**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   |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  | FRN No. 0006176879           |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER OF FORFEITURE**

**Adopted: September 14, 2006 Released: September 15, 2006**

By the Commission:

# I. INTRODUCTION  {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}

1.  In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of
    \$1,133,761 against OCMC, Inc. ("OCMC") for willful and repeated
    violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
    "Act"), and our rules. For the reasons set forth below, we find that
    OCMC willfully and repeatedly violated the Act[^1] and Commission
    rules[^2] by failing to contribute to the Universal Service Fund
    ("USF").

# II. BACKGROUND {#ii.-background .unnumbered}

#   {#section .unnumbered}

2.  The facts and circumstances surrounding this case are set forth in
    the Notice of Apparent Liability and Order ("*OCMC NAL*") previously
    issued by the Commission, and need not be reiterated here at
    length.[^3] OCMC is an operator service provider ("OSP"),
    interexchange carrier and toll reseller.[^4] As an OSP and reseller
    of interstate and international long-distance services, OCMC is
    subject to the obligations of section 254 of the Act and section
    54.706(b) of our rules.[^5] Section 254(d) of the Act requires that
    "\[e\]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate
    telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and
    non-discriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and
    sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and
    advance universal service."[^6] Section 54.706 of the Commission's
    rules requires all telecommunications carriers that provide
    interstate telecommunications services, and certain other providers
    of interstate telecommunications, to contribute to the USF based on
    their projected collected end-user telecommunications revenues, and
    on a contribution factor determined quarterly by the Commission.[^7]

3.  The Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC") administers
    the universal service support mechanisms and performs billing and
    collection functions.[^8] The Commission requires carriers to
    provide revenue information to USAC on FCC Form 499
    ("Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet") on a quarterly and annual
    basis,[^9] and USAC uses that information to determine the amount of
    each carrier's universal service contributions on a quarterly basis,
    with a yearly true-up using the Annual Worksheet.[^10] USAC bills
    carriers, including OCMC, each month based on their quarterly
    contribution amount.[^11]

4.  On September 16, 2004, USAC referred OCMC to the Enforcement Bureau
    ("Bureau") for investigation concerning OCMC's possible failure to
    contribute fully and on a timely basis 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 the
    USF.[^12] The LOI directed OCMC to provide specified documents and
    information. OCMC responded on October 18, 2004.[^13] A supplemental
    LOI was issued on December 16, 2004,[^14] and OCMC responded on
    December 21, 2004.[^15]

5.  The Commission released the *OCMC NAL* on August 12, 2005. We
    concluded in the *OCMC NAL* that OCMC apparently violated section
    254(d) of the Act and section 54.706(a) of our rules by willfully
    and repeatedly failing to contribute fully and on a timely basis to
    the USF.[^16] At that time the Administrator's invoices showed that
    OCMC owed \$2,047,521 in universal service-related charges, fees,
    and adjustments. We proposed a forfeiture of \$1,133,761 against
    OCMC for apparent willful and repeated failures to pay contributions
    to the USF.[^17]

6.  OCMC filed its response to the *OCMC NAL* on September 12,
    2005.[^18] OCMC does not dispute our conclusions as to its
    violations, but instead argues for a reduction of the proposed
    forfeiture amount for those violations. OCMC contends that the
    proposed forfeiture amount is inequitable and contrary to Commission
    precedent. OCMC also argues that given its current financial
    condition as set forth in financial statements and recently revised
    Worksheets, as well as its "good faith compliance" before we issued
    the LOI, a downward adjustment of the forfeiture amount is
    warranted.

7.  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.[^19] 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.[^20]
    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,[^21] and the Commission has so interpreted the
    term in the section 503(b) context.[^22] The Commission may also
    assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not
    willful.[^23] "Repeated" means that the act was committed or omitted
    more than once, or lasts more than one day.[^24] 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.[^25] 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 order or rule.[^26]

8.  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.[^27] 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."[^28]

    **III. DISCUSSION**

9.  As discussed below, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that
    OCMC has willfully and repeatedly violated section 254(d) of the Act
    and section 54.706(a) of the Commission's rules by failing to
    contribute fully and timely to the USF.[^29] OCMC does not dispute
    that it failed to satisfy its payment obligations as set forth in
    the *OCMC NAL*.[^30] Consequently, we find that OCMC willfully and
    repeatedly violated our rules by failing to make any USF
    contribution in two of the twelve months preceding the issuance of
    the NAL, and by making only partial payments in seven of the twelve
    months preceding the issuance of the NAL.[^31]

