**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | File No. EB-04-IH-0454       |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| OCMC, Inc.                       | ** | NAL/Acct. No. 200532080141   |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Apparent Liability for           | *  | FRN No. 0006176879           |
| Forfeiture                       | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY**

**FOR FORFEITURE**

**Adopted: August 12, 2005 Released: August 12, 2005**

By the Commission:

# 

# I. INTRODUCTION 

1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
    that OCMC, Inc. ("OCMC"), a telecommunications carrier that has been
    operating and at least indirectly benefiting from federal programs
    supporting the telecommunications industry for years, apparently
    failed to meet its statutory and regulatory obligations related to
    the Universal Service Fund ("USF"). Specifically, we find that OCMC
    has apparently violated section 254(d) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended (the "Act"),[^1] and section 54.706(a) of the
    Federal Communications Commission's rules[^2] by willfully and
    repeatedly failing to contribute fully and timely to the USF. Based
    on our review of the facts and circumstances of this case, and for
    the reasons discussed below, we find that OCMC is apparently liable
    for a total monetary forfeiture in the amount of \$1,133,761.

# II. BACKGROUND

2.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified Congress's historical
    commitment to promote universal service to ensure that consumers in
    all regions of the nation have access to affordable, quality
    telecommunications services.[^3] In particular, section 254(d) of
    the Act requires, among other things, that "\[e\]very
    telecommunications carrier \[providing\] interstate
    telecommunications services . . . contribute, on an equitable and
    nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and
    sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and
    advance universal service."[^4] In implementing this Congressional
    mandate, the Commission directed all telecommunications carriers
    providing interstate telecommunications services and certain other
    providers of interstate telecommunications to contribute to the
    Universal Service Fund based upon their interstate and international
    end-user telecommunications revenues.[^5] Failure by some providers
    to pay their share into the Fund skews the playing field by giving
    non-paying providers an economic advantage over their competitors,
    who must then shoulder more than their fair share of the costs of
    the Fund.

3.  The Commission has established specific procedures to administer the
    universal service program. A carrier is required to file FCC Form
    499-As, also known as the annual Telecommunications Reporting
    Worksheets ("Worksheets") for the purpose of determining its USF
    payments,[^6] and, with certain exceptions, to file quarterly
    short-form Worksheets to determine monthly universal service
    contribution amounts. These periodic filings trigger a determination
    of liability, if any, and subsequent billing and collection, by the
    entities that administer the regulatory programs. For example, the
    Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC"), the administrator
    of the USF, uses the revenue projections submitted on the quarterly
    filings to determine each carrier's universal service contribution
    amount.[^7] Carriers are required to pay their monthly USF
    contribution by the date shown on their invoice.[^8] The
    Commission's rules explicitly warn contributors that failure to file
    their forms or submit their payments potentially subjects them to
    enforcement action.[^9] Further, under the Commission's "red light
    rule," action will be withheld on any application to the Commission
    or authorization made by any entity that has failed to pay when due
    its regulatory program payment, such as USF contributions, and if
    payment or payment arrangements are not made within 30 days from
    notice to the applicant, such applications or requests will be
    dismissed.[^10]

4.  OCMC is an operator service provider, interexchange carrier and toll
    reseller.[^11] On September 16, 2004, USAC referred OCMC to the
    Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for investigation concerning OCMC's
    possible failure to fully and timely contribute to the USF.
    Thereafter, by letter dated September 28, 2004, the Bureau initiated
    an investigation into whether the company violated section 54.706 of
    the Commission's rules, which requires entities that provide
    interstate telecommunications to the public to contribute to
    USF.[^12] The LOI directed OCMC to provide certain specified
    documents and information. OCMC responded on October 18, 2004. A
    supplemental LOI was issued on December 16, 2004, and OCMC responded
    December 21, 2004.[^13]

# III. DISCUSSION

5.  Under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined
    by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply
    with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order
    issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a
    forfeiture penalty.[^14] To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the
    Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, and the person
    against whom the notice has been issued must have an opportunity to
    show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be
    imposed.[^15] The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it
    finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has
    violated the Act or a Commission rule.[^16] As set forth in greater
    detail below, we conclude under this standard that OCMC is
    apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and
    repeated violations of section 254(d) of the Act[^17] and section
    54.706(a) of the Commission's rules.[^18]

6.  The fundamental issue in this case is whether OCMC apparently
    violated the Act and the Commission's rules by willfully and
    repeatedly failing to timely pay in full the required universal
    service contributions. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, we
    conclude that OCMC is apparently liable for a forfeiture of
    \$1,133,761 for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating
    section 254(d) of the Act and section 54.706(a) of the Commission's
    rules.[^19]

