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                      )                                 
                                                                             
     Patrick Keane                         )   File No.: EB-12-TCD-00000305  
                                                                             
     a/k/a The Street Map Co., Accurate    )   NAL/Acct. No.: 201332170001   
     Map Co., Data World, Map World, Map                                     
     Co.                                   )   FRN: 0020318242               
                                                                             
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture     )                                 
                                                                             
                                           )                                 
                                                                             
                                           )                                 


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: October 22, 2012 Released: October 23, 2012

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find
       that Patrick Keane, operating under various business names, apparently
       willfully and repeatedly violated Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),
       and Section 64.1200(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, by delivering 38
       unsolicited advertisements, or "junk faxes," to the telephone
       facsimile machines of 31 consumers. As discussed below, in the last
       two years, the Commission has issued NALs against Mr. Keane for 62
       additional junk fax violations. Based in part on the fact that the
       Commission, with today's NAL, has now taken enforcement action against
       Mr. Keane for 100 junk fax violations, we find that Mr. Keane is
       apparently liable for the maximum penalty permitted by law for the
       apparent violations at issue in this NAL, and propose a forfeiture of
       $16,000 for each such violation, for a total forfeiture in the amount
       of $608,000.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 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
       The Street Map Co. (Street Map) had faxed unsolicited advertisements,
       the Bureau sent a citation to Mr. Keane and Street Map pursuant to
       Section 503(b)(5) of the Act. Despite the citation's warning that
       subsequent violations could result in the imposition of monetary
       forfeitures, the Commission continued to receive numerous additional
       consumer complaints indicating that Mr. Keane, operating as Street
       Map, continued to send junk faxes after the citation. Based on
       complaints concerning junk faxes received between November 2009 and
       November 2010, the Commission issued two Notices of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture against Mr. Keane operating as Street Map and other
       names. The first NAL involved 11 faxes  and proposed a forfeiture of
       $55,000, while the second involved 51 faxes and proposed an additional
       forfeiture of $315,500. The NALs named both Mr. Keane and Street Map,
       as well as other business and trade names under which Mr. Keane has
       apparently operated. Mr. Keane did not respond to either NAL.

    4. Notwithstanding the citation and the two NALs, Mr. Keane has
       apparently continued to send junk faxes, albeit using different names,
       or variations on the same name, such as "Accurate Map Co.," "Data
       World," "Map World.," and "Map Co." None of these names-or the name
       "Street Map"- appears to be registered as a fictitious or other trade
       name, and all appear to be traceable to Mr. Keane. All of the faxes
       advertise laminated maps and share similar designs and layouts,
       including use of a distinctive cartoon manikin touting the benefits of
       the maps. Moreover, all but one of the faxes at issue in this NAL use
       the same street address and telephone numbers. This address (717 N.
       Union St., Wilmington, DE 19805) and the three telephone numbers
       (888-801-4409, 855-888-8842, and 855-321-7755) are all assigned to Mr.
       Keane and billed either to Street Map (888-801-4409) or to another of
       his business names, First State Map Company (855-888-8842 and
       855-321-7755). In addition, the address and one of the telephone
       numbers, 855-888-8842, are listed as contact information for Mr. Keane
       and another of his map enterprises, Learnamap.com.

    5. The one fax mentioned above that uses a different address and phone
       number is the subject of a complaint filed with the Commission on
       September 5, 2012 by the New York City Police Department. This fax is
       similar to the other faxes in that it advertises the same type of
       laminated maps and uses a similar design, including the same cartoon
       manikin. The only material difference between this recent fax and the
       other faxes discussed above is it appears that Mr. Keane is now using
       a new business name (Map Co.), a new Wilmington, DE address (4023
       Kennett Pike, STE 132), and a new telephone number for responses
       (855-744-5544). As with the other business names, Map Co. does not
       appear to be an actual company or registered trade name. Further,
       according to telephone company records, the new telephone number
       (855-744-5544) is assigned to Mr. Keane's business, First State Map
       Company.

