$9.5M Penalty Proposed Against Cintex Wireless for Lifeline Violations
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554In the Matter of
File No.: EB-IHD-13-000106711
Cintex Wireless, LLC
NAL/Acct. No.: 201432080014
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: December 9, 2013
Released: December 11, 2013By the Commission:
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we continue our commitment
to combatting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program (Lifeline) by taking action and proposing
monetary forfeitures against a company that apparently has ignored our rules and exploited a program
dedicated to providing low-income Americans with basic telephone service. Specifically, we find that
Cintex Wireless, LLC (Cintex Wireless) apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 54.407,
54.409, and 54.410 of the Commission’s rules2 by requesting and/or receiving support from the Lifeline
program of the Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund) for ineligible subscriber lines for the months of
June through August 2012, December 2012, and February through April 2013. Based on our review of
the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we propose a monetary forfeiture in
the amount of nine million, four hundred sixty-one thousand, nine hundred seventy-eight dollars
Lifeline Service. Lifeline is part of the USF and helps qualifying consumers have the
opportunities and security that phone service brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family
members, and emergency services.3 Lifeline service is provided by Eligible Telecommunications Carriers
(ETCs) designated pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).4 An ETC may seek
and receive reimbursement from the USF for revenues it forgoes in providing the discounted services to
eligible customers in accordance with the rules.5 Section 54.403(a) of the Commission’s rules specifies
that an ETC may receive $9.25 per month for each qualifying low-income consumer receiving Lifeline
1 This investigation, initiated under file no. EB-13-IH-0201, was subsequently assigned to file no. EB-IHD-13-
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.
3 Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
27 FCC Rcd 6656, 6662–67, paras. 11–18 (2012) (Lifeline Reform Order); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.400–54.422.
4 47 U.S.C. § 254(e) (providing that “only an eligible telecommunications carrier designated under section 214(e) of
this title shall be eligible to receive specific Federal universal service support”); 47 U.S.C. § 214(e) (prescribing the
method by which carriers are designated as ETCs).
5 47 C.F.R. § 54.403(a).
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 13-156service,6 and up to an additional $25 per month if the qualifying low-income consumer resides on Tribal
lands.7 ETCs are required to pass these discounts along to eligible low-income consumers.8
The Commission’s Lifeline rules establish explicit requirements that ETCs must meet to
receive federal Lifeline support.9 Section 54.407(a) of the rules requires that Lifeline support “shall be
provided directly to an eligible telecommunications carrier, based on the number of actual qualifying low-
income consumers it serves.”10 Pursuant to Section 54.407(b) of the rules, an ETC may receive Lifeline
support only for qualifying low-income consumers.11 A “qualifying low-income consumer” must meet
the eligibility criteria set forth in Section 54.409 of the rules, including the requirement that he or she
“must not already be receiving a Lifeline service,”12 and must, pursuant to Section 54.410(d) of the rules,
certify his/her eligibility to receive Lifeline service.13
Section 54.410(a) of the Commission’s rules requires further that ETCs have procedures
in place “to ensure that their Lifeline subscribers are eligible to receive Lifeline services.”14 As explained
above, such eligibility requires that a consumer seeking Lifeline service may not already be receiving
Lifeline service. This obligation therefore requires, among other steps, that an ETC search its own
internal records to ensure that the ETC does not provide duplicate Lifeline service to any subscriber (an
The Commission’s rules further prohibit an ETC from seeking reimbursement for
providing Lifeline service to a subscriber unless the ETC has confirmed the subscriber’s eligibility to
6 Lifeline provides a single discounted wireline or wireless phone service to each qualifying low-income consumer’s
household. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.401; see also 47 C.F.R. § 54.400(h) (defining “household” as “any individual or
group of individuals who are living together at the same address as one economic unit”); Lifeline Reform Order, 27
FCC Rcd at 6760, para. 241 (noting that the costs of wireless handsets are not supported by the Lifeline program).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.403(a). Tribal lands include any federally recognized Indian tribe’s reservation, pueblo, or
colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.400(e).