7.  Specifically, we propose base forfeitures of \$20,000 for each of
    two apparent violations for non-payment of USF invoices, and
    \$10,000 for each of seven apparent violations for submitting only a
    partial payment of USF invoices, within the last year. Additionally,
    consistent with past Commission precedent,[^20] we propose an upward
    adjustment to this \$110,000 base forfeiture of \$1,023,761, which
    is one-half the outstanding balance owed on OCMC's USF account.
    Although we propose forfeitures only for apparent violations within
    the last year, we discuss below the history of OCMC's noncompliance
    in prior years to demonstrate the scope of OCMC's misconduct and to
    provide sufficient context for the misconduct that is within the
    statute of limitations period and thus covered by this NAL.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Universal Service Contributions**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  We conclude that OCMC has apparently violated section 254(d) of the
    Act and section 54.706 of the Commission's rules by willfully or
    repeatedly failing to contribute fully and timely to universal
    service support mechanisms.[^21] Section 54.706(c) unambiguously
    directs that "entities \[providing\] interstate telecommunications
    to the public . . . for a fee . . . contribute to the universal
    service support programs."[^22] "Interstate telecommunications"
    include, among other things, "resale of interstate services" such as
    those provided by OCMC.[^23]

9.  Notwithstanding its contribution obligations, for years OCMC has
    made irregular and unsatisfactory payments to the USF. The record is
    clear that between September 2003 and the date of this NAL, OCMC
    failed to make any monthly payment whatsoever to USAC on eight
    occasions, and made contributions that were insufficient to satisfy
    the total amount of its outstanding USF balance on twelve occasions,
    including eight instances where its payments were not sufficient to
    cover even its current month's charges. Specifically, USAC's
    invoices show that OCMC failed to make any payment on invoices due
    October 15, November 14, and December 15, 2003; January 15, February
    13, March 15 and June 15, 2004; and March 15 and June 15, 2005. The
    records demonstrate that OCMC made payments that were insufficient
    to satisfy the total amount of its outstanding balance on invoices
    due April 15, May 14, July 15, August 13, September 15, October 15,
    November 15, and December 15, 2004; and January, February 15, April
    15, and May 13, 2005. Of these twelve partial payments, the record
    further demonstrates that OCMC made payments that were not
    sufficient to cover even its current month charges on invoices due
    May 14, August 13, September 15, October 15, and November 15, 2004,
    and February 15, April 15 and May 13, 2005. As a result of this
    misconduct, OCMC has consistently maintained large overdue balances
    with USAC, with the result that it now owes more than \$2 million.

10. As we previously have stated,

    \[c\]arrier nonpayment of universal service contributions undermines
    the efficiency and effectiveness of the universal service support
    mechanisms. Moreover, delinquent carriers may obtain a competitive
    advantage over carriers complying with the Act and our rules. We
    consider universal service nonpayment to be a serious threat to a
    key goal of Congress and one of the Commission's primary
    responsibilities.[^24]

    Based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that OCMC has
    apparently violated section 254(d) of the Act and section 54.706(a)
    of the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly failing to
    contribute fully and timely to the USF on multiple occasions between
    October 2003 and June 2005. Within the last twelve months
    specifically, which is the time period covered by this NAL, OCMC
    failed to remit any contribution toward its USF obligations for the
    payment due by March 15 and June 15, 2005, and contributed less than
    even the amount of its monthly obligation for the payments due by
    August 13, September 15, October 15, and November 15, 2004, and by
    February 15, April 15, and May 13, 2005.

11. In this NAL we have chosen to propose liability only for the months
    within the twelve- month limitations period[^25] in which OCMC
    failed to pay at least the amount due for the current month by the
    due date stated on the USAC invoice and not for months in which OCMC
    paid at least the current month's charges[^26] because those months
    represent the most egregious examples of misconduct. Due to the
    accumulating record of contributors making only partial payments on
    USAC invoices, however, we may take a more expansive approach and
    include additional monthly violations in the future in appropriate
    circumstance.[^27]

12. In responses to the Bureau's inquiries, OCMC provides information
    concerning a billing dispute with USAC as grounds for its
    contribution failures. OCMC implies that it withheld certain monthly
    contributions and submitted other insufficient monthly contributions
    because USAC's invoices did not reflect OCMC's view of the proper
    resolution of that dispute. In January 2004, OCMC disputed a USAC
    invoice, maintaining it was owed \$310,703 in credits as a result of
    the true-up of its 2002 revenues.[^28] OCMC, in subsequent
    correspondence to USAC in August 2004, admitted that the amount in
    dispute was, in fact, properly credited to OCMC's account in
    2003.[^29]

