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, DC 20554
In the Matter of
RB Communications, Inc., d/b/a Starfone
)
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-IHD-13-00011657
NAL/Acct. No.: 201232080018
FRN: 0012951612
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: May 11, 2015 Released: May 11, 2015
By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
Introduction
We deny the Petition for Reconsideration filed by RB Communications, Inc., d/b/a Starfone (Starfone or the Company) seeking reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order issued by the Commission because it relies on arguments that have been fully considered and rejected by the Commission in this proceeding. In the Forfeiture Order, the Commission imposed a penalty of $408,668 against Starfone for providing interstate and international telecommunications services over a four-year period without first meeting important regulatory obligations. Starfone does not dispute that these violations occurred.
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2012, the Commission adopted the Starfone NAL, which found that Starfone had apparently violated Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act) and multiple Commission rules (Rules) and proposed a forfeiture of $408,668 for these violations.
In its response to the Starfone NAL, Starfone did not dispute that it had violated the Act and the Rules but argued that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced because, among other reasons, imposition of the full forfeiture would inflict undue economic hardship on the Company and could cause it to go out of business. In support of this inability to pay argument, Starfone submitted its tax returns for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
On May 23, 2014, the Commission released the Starfone Forfeiture Order in which it imposed a penalty of $408,668, the full amount previously proposed in the NAL. In that Order, the Commission addressed and rejected Starfone's request that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL be reduced based upon the Company's asserted inability to pay.
On June 16, 2014, Starfone, now represented by different counsel, filed its Petition for Reconsideration. In that Petition, Starfone states it "does not deny the substantive allegations in the Forfeiture Order." Nevertheless, Starfone argues that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced because imposition of the full forfeiture on the Company would likely cause it to go out of business. In support of this inability to pay argument, Starfone again submitted its tax returns for 2011, 2012, and 2013, which, it contends, "contain revenue data not previously presented to the Commission and facts which have changed since the last opportunity to respond."
Discussion
Petitions for reconsideration are granted only in limited circumstances. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either demonstrates a material error or omission in the original order or raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters. A petition for reconsideration that simply reiterates arguments that were previously considered and rejected will be denied. Further, the Rules permit the Bureau to dismiss or deny petitions for reconsideration "that plainly do not warrant consideration by the Commission." This includes situations in which the petition "rel[ies] on arguments that have been fully considered and rejected by the Commission within the same proceeding."
Starfone's Petition for Reconsideration fails to present information warranting reconsideration, and in fact simply reiterates arguments that the Commission fully considered and rejected in the Starfone Forfeiture Order. Because Starfone fails to raise facts that were not previously known or existing but simply raises arguments previously considered and rejected by the Commission, we deny its petition pursuant to Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.106 of the Rules.
ORDERING CLAUSES
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Section 1.106 of the Rules, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by RB Communications, Inc., d/b/a Starfone on June 16, 2014 is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Jonathan S. Marashlian, Marashlian & Donahue, LLC, 1420 Spring Hill Road, Suite 401, McLean, VA 22102.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Paula L. Blizzard
Deputy Chief
Enforcement Bureau