8 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.403(a); Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6681, para. 53.
9 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.400–54.422.
10 47 C.F.R. § 54.407(a).
11 47 C.F.R. § 54.407(b). In 2011, the Commission took action to address potential waste, fraud, and abuse in the
Lifeline program by preventing duplicate payments for multiple Lifeline-supported services to the same individual.
See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9022–23, 9026, para. 1 (2011)
(Lifeline Duplicates Order); see also Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9057
(Wir. Comp. Bur. 2013); 47 C.F.R. § 54.410(a). Specifically, the Commission amended Sections 54.401 and 54.405
of the rules to codify the restriction that an eligible low-income consumer cannot receive more than one Lifeline-
supported service at a time. See Lifeline Duplicates Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9026, para. 7. In the Lifeline Reform
Order, this codified restriction was moved from Section 54.401(a) to revised Section 54.409(c). See Lifeline Reform
Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6689, para. 74, n.192. The Commission reiterated this limitation in the Lifeline Reform
Order. See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6689, para. 74; 47 C.F.R. § 54.405.
12 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.400(a), 54.409(c).
13 47 C.F.R. § 54.410(d).
14 47 C.F.R. § 54.410(a).
15 See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6691, para. 78. In June 2013, the Wireline Competition Bureau on
delegated authority underscored these obligations, prohibiting ETCs from activating “a service that it represents to
be Lifeline service, even on an interim basis while the consumer’s application is being processed, before verifying
eligibility,” including that a consumer’s household does not already subscribe to Lifeline service. Lifeline and Link
Up Modernization and Reform, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9057, 9059, para. 6 (Wir. Comp. Bur. 2013); see also 47 C.F.R.
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 13-156receive Lifeline service.16 In accordance with Section 54.410, before an ETC may seek reimbursement, it
must receive a certification of eligibility from the prospective subscriber that demonstrates that the
subscriber meets the income-based and program-based eligibility criteria for receiving Lifeline service,
and that the subscriber is not already receiving Lifeline service.17 As the foregoing discussion reveals,
when an ETC seeks Lifeline service support reimbursement for a low-income consumer who already
receives Lifeline service from that same ETC, that ETC has violated its obligation under the
Commission’s rules to confirm the subscriber’s eligibility for Lifeline service.
ETCs that provide qualifying low-income consumers with Lifeline discounts file an FCC
Form 497 with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), either quarterly or monthly, to
request support that reimburses them for providing service at the discounted rates. An ETC’s FCC Form
497 documents the number of qualifying low-income customers served and the total amount of Lifeline
support claimed by the ETC during the specified time period. Section 54.407(d) provides that an ETC
may receive reimbursement from the Fund, however, only if it certifies as part of its reimbursement
request that it is in compliance with the Lifeline rules.18 An ETC may revise its Form 497 data within 12
months after the data are submitted.19
In addition to reviewing claims submitted by ETCs, USAC conducts in-depth data
validations (IDVs) to further ensure compliance with the Lifeline rules.20 When a company is selected for
an IDV, USAC will send the company a letter requesting subscriber data for a prior month or months.
Once USAC receives the company’s data, it analyzes the company’s subscriber information to determine
whether there are any duplicate subscribers and sends the company another letter with its initial results.
USAC provides the company with an opportunity to submit a revised subscriber list to correct subscriber
data or to remove subscribers that are no longer receiving service. If USAC determines that a low-income
consumer is the recipient of multiple Lifeline benefits from that same ETC, it will send another letter to
the ETC identifying the instances of intra-company duplicative support, seek a recovery, and notify the
ETC that it must commence the deenrollment process for those duplicates.21
Cintex Wireless, LLC. Cintex Wireless is a Delaware limited liability company22 that
provides prepaid wireless telephone services, predominantly to Lifeline customers.23 Headquartered in
16 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.410(b).
17 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.410(b), (c); see also 47 C.F.R. § 54.410(d).
18 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.407(d).