13. After reviewing all the facts and circumstances, we find that the
    existence of this billing dispute does not excuse OCMC's violations
    for several reasons. First, a carrier may not engage in
    self-help.[^30] A carrier may not unilaterally decide to withhold
    universal service contributions pending the resolution of a billing
    dispute. Such a reading of Section 254 of the Act and our rules
    would encourage every contributor making USF payments to suspend
    such contributions by simply filing a dispute. Moreover, even if
    such self-help were permitted, OCMC suspended its contribution
    payments beginning in October 2003, but did not submit its billing
    dispute until February 2004. OCMC's delay undercuts its claim that
    its failures to contribute resulted from the dispute. In addition,
    the amount at issue in the dispute, \$310,703, is far exceeded by
    the overdue balances incurred by OCMC during the period, which at
    times exceeded \$1 million. Additionally, OCMC had no reasonable
    basis for disputing its invoices. The credits that OCMC alleged it
    was owed were clearly set forth in the USAC invoices for September
    -- November 2003. Finally, OCMC conceded its position on the dispute
    as early as August 2004, yet continued to carry a massive
    outstanding balance and to make insufficient payment on its USAC
    invoices after that time. For all of these reasons, we reject OCMC's
    position that the existence of a billing dispute with USAC excuses
    its failures. Based on these facts, it appears that OCMC
    deliberately chose not to pay its USF contributions despite its
    clear obligations under our universal service rules, and despite
    numerous monthly invoices it received from USAC informing the
    carrier of its increasing debt.[^31]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Proposed Forfeiture**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
14. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that any person that
    willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the
    Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission,
    shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.[^32]

15. For the apparent violations in this case, section 503(b)(2)(B) of
    the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to
    \$120,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation,
    up to a statutory maximum of \$1.2 million for a single act or
    failure to act for violations occurring before September 7, 2004,
    and up to \$130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing
    violation, up to a statutory maximum of \$1.325 million for a single
    act or failure to act for violations occurring on or after September
    7, 2004.[^33] In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we
    consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
    including "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."[^34]

16. Under section 503(b)(6) of the Act, we may only propose forfeitures
    for apparent violations that accrued within one year of the date of
    this NAL.[^35] Nevertheless, section 503(b) does not bar us from
    assessing whether OCMC's conduct prior to that time period
    apparently violated the Act or our rules in determining the
    appropriate forfeiture amount for those violations within the
    statute of limitations.[^36] Therefore, although we find that OCMC
    apparently violated the Act and our rules on numerous occasions over
    the past several years, we propose forfeitures here only for
    violations that occurred within the last year.

17. Based on the facts above, it appears that OCMC has failed to make
    the requisite contributions into the USF on numerous occasions over
    the past several years. Nonpayment of universal service
    contributions is an egregious offense that bestows on delinquent
    carriers an unfair competitive advantage by shifting to compliant
    carriers the economic costs and burdens associated with universal
    service. A carrier's failure to make required universal service
    contributions hampers realization of Congress' policy objective in
    section 254(d) of the Act to ensure the equitable and
    non-discriminatory distribution of universal service costs among all
    telecommunications providers.[^37] The Commission has established a
    base forfeiture amount of \$20,000 for each month in which a carrier
    has failed to make required universal service contributions.[^38]
    Consequently, we initially find that OCMC is apparently liable for a
    base forfeiture of \$40,000 for its failures to make any universal
    service contributions with respect to the payments due by March 15
    and June 15, 2005 on its USF account.

18. The Commission has not set a base forfeiture amount in a case in
    which a carrier repeatedly paid less than the current month's
    contribution amount by the due date stated on the USAC monthly
    invoice, resulting in an overdue balance on that carrier's account.
    As in the case of non-payment, such violations of our rules severely
    hamper realization of Congress's universal service goals as
    expressed in section 254 of the Act. We thus find that this
    violation is similar to, although less egregious than, a carrier's
    failure to make any universal service contributions in a specific
    month. Consequently, we find that OCMC is apparently liable for a
    forfeiture of \$10,000 for each of the instances in which it failed
    to make a payment sufficient to satisfy the current charges on
    August 13, September 15, October 15, and November 15, 2004 and
    February 15, April 15 and May 13, 2005. Consequently, OCMC is
    apparently liable for a base forfeiture of \$70,000 for these
    partial payments and a total base forfeiture of \$110,000 after
    including the partial payment base forfeiture with the nonpayment
    base forfeiture. That base forfeiture amount is, however, subject to
    an upward adjustment.