   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 Mr. Keane has again apparently violated
       Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act and Section 64.1200(a)(4) of the
       Commission's rules by using a facsimile machine, computer, or other
       device to send unsolicited advertisements to consumers. Under the
       Commission's rules, the sender of a junk fax is "the person or entity
       on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited advertisement is sent or whose
       goods or services are advertised or promoted in the unsolicited
       advertisement." Each of the consumers listed in Appendix A has
       provided evidence that he or she received a junk fax or faxes from Mr.
       Keane, operating through different business names; that he or she did
       not have an established business relationship with Mr. Keane, or any
       of his business names; and that he or she did not give him permission
       to send the faxes. The faxes at issue here clearly constitute
       advertisements, as they advertise laminated maps, and encourage
       consumers to place orders for those maps by calling one of Mr. Keane's
       telephone numbers. The faxes therefore fall within the definition of a
       prohibited "unsolicited advertisement."

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

    7. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a
       forfeiture against any person who "willfully or repeatedly fail[s] to
       comply with any of the provisions of [the] Act or of any rule,
       regulation, or order issued by the Commission." As to certain
       violators-for example, individuals such as Mr. Keane who are not
       themselves holders of or applicants for any form of Commission
       authorization and whose violations do not involve conduct for which
       such authorization is necessary-the Commission must first issue a
       citation, as it did in this case, warning them of the violation
       charged before imposing monetary penalties. "In determining the amount
       of . . . a forfeiture penalty," Section 503(b)(2)(E) mandates that
       "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." The Commission's 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 a person or
       business such as Mr. Keane 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 junk faxes. The Commission
       has increased the penalties, however, for entities and individuals who
       have engaged in numerous and repeated violations. For example, in the
       second NAL against Mr. Keane, the Commission proposed a forfeiture of
       $315,500, which included an upward adjustment for the more than 60
       apparent junk fax violations in which he had engaged at that time. As
       we have noted in these recent cases, we intend to apply appropriate
       upward adjustments, up to the $16,000 statutory maximum forfeiture, on
       a case-by-case basis, taking into account our obligation under section
       503(b)(2)(E) of the Act. Indeed, where the Commission has found that a
       given violator of junk fax or other TCPA prohibitions appears to have
       engaged in deceit by attempting to disguise its identity to confuse
       consumers or evade law enforcement, the Commission has proposed the
       full statutory maximum of $16,000 per unsolicited fax.

    9. Consistent with the factors that must control our determination of the
       amount of a forfeiture penalty to assess for a given violator and
       violation, we propose the maximum penalty of $16,000 for each of the
       38 violations at issue in this NAL, for a total proposed forfeiture of
       $608,000. As in other recent cases where the Commission has proposed
       the maximum penalty, we do so here because Mr. Keane has apparently
       engaged in numerous and repeated violations, and has done so
       intentionally and in an egregious manner.

   10. With this NAL, we have now taken enforcement actions against Mr. Keane
       for 100  apparent violations of the Junk Fax Act and the Commission's
       implementing rules. All of these apparent violations occurred after
       the Enforcement Bureau first warned Mr. Keane, via citation, that his
       conduct violated the law. All of the apparent violations in the
       present case also occurred after both our prior NALs. The fact that
       Mr. Keane appears to have engaged in such a large number of violations
       after having been told, several times, that his conduct violated the
       law strongly suggests that he acted with deliberate and intentional
       disregard for TCPA requirements and the consumers the law is designed
       to protect.

   11. Mr. Keane's use of different, multiple names to send unsolicited fax
       advertisements further suggests a deliberate intent to violate the
       law. As indicated, the faxes at issue in NAL 1 and NAL 2 used the name
       "Street Map," while the faxes at issue in the current NAL use the
       names "Accurate Map," "Data World," "Map World," and "Map Co." None of
       these names appears to be an actual, independent legal entity, or a
       registered fictitious business name. Mr. Keane appears to have no
       purpose for using these different names other than to disguise that he
       is the sender of the junk faxes. This again suggests that Mr. Keane is
       intentionally violating the law.