10. In the *OCMC NAL*, we proposed a forfeiture of \$1,133,761 for
    OCMC's apparent willful and repeated violations of section 254(d) of
    the Act and sections 54.706(a) of the Commission's rules.[^32] We
    calculated this amount as follows. For OCMC's apparent failure to
    pay universal service contributions, we applied a base forfeiture
    amount of \$20,000 for each of two months of nonpayment.[^33] For
    OCMC's apparent submission of partial payment contributions,[^34] we
    applied a base forfeiture amount of \$10,000 for each of seven
    months of partial payments.[^35] We then added one-half of the more
    than \$2 million of total unpaid universal service contributions
    (\$1,023,761) to the base forfeiture of \$110,000, for a proposed
    forfeiture of \$1,133,761. As explained below, we reject OCMC's
    various arguments to reduce the forfeiture. We therefore impose the
    forfeiture of \$1,133,761 proposed in the NAL.

11. As explained below, we reject OCMC's arguments to reduce the
    forfeiture proposed in the *OCMC NAL*. We conclude that, contrary to
    OCMC's claims, the *OCMC NAL* conforms to our precedent and is
    equitable. We also conclude that neither OCMC's purported efforts to
    pay down part of its outstanding USF balance before we issued the
    LOI nor its revised Worksheets justify a downward adjustment of the
    forfeiture. Indeed, while it is true that OCMC has revised its
    Worksheets since the NAL was issued, its revisions have *increased*
    its revenue for 2004, such that OCMC actually owed *more* to the USF
    at the time of the NAL than the amount referenced therein.

## The Proposed Forfeiture Amount Is Consistent with Precedent

12. We reject OCMC's argument that an upward adjustment of one-half of
    its unpaid USF contributions is "inequitable" and "contrary to
    precedent."[^36] As support for its argument, OCMC reviews other
    NALs involving USF contribution violations that used the same theory
    for upward adjustments,[^37] and states that "\[t\]he violations in
    those cases demonstrate a flaunting of Commission rules and
    disregard of requirements that contrasts dramatically with OCMC's
    conduct,"[^38] in that the carriers that were the subject of those
    NALs had other violations beyond the failure to contribute to USF.

13. OCMC's position fails to recognize, however, that in the cases it
    cites, the Commission also proposed forfeitures for each of the
    other violations. In other words, while it is true that each of the
    carriers OCMC references did, in fact, appear to violate additional
    rules, it is not true, as OCMC implies, that the only additional
    penalty these carriers faced was an upward adjustment for their
    failures to contribute to the USF. Rather, we assessed forfeitures
    for each of these carriers' additional violations, some in the
    hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, in addition to the
    forfeiture we proposed for one carrier's failure to contribute to
    the USF, we also proposed a forfeiture against the carrier of
    \$100,000 for its failure to register with the Commission as
    required by section 64.1195 of our rules; \$250,000 for its failure
    to file five Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets with the
    Commission; \$10,000 for its failure to contribute to the
    Telecommunications Relay Service fund, plus an upward adjustment of
    one-half of its unpaid contributions to that fund; \$10,000 for
    failure to contributing to the North American Numbering Plan
    Administration fund; and \$10,000 for failure to pay regulatory
    fees.[^39] In short, in all of the NALs that OCMC references, we
    proposed separate penalties for each of the carrier's additional
    violations.

14. The precedent OCMC cites confirms, instead, that we are treating
    OCMC the same as other carriers that committed the same
    violation---failure to contribute to USF. Our approach to the upward
    adjustment to the forfeiture for the failure to contribute to USF in
    each of these cases was the same and was based on one-half of the
    carrier's outstanding obligations to the fund. As a result, our
    approach to OCMC's upward adjustment for failure to contribute to
    USF is equitable when compared to other instances when we have
    imposed forfeitures for such violations and fully consistent with
    precedent.