19. In the past, we have calculated upward adjustments to forfeitures
    for failure to make USF payments based on one-half of the company's
    unpaid contributions.[^39] When we began this investigation, OCMC
    owed approximately \$1.7 million on its USF account. During the
    course of this investigation, however, OCMC's apparent continued
    violations of our rules caused its USF account debt to increase to
    \$2,047,521. Therefore, taking into account all the factors
    enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we propose an upward
    adjustment of one-half of the company's unpaid contributions,
    \$1,023,761 for OCMC's apparent nonpayment and partial payment
    violations. We thus find OCMC liable for a total proposed forfeiture
    of \$1,133,761 for its apparent willful and repeated failure to make
    full and timely contributions into the USF.

    **IV. CONCLUSION**

20. In light of the seriousness, duration and scope of the apparent
    violations, and to ensure that a company with substantial revenues
    such as OCMC does not consider the proposed forfeiture merely "an
    affordable cost of doing business,"[^40] we find that a proposed
    forfeiture of \$1,133,761 is warranted.

21. We caution that additional violations of the Act or the Commission's
    rules could subject OCMC to further enforcement action. Such action
    could take the form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible
    revocation of OCMC's operating authority, including disqualification
    of OCMC's principals from the provision of any interstate common
    carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission.[^41]
    In addition, we note that, to the extent OCMC is found to be
    delinquent on any debt owed to the Commission (e.g., has failed to
    pay all of its USF contributions), the Commission will not act on,
    and may dismiss, any application or request for authorization filed
    by OCMC, in accordance with the agency's "red light" rules.[^42]

    **V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

22. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and
    section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that OCMC,
    Inc.is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in
    the amount of \$1,133,761 for willfully and repeatedly violating the
    Act and the Commission's rules.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
    Commission's Rules,[^43] within thirty days of the release date of
    this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, OCMC, Inc. SHALL PAY the full
    amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
    seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

24. 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/Acct. No. and FRN No.
    referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to
    Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal
    Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA
    15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon
    Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
    15251.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
    Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
    number 911-6106.

25. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY must be
    mailed to William Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445
    12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 and must include the
    NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.

26. 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 (GAAP); 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.

27. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL under an
    installment plan should be sent to Chief, Credit and Management
    Center, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.[^44]

28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
    LIABILITY AND ORDER shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
    requested, to Ann Bernard, General Counsel for OCMC, Inc., 801
    Congressional Boulevard, Carmel, Indiana, 46032.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 254.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).

[^3]: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the Communications Act
    of 1934. *See* Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104,
    110 Stat. 56 (1996) ("1996 Act").

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(d).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(b). Beginning April 1, 2003, carrier
    contributions were based on a carrier's projected, rather than
    historical, revenues. *Id.*

[^6]: Upon submission of a Form 499-A registration, the carrier is
    issued a filer identification number by USAC, which is then
    associated with further filings by the company and is used to track
    the carrier's contributions and invoices.

[^7]: Individual universal service contribution amounts that are based
    upon quarterly filings are subject to an annual true-up. *See
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Petition for
    Reconsideration filed by AT&T,* Report and Order and Order on
    Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 5748 (2001) ("*Quarterly Reporting
    Order*"); 47 C.F.R. § 54.709(a).

[^8]: *See* *Globcom, Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
    and Order*,* 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19896 (2003) ("*Globcom*"); 47 C.F.R.
    § 54.711(a) ("The Commission shall announce by Public Notice
    published in the Federal Register and on its website the manner of
    payment and the dates by which payments must be made."). *See,
    e.g.,* "Proposed Third Quarter 2003 Contribution Factor," *Public
    Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 11442 (Wir. Comp. Bur. 2003) ("Contribution
    payments are due on the date shown on the \[USAC\] invoice.") The
    Act and our rules, however, do not condition payment on receipt of
    an invoice or other notice from USAC. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47
    C.F.R. § 54.706(b). A carrier that does not file may not receive an
    invoice from USAC, but is nonetheless required to contribute to the
    universal service fund, unless its revenues are considered *de
    minimus.* The instructions for the Telecommunications Reporting
    Worksheet include tables for carriers to determine their annual
    contributions.

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.713.

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1910. The rule went into effect on November 1,
    2004. *See* "FCC Announces Brief Delay in Enforcement of Red Light
    Rule," *Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd 19452 (2004).