   12. As a further reason to impose the maximum penalty authorized, we note
       that the faxes at issue in this NAL violate not only the prohibition
       on sending junk faxes but certain other rules as well. Section
       68.318(d) of our rules requires that every fax must show, in the
       margin, the date and time it was sent and an identification of the
       business, entity, or individual sending the message, as well as the
       telephone number of the sending machine. Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii) of
       the Commission's rules requires that all unsolicited advertisements
       contain an opt-out notice that informs the recipient of the ability
       and means to avoid future unsolicited advertisements, including a
       domestic telephone number that the recipient can call to transmit such
       requests to the sender. None of the faxes submitted with the
       complaints comply with any of these requirements. In fact, as a
       complainant points out, the ostensible opt-out number on many of the
       faxes is actually the number provided by the Federal Trade Commission
       for consumers to call and list their telephone numbers on the National
       Do Not Call Registry, a number and registry that has no relevance to
       faxes. These acts appear to be additional violations of our rules and
       the Junk Fax Act that could carry separate penalties of up to $16,000
       each. While we do not propose independent penalties for these
       violations at this time, we do consider such violations to be
       aggravating factors that justify upward adjustments to the base
       forfeiture amounts.

   13. Accordingly, weighing the facts before us, we propose the maximum
       penalty allowed under the Act and our rules-$16,000, for each junk fax
       apparently sent to these consumers-for a total penalty of $608,000.
       This penalty takes into account, in the language of section
       503(b)(2)(E), the "extent" of the violations, and Mr. Keane's "degree
       of culpability" and "history of prior offenses," and in the language
       of our forfeiture guidelines, Mr. Keane's apparent "egregious,"
       "intentional," and "repeated" violations." We believe this upward
       adjustment and overall penalty against Mr. Keane, and all his various
       businesses and trade names, are appropriate in view of the number,
       scope, and repeated nature of the apparent violations, the fact that
       he apparently engaged in much of this misconduct deliberately and in
       complete disregard of the Commission's previous warnings, and the fact
       that he has used different names to confuse consumers and disguise his
       true identity as the sender of these faxes. All of these factors
       strongly indicate knowing, willful, and deliberate efforts to violate
       the junk fax rules and then to conceal and evade responsibility for
       such violations.

   IV. CONCLUSION

   14. We have determined that Mr. Keane apparently violated Section
       227(b)(1)(C) of the Act  and Section 64.1200(a)(4) of the Commission's
       rules by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other
       device to send 38 unsolicited advertisements to the 31 consumers
       identified in Appendix A. We have further determined that Mr. Keane is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $608,000. Mr.
       Keane 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.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   15. 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
       Patrick Thomas Keane, operating as Accurate Map. Co., Data World, Map
       World, Map Co., and other names, is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
       LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $608,000 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)(4) of the
       Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(4).

   16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's
       rules, that within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of
       this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Mr. Keane 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,
       wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number
       and FRN referenced above. Patrick Keane shall send electronic
       notification of payment to Johnny Drake at Johnny.Drake@fcc.gov on the
       date said payment is made. Regardless of the form of payment, a
       completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When
       completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number
       23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number
       24A (payment type code).   Below are additional instructions you
       should follow based on the form of payment you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. 

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. 

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101. 

   18. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
       to:  Chief Financial Officer-Financial Operations, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C.  20554.  If you have questions regarding payment
       procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
       phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.  

   19. 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.

   20. 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.

   21. 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 Mr. Patrick Keane, 24-A Trolley
       Square, Wilmington, DE 19806; Mr. Patrick Keane, 1800 Lovering Ave.,
       Wilmington, DE 19806-2122; and Mr. Patrick Keane, 717 N. Union St.,
       Wilmington, DE 19805; Mr. Patrick Keane, 4023 Kennett Pike, Suite 132,
       Wilmington, DE 19807.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

                                   APPENDIX A

                   Complainants and Apparent Violation Dates


     Complainant received facsimile       Apparent Violation Date(s)         
     solicitations                                                           