19 See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6788, para. 305. Subsequent revisions, however, do not vitiate
violations of an ETC’s duty to verify the eligibility of the subscribers that are reflected on any of its previously filed
20 See Lifeline Duplicates Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9026, para. 7.
21 Although USAC recovers the duplicative support payments for the month at issue in the IDV examination
(generally a single month), it does not at present always seek to recover the duplicative support that the ETC may
have received for the same duplicates for the preceding and following months. We therefore direct USAC, when it
determines that an ETC has sought support from the Fund for an intra-company duplicate, to require the ETC to
report to USAC (a) the month in which the ETC began requesting and/or receiving duplicative support for each such
subscriber, and (b) the month the ETC stopped requesting and/or receiving duplicative support for each such
subscriber. We further require that, after receiving such information, USAC shall recover from the ETC all of the
duplicative support it has received for such subscribers.
22 See Delaware Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, Cintex Wireless LLC, File No. 4381064 (formed June
23 See Cintex Wireless LLC’s Revised Compliance Plan, WC Dockets Nos. 09-197 and 11-42, at 2 (Jan. 9, 2013)
(Cintex Revised Compliance Plan).
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 13-156Rockville, Maryland, Cintex Wireless is designated as an ETC24 in Arkansas,25 Maryland,26 Rhode
Island,27 and West Virginia.28
USAC conducted IDVs of the Lifeline support requested by Cintex Wireless for its
subscribers in the following four states for the months specified: Arkansas (August 2012, February 2013,
and April 2013), Maryland (June 2012 and March 2013), West Virginia (June 2012, December 2012, and
April 2013), and Rhode Island (July 2012 and March 2013). Based on USAC’s analysis, Cintex Wireless
apparently had 1,842 individual intra-company duplicate lines for which Cintex Wireless improperly
sought Lifeline support reimbursement.29 According to USAC, Cintex Wireless requested $17,326 in
overpayments from USAC over the months covered by the IDVs. On May 13, 2013, Enforcement
Bureau staff issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to Cintex Wireless concerning the company’s Lifeline
compliance.30 Cintex Wireless submitted a response to the LOI on June 17, 2013.31 On May 31, 2013,
Cintex Wireless entered into a tolling agreement with the Enforcement Bureau, which extended the
applicable statute of limitations period.32
Under Section 503(b)(1) 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.33 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.34 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,35 and the
24 In addition, Cintex Wireless is authorized to provide Lifeline-supported services in Maine, but Cintex Wireless’s
Lifeline service provision in that state is not at issue in this NAL. See Letter from John J. Heitmann, Counsel for
Cintex Wireless, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 3 (June 17, 2013) (LOI Response).
25 See Arkansas Pub. Service Comm., Docket No. 11-036-U (granted May 24, 2011).
26 See Maryland Pub. Service Comm., ML Nos. 130586, TE-10472 (granted May 18, 2011).
27 See Rhode Island Pub. Util. Comm., Docket No. 4224 (granted May 18, 2011).
28 See West Virginia Pub. Service Comm., Case No. 11-0256-C-PC (granted July 14, 2011).
29 An “intra-company duplicate line” is any line for which Cintex Wireless sought and/or received reimbursement in
violation of the Commission’s one line per household rule. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.409(c). For the purposes of applying
the second prong of our three-part forfeiture framework (a base forfeiture of $5,000 per duplicate), given the unique
circumstances presented by Lifeline intra-company duplicate cases involving multiple months of duplicate service,
we have counted each intra-company duplicate line once, regardless of the number of months in which Cintex
Wireless sought and/or received reimbursement for that line. We account for the duration of each intra-company
duplicate line (i.e., the number of months that Cintex Wireless sought compensation for each intra-company
duplicate line) in the first and third prongs of our forfeiture calculation. See infra paras. 14–15.
30 See Letter of Inquiry from Pamela S. Kane, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC
Enforcement Bureau, to Paul Greene, Cintex Wireless (dated May 13, 2013) (LOI).
31 See LOI Response.
32 See Tolling Agreement between Cintex Wireless and FCC