## The Forfeiture Amount Is Equitable Given OCMC's Revenues

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

15. We also reject OCMC's argument that it does not have substantial
    revenues, and as a result, an upward adjustment of one-half of its
    unpaid USF balance is unnecessary to deter the company from future
    USF violations. As an initial matter, OCMC's objection to our
    characterization of its revenues as "substantial" in the NAL is
    unavailing. The company's response to the NAL, and its Worksheets,
    indicate that its gross revenues are in the tens of millions of
    dollars, and have been for several years.[^40] As a result, we
    reject OCMC's claims that "\[t\]he Commission erroneously assumes
    that OCMC is a company with 'substantial revenues,'"[^41] and that
    "the NAL fails to explain the basis for the Commission's conclusion
    that OCMC is a company with substantial revenues."[^42]

16. To the extent that OCMC argues that its *profitability* is too
    insubstantial to justify an upward adjustment of one-half of its
    unpaid USF balance, its argument appears to be a challenge to our
    general theory for upward adjustments for USF violations, at least
    as applied to the company. Our approach to the upward adjustment is
    tied specifically to the impact of a company's failure to pay USF
    contributions and therefore necessarily changes with the amount of a
    carrier's outstanding obligations to the fund, meaning that we
    assess a higher forfeiture amount against carriers that owe more to
    the fund than to carriers that owe less. As the Commission has
    stated repeatedly in cases involving failures to contribute to USF,
    we believe that this approach is appropriate because "a delinquent
    carrier's culpability and the consequential damage it causes to the
    goal of universal service may vary with the size of the contribution
    it fails to make."[^43] Moreover, at the time we established our
    current methodology for basing the upward adjustment for USF
    violations on one-half of a carrier's total overdue obligations, we
    explained that "the time has come to implement a substantially
    greater forfeiture amount in order to deter carriers from violating
    our universal service and reporting rules."[^44] Thus, OCMC's upward
    adjustment is over \$1 million simply because the company owed more
    than \$2 million to USF, meaning that the company's misconduct
    deprived this Congressionally-sanctioned fund of this significant
    amount. Our theory for upward adjustments generally, and as applied
    to OCMC specifically, is fully consistent with the mandate of
    section 503(b)(2)(D) 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."[^45]

## Pre-LOI Efforts by OCMC Did Not Constitute Good Faith Compliance with Our Rules

17. We also reject OCMC's allegation that we should adjust the proposed
    forfeiture downward because the company demonstrated good faith by
    paying down its overdue universal service contributions prior to the
    LOI.[^46] Initially, we note that our forfeiture methodology already
    takes into account any effort by OCMC to pay down its balance before
    we issued the LOI, because the upward adjustment is dependent on the
    amount of the outstanding USF balance. Where a carrier such as OCMC
    pays down that balance through pre-enforcement action efforts, the
    forfeiture is proportionately diminished.

18. Secondly, as noted in the *OCMC NAL*, the record is clear that
    between September 2003 and the date of the 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.[^47] As a result of this misconduct, OCMC
    has consistently maintained balances with USAC that exceed \$1
    million. Thus, regardless of OCMC's purported pre-LOI efforts, large
    gaps remain in OCMC's compliance. The excessively high balances
    maintained by OCMC demonstrate that the forfeiture should not be
    reduced.

19. Finally, in responses to the Bureau's inquiries, OCMC provided
    information concerning a billing dispute with USAC as grounds for
    its contribution failures. OCMC implied 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.[^48] 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.[^49] Thus, OCMC's billing dispute does not warrant
    a reduction in the forfeiture.

## OCMC Has Not Demonstrated It Is Unable to Pay the Forfeiture Amount

20. OCMC also has not demonstrated an inability to pay the forfeiture.
    OCMC claims that the company lost money overall from 2003 through
    2004, providing audited financial statements for those years as
    support,[^50] and states that it currently lacks sufficient
    resources to pay the proposed forfeiture, providing financial
    statements current as of July 2005 as support.[^51] Although ability
    to pay is a statutory factor that we must consider in setting a
    forfeiture amount,[^52] the Commission has repeatedly held that a
    carrier's gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability to
    pay a forfeiture.[^53] The financial information supplied by OCMC in
    support of its claim, including its 2002-2004 financial statements
    and year-to-date 2005 financials, shows that OCMC's gross revenues
    are far in excess of the forfeiture amount, and that the forfeiture
    amount represents a smaller percentage of OCMC's gross revenues than
    that deemed not to be excessive by the Commission in other cases.
    OCMC has not produced any evidence, through affidavits or otherwise,
    that it will not be able to pay the total forfeiture.[^54]

