Enforcement Bureau.

   See infra P: 8. Presidential Who's Who did not provide any information to
   indicate that its fax was part of a prior transaction or that it had an
   established business relationship with the fax recipient. Additionally,
   neither the TCPA nor the Commission's rules contain any exceptions for
   unsolicited fax advertisements sent in error.

   See Presidential Who's Who dba Presidential Who's Who, Inc., Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 13759  (2010) ("September
   2010 NAL").

   See September 2010 NAL, 25 FCC Rcd at 13763.

   See Appendix for a listing of the consumer complaints against Presidential
   Who's Who requesting Commission action. We note that evidence of
   additional instances of unlawful conduct by Presidential Who's Who may
   form the basis of subsequent enforcement action.

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(13).

   Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 21 FCC Rcd at 3814 (footnotes omitted).

   The company's website also advertises that the publication is for sale.
   See http://www.presidentialwhoswho.org/index-5.html.

   Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 21 FCC Rcd at 3814 (footnotes omitted).

   See, e.g., complaint dated June 14, 2010 from A. Gallo (stating that
   complainant had never done any business with the company, never made an
   inquiry or application to the company, and never gave permission for the
   company to make the call).

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(C). 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] ...." Id. The Commission has the authority under section
   503(b)(5) of the Act to assess such 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.
   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(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 17087, 17110
   (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 to $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 FCC 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 Rcd 16,837, 16,842 (2000); 21st Century Fax(es) Ltd.,
   a/k/a 20th Century Fax(es), 15 FCC Rcd 24,406, 24,411 (2000).

   See Appendix for a listing of the consumer complaints against Presidential
   Who's Who requesting Commission action.

   See e.g., Get-Away, Inc. 15 FCC Rcd at 1812. But see The Street Map
   Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 11-85 (June 1,
   2011) ("The Street Map NAL")(implementing approach similar to that in the
   instant NAL, and imposing an upward adjustment for repeat violations);
   Fax.com, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd
   15927 (2002) (applying an upward adjustment to 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 The
   Street Map NAL and 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 is necessary 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
   The Street Map Company and Fax.com, Inc. where we imposed a harsher
   penalty for a significant number of violations. See Street Map NAL, supra
   n. 25 and Fax.com, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd at 15493.

   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 Presidential Who's Who'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 $150,000 amounts to approximately $5,000 for each
   of 30 of the violations at issue in this NAL that are not already subject
   to upward adjustment (i.e., all of the violations except the one for which
   we assess a $10,000 penalty). The combination of the base forfeiture and
   the upward adjustment per violation for each of the 30 violations is
   therefore approximately $9,500, which is in the range of the $10,000
   penalty we assess when a consumer has specifically requested a company not
   to send an unsolicited fax. It is more than the approximate $6,000 per
   violation forfeiture we proposed in The Street Map NAL where the overall
   number of apparent junk fax violations was significantly less than the
   over one hundred violations in this case. The upward adjustment we apply
   in the instant NAL and that in The Street Map NAL are proportionate to the
   difference in the number of violations at issue in each case. We note,
   however, that while the upward adjustment the Commission applies today in
   this case amounts to approximately $5,000 per violation, it is not the
   Commission's intent in every case to mechanically apply a $5,000 upward
   adjustment. We fully intend, as we did in this case and in The Street Map
   NAL, to apply an appropriate upward adjustment on a case-by-case bases
   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 27.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-95

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-95