[^11]: OCMC's 2005 FCC Form 499-A Telecommunications Reporting
    Worksheet. *See also* Letter from Ann Bernard, OCMC, Inc., General
    Counsel, to Christopher Shields, Investigations and Hearings
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC (October 18, 2004) ("LOI
    Response").

[^12]: Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations &
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Robert Young, OCMC
    Telecom, Inc. (Sept. 28, 2004) ("LOI").

[^13]: Letter from Ann Bernard, OCMC, Inc., General Counsel, to
    Christopher Shields, Investigations and Hearings Division,
    Enforcement Bureau, FCC (December 20, 2004) ("Supplemental LOI
    Response").

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1). Section
    312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the conscious and
    deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act, irrespective of
    any intent to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). The
    legislative history to section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that
    this definition of willful applies to both sections 312 and 503(b)
    of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982),
    and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b)
    context. *See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
    Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388 (1991) ("*Southern California Broadcasting Co.*"). The
    Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations that are
    merely repeated, and not willful. *See, e.g.,* *Callais Cablevision,
    Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359 (2001) (issuing a Notice of
    Apparent Liability for, *inter alia*, a cable television operator's
    repeated signal leakage). "Repeated" means that the act was
    committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.
    *Callais Cablevision, Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9; *Southern
    California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5.

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^16]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

[^17]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(d).

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.706(a).

[^19]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).

[^20]: *Globcom*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19904.

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(c).

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(c).

[^23]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a)(16).

[^24]: *Globcom, Inc.,* 18 FCC Rcd at 19903 ¶ 26.

[^25]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6).

[^26]: Therefore, OCMC payments on invoices due April 15, July 15,
    August 13, and December 15, 2004 and January 2005 do not form the
    basis for liability in this NAL although those payments were
    insufficient to satisfy the total amount of its outstanding balance.

[^27]: The Commission's forfeiture authority might apply to additional
    months, because it is USAC's practice to apply partial payments to
    the oldest debt carried on USAC's books first, and not the current
    billed amount. *See North American Telephone Network, LLC*,
    Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 4838, ¶ 8 & n. 12 (2001); *Intellicall
    Operator Services*, Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 21,771, at 21,772,
    ¶ 6 and n.8 (2000).

[^28]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment dated Feb. 10, 2004
    (reading, in part, as follows: "This is to dispute, and request to
    review the records documenting, the \$310,703.48 demanded in your
    letter dated January 22, 2004").

[^29]: Supplemental LOI Response, Attachment dated Aug. 5, 2004
    (reading, in part: "Thanks you for your reply. The amount,
    originally in dispute, has been satisfied. As per your mention of
    the credits").

[^30]: *See* *Application for Review of the Denial of Vista
    Communications, Inc.\'s Request for Waiver of the Installment
    Payment Rules for the 218-219 MHz Service*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16,957 (2003) (Commission denied application for
    review that challenged decision that alleged confusion regarding the
    payment rules and payment schedule did not justify Interactive Voice
    and Data Service licensee's assumption that it could withhold
    payments).

[^31]: *See, e.g.,* *Conquest Operator Services Corp.*, Forfeiture
    Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12,518, at 12,522, ¶ 9 (discussing the monthly
    USAC invoices and the "more than adequate notice of ConQuest's
    universal service obligation").

[^32]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(2).

[^33]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2). The
    Commission recently amended its rules to increase the maximum
    penalties to account for inflation since the last adjustment of the
    penalty rates. *See* *Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the
    Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
    Inflation*, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). However, the new rates
    apply to violations that occur or continue after September 7, 2004.
    *See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and
    Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation*, Order, 19 FCC
    Rcd 10945 (2004).

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); *see also Forfeiture Policy Statement*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 17100, ¶ 27; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).

[^35]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6)(B); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c)(3).

[^36]: *See, e.g., Globcom, Inc*., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903; *Roadrunner
    Transp., Inc.,* Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671 (2000);
    *Liab. of E. Broad. Corp.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 F.C.C.
    2d 37 (1967).

[^37]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254(d).

[^38]: *See Globcom, Inc.,* 18 FCC Rcd at 19903-19904, ¶¶ 25-27.

[^39]: *See, e.g., Globcom*, *Inc*., 18 FCC Rcd at 19904.

[^40]: *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099; *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).

[^41]: *See Business Options, Inc.,* Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 2916
    (2003); *NOS Communications, Inc., Affinity Network Incorporated and
    NOSVA Limited Partnership,* Consent Decree, 2003 WL 22439710 (2003).

[^42]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1910.

[^43]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).

[^44]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.