                                          10/27/2011; 10/29/2011;            
     A. Pendergast, Flowers By Nino       11/05/2011; 11/07/2011;            
                                          11/09/2011                         

     I. Whitehead, U.S. Govt. Printing    10/31/2011                         
     Office                                                                  

     A. May                               10/31/2011                         

     J. Newman                            11/06/2011                         

     A. Richardson, Paul S. McDonald &    11/07/2011                         
     Assoc., Inc.                                                            

     J. Newman, Newman Brothers           11/08/2011                         

     J. Hinterbichler, Arrow              11/20/2011                         
     Enterprises LLC                                                         

     C. Kern                              11/20/2011                         

     G. Zamudio, Mind's Eye Technology,   11/20/2011                         
     Inc.                                                                    

     B. Delaney, Parke-West Fine Art      11/28/2011; 12/1/2011              
     Appraisal Service                                                       

     B. Fried, Galaxy Promotions          11/29/2011                         

     J. Greco, E&M Mayock and             12/1/2011                          
     Associates                                                              

     M. Benioff                           12/6/2011                          

     C. Drechsler, Garmin AT              12/12/2011                         

     V. Carver                            12/12/2011                         

     S. Delauter                          12/15/2011                         

     J. Watson, Nick Watson Agency        12/16/2011                         

     R. Miller, Advantage Northwest       12/20/2011                         

     D. Breen, David H. Breen P.A.        12/29/2011                         

     H. Townsend                          12/31/2011                         

     C. Ledet                             1/07/2012                          

     L. Wistow                            1/16/2012, 1/22/2012, 1/26/2012    

     A. Curtiss                           1/22/2012                          

     L. Lapham                            2/05/2012                          

     D. Neumetzger                        3/4/2012                           

     T. Chernok                           3/4/2012                           

     K. Fleming, Fleming Construction     3/16/2012                          
     Services, LLC                                                           

     S. Mielach                           3/16/2012                          

     A. Koganov                           3/19/2012                          

     E. Mata, Zaphyr Technologies         3/20/2012                          

     P. Malarkey, New York City Police    9/5/12                             
     Department                                                              


                                   APPENDIX B

                      Examples of Faxes in NAL 1 and NAL 2

                                   APPENDIX C

                         Examples of Faxes in This NAL

   As set forth below, Mr. Keane appears to have used several different
   business names throughout the course of the Commission's investigation of
   his activities. Neither this NAL nor the Commission's prior enforcement
   actions against Mr. Keane attempt to identify each and every such name he
   has used, but the liability proposed in these actions applies to Mr.
   Keane, regardless of the names he uses or has used.

   See  47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(4). See also 
   Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
   of 1991, Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, Report and Order and Third Order
   on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3787 (2006) (Junk Fax Prevention Act R&O),
   modified, 23 FCC Rcd 15059 (2008).

   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) (Junk Fax Act).

   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 through
   which the recipient voluntarily agreed to make its facsimile number
   available for public distribution. In addition, the unsolicited ad must
   notify the recipient how to opt out of receiving future facsimile
   advertisements, subject to certain requirements. The Commission has
   adopted implementing rules. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(4).

   Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to The Street Map Company
   (Feb. 5, 2008) (on file in EB-08-TC-998). The citation was addressed to
   "The Street Map Company" and directed to the attention of Mr. Keane, and
   expressly warned that future violations of the Act and the Commission's
   rules governing telephone solicitations and unsolicited advertisements
   might subject Mr. Keane or the entities perpetrating such behavior to
   monetary forfeitures.

   Street Map Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd
   16371 (2010) (NAL 1); Street Map Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8318 (NAL 2).

   NAL 1, 25 FCC Rcd at 16373; NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd at 1822.

   Both NAL 1 and NAL 2 indicated that, according to publicly available
   information, "Street Map" also did business as First State Map & Globe
   Co., Globe World, Rockford Map Gallery LLC, and Rockford Map & Globe. See
   NAL 1, 25 FCC Rcd at 16371 n.1; NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd at 8318 n.1. Appendix B
   gives examples of faxes that were addressed in these NALs.