## The Forfeiture Should Not Be Adjusted Downward Due to OCMC's Revised Worksheets

21. Finally, we reject OCMC's argument that we should adjust downward
    the forfeiture proposed in the NAL as a result of "clerical errors"
    in the Worksheets the company filed in 2005.[^55] OCMC revised its
    annual Worksheet at about the same time that it responded to the
    NAL, and claimed that the balances USAC would recalculate from these
    revisions "will be significantly lower than the more than \$2
    million balance identified in the NAL," such that "any penalty
    assessed by the Commission for partial or non-payment of USF
    contributions should be based on the actual, lower balance owed,
    rather than an artificially inflated amount resulting from clerical
    error."[^56] In fact, although OCMC did revise its annual Worksheet
    for 2005 at about the same time it filed its response to the NAL,
    USAC has indicated to Commission staff that it identified problems
    with that submission, and as a result, the company revised its
    Worksheet a second time. The net effect of these revisions is that
    OCMC has *increased* its reported revenue for calendar year 2004,
    such that the amount of the company's outstanding balance at the
    time of the NAL was actually *higher* than the amount discussed
    therein. While we agree with OCMC that we should base our forfeiture
    on its actual USF balance, that approach does not result in
    decreasing the company's forfeiture. As a result, the forfeiture
    will not be reduced due to OCMC's revisions to its Worksheets.

    **IV. CONCLUSION**

#  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

22. OCMC withheld payments to the Congressionally-mandated universal
    service program, thereby depriving the program of essential funding
    for an extended period of time and totaling millions of dollars in
    withheld contributions. In light of the seriousness, duration and
    scope of the apparent violations, we find that the forfeiture of
    \$1,133,761 proposed in the *OCMC NAL* is warranted.

# V. ORDERING CLAUSES {#v.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

23\. 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. SHALL
FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of \$1,133,761 for
willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's rules.

24\. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for
in section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within 30 days of the release
of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period
specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for
collection pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.[^57] 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 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. Requests for
full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate
Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12th St, SW, Room 1A625,
Washington, DC 20554.[^58]

25\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this ORDER OF FORFEITURE shall
be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Ann C. Bernard,
General Counsel, OCMC, Inc., 801 Congressional Boulevard, Suite 100,
Carmel, IN 46032.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 254.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).

[^3]: *See OCMC, Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
    Order, 20 FCC Rcd 14160 (2005) ("*OCMC NAL*").

[^4]: 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").

[^5]: The Commission's rules specifically include OSPs and resellers of
    interstate services in the definition of providers of interstate
    telecommunications services that must contribute to the fund. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a)(3), (16).

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(d).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.706, 54.709.

[^8]: *See Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange
    Carrier Association, Inc.*, Report and Order and Second Order on
    Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 18400, 18415, ¶ 25 (1997) ("*NECA
    Changes Order*"); 47 C.F.R. § 54.702(b).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.711.

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 54.709(a).

[^11]: *See, e.g., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*,
    Sixteenth Order on Reconsideration (in CC Docket No. 96-45), Eighth
    Report and Order (in CC Docket No. 96-45), and Sixth Report and
    Order (in CC Docket No. 96-262), 15 FCC Rcd 1679, 1687, ¶ 18 (1999);
    *Federal-State Board on Universal Service*, Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 19947, 19954, ¶ 17 (2000);
    *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 1998 Biennial
    Regulatory Review − Streamlined Contributor Reporting Requirements
    Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay Services,
    North American Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability, and
    Universal Service Support Mechanisms, Telecommunications Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Administration of the North
    American Numbering Plan and North American Numbering Plan Cost
    Recovery Contribution Factor and Fund Size, Number Resource
    Optimization, Telephone Number Portability, Truth-in-Billing and
    Billing Format,* Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952, 24971-72, ¶ 35 (2002);
    *Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, Inc.*, *Federal-State Board on Universal Service*,
    Second Order on Reconsideration (in CC Docket No. 97-21), 12 FCC Rcd
    22423, 22425, ¶ 3 (1997). Carriers must pay by the date shown on the
    invoice from the Administrator. 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 (Wireline
    Comp. Bur. 2003) ("Contribution payments are due on the date shown
    on the administrator invoice.").

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

[^13]: *See* LOI Response.