   See Appendix A for a listing of the consumer complaints against Accurate
   Map Co., Data World, and Map World requesting Commission action.

   Appendix C includes examples of faxes that were the subject of complaints
   listed in Appendix A.

   First State Map Company was registered in Delaware as a trade name in 1986
   and uses the address 1800 Lovering Ave., Wilmington, DE. See Delaware
   State Courts; Trade, Business & Fictitious Names; File No. 8008,
   http://www.courts.delaware.gov/tradenames/JICKioskDetails.aspx?TradeNameID=67831
   (last visited Sept. 6, 2012) (showing trade name registration) and
   American Yellow Pages, http://www.ypstate.com/info/de/369006.html (last
   visited Sept. 6, 2012) (identifying address as 1800 Lovering Avenue,
   Wilmington, DE). This address is the same as that used by other business
   names, such as Rockford Map & Globe, that we have connected to Mr. Keane.
   See Better Business Bureau,
   http://www.bbb.org/delaware/business-reviews/maps-publishers-and-distributors/rockford-map-and-globe-in-wilmington-de-7004173
   (last visited Sept. 6, 2012) (identifying 1800 Lovering Avenue,
   Wilmington, DE as address for Rockford Map & Globe); NAL 1, 25 FCC Rcd
   16371 n.1 (identifying Rockford Map & Globe as alternate name for Street
   Map); NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd 8318 n.1 (same).

   Learnamap.com Contact Page, http://www.learnamap.com/contact/contact.php
   (last visited July 19, 2012).

   See Appendix C for a copy of this fax.

   See supra note 11 (discussing First State Map Company and Mr. Keane).

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(10).

   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 C.F.R.
   S: 64.1200(f)(15).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B).

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5) 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 & Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to
   Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
   17110, para. 53 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5) 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 or 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. No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321,
   the Commission implemented an increase of the maximum statutory forfeiture
   under section 503(b)(2)(C) to $16,000. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(4). 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, 1812, para, 16 (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, 17003, para. 13 (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, 11300,
   para.12 (2000) (Tri-Star NAL); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc., Forfeiture Order,
   15 FCC Rcd 23198 (2000).

   NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd at 8321-22, paras. 10-11 (2011) (applying a $75,000
   upward adjustment in proposing a forfeiture for 51 junk fax violations,
   taking into account the violator's prior 11 junk fax violations); see also
   National Employee Benefits Group, Notice of Apparent Liability, 27 FCC Rcd
   2734, 2737, para. 8 (2012) (applying a $150,000 upward adjustment in
   proposing a forfeiture for 97 junk fax violations); Laser Technologies,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 10792, 10795,
   para. 9 (2011) (applying a $50,000 upward adjustment in proposing a
   forfeiture for 40 junk fax violations); Presidential Who's Who, Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8989, 8993-95, paras. 11-13
   (2011) (applying a $150,000 upward adjustment in proposing a forfeiture
   for 31 junk fax violations, taking into account the violator's 73 prior
   junk fax violations) (Presidential Who's Who NAL).

   See, e.g., NAL 2, 26 FCC Rcd at 8322, para. 11: "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."

   Tim Gibbons, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 12-98 (rel.
   Sept. 4, 2012); Sabrina Javani d/b/a EZ Business Loans, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 7921 (2012); Teresa Goldberg a/k/a
   Tammy Pocknett d/b/a Software Training Co. et al., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 2723 (2012); Travel Club Marketing
   d/b/a Travelink Corp. et al., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   26 FCC Rcd 15381 (2011).

   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. Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at
   17102-04, paras. 33-36. Thus, consideration in the current NAL of Mr.
   Keane'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 and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate
   the Forfeiture Guidelines, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 303,
   304-05, paras. 3-5 (1999).

   47 C.F.R. S: 68.318(d).

   47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).

   See FCC Form 1088A - Junk Fax Complaint from A. Pendergast (Nov. 9, 2011)
   ("The removal # is the national do not call registry.") See also example
   faxes in Appendix C.

   See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 68.318(d), 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).

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

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

   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.

   An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-132

                                       15

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-132