[^14]: Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations &
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Robert Young, OCMC,
    Inc. (Dec. 16, 2004) ("Supplemental LOI").

[^15]: Letter from Ann Bernard, OCMC, Inc., General Counsel, to
    Christopher Shields, Investigations and Hearings Division,
    Enforcement Bureau, FCC (December 20, 2004) ("Supplemental LOI
    Response").

[^16]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254; 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).

[^17]: *OCMC NAL,* 20 FCC Rcd at 14165-66, ¶¶ 14-19.

[^18]: *Response to Notice of Apparent Liability*, submitted by Ann C.
    Bernard, General Counsel, OCMC, Inc., dated Sept. 12, 2005 ("NAL
    Response").

[^19]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).

[^21]: H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

[^22]: *See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
    Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388, ¶ 5 (1991) ("*Southern California Broadcasting Co.*").

[^23]: *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)
    ("*Callais Cablevision, Inc*.")

[^24]: *Callais Cablevision, Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9; *Southern
    California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5.

[^25]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^26]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

[^27]: 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, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004).

[^28]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); *see The Commission's Forfeiture Policy
    Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules*,
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100, ¶ 27 (1997), *recon.
    denied*, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).

[^29]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 254; 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).

[^30]: NAL Response at 3.

[^31]: *OCMC NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 14163-64, ¶¶ 8-13.

[^32]: *OCMC NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 14165-66, ¶¶ 14-19.

[^33]: As set forth in the *OCMC NAL*, the two violations for
    non-payment of USF obligations occurred on March 15 and June 15,
    2005. *OCMC NAL* 20 FCC Rcd at 14164, ¶ 17.

[^34]: As set forth in the *OCMC NAL*, the seven violations for partial
    payment of USF obligations occurred on August 13, September 15,
    October 15, and November 15, 2004, and February 15, April 15, and
    May 13, 2005. *OCMC NAL* at 14166, ¶ 18.

[^35]: Under section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6), we
    have a one-year statute of limitations for non-broadcast forfeiture
    actions; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c)(3).

[^36]: NAL Response at 6.

[^37]: OCMC cites to four NALs we released in July and August 2005:
    *Telecom Management, Inc*., Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 14151 (2005); *Carrera
    Communications, LP*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
    Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13307 (2005); *InPhonic, Inc*., Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13277 (2005);
    *Teletronics, Inc*., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
    Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13291 (2005) ("*Teletronics*").

[^38]: NAL Response at 7.

[^39]: *See Teletronics*.

[^40]: NAL Response at 5-6.

[^41]: *Id*. at 8.

[^42]: *Id*. at 9.

[^43]: *Matrix Telecom, Inc*., Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 13544, 13546-47, ¶ 8 (2000); *see also
    Globcom, Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
    Order*,* 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19904, ¶ 27 (2003) ("*Globcom*").

[^44]: *Globcom* at 19903, ¶ 25 (2003).

[^45]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^46]: NAL Response at 11-12.

[^47]: *OCMC NAL*, 20 FCC Rcd at 14163, ¶ 9.

[^48]: 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.").

[^49]: 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.").

[^50]: *See* NAL Response at 12 and Exhibit A.

[^51]: *See* NAL Response at 12 and Exhibit C.

[^52]: "In determining the amount of . . . a forfeiture penalty, the
    Commission or its designee shall take into account . . . ability to
    pay." 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^53]: *See, e.g*., *Hoosier Broadcasting Corporation*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 8640 (2002) (forfeiture not deemed
    excessive where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of the
    violator\'s gross revenues); *Coleman Enterprises d/b/a Local Long
    Distance, Inc.,* Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 10,016 (2001)
    (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately
    7.9 percent of the violator\'s gross revenues); *PJB Communications
    of Virginia, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088,
    2089, ¶ 8 (1992) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it
    represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator\'s gross
    revenues).

[^54]: *See Webnet Communications, Inc*., Order of Forfeiture, 18 FCC
    Rcd 6870, 6878, ¶ 16 (2003); *America's Tele-Network Corporation*,
    Order of Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 22350, 22356-56, ¶ 16 (2001).

[^55]: NAL Response at 12.

[^56]: *Id*. at 12-13.

[^57]: 47 U.S.C § 504(a).

[^58]: *See* 47 U.S.C § 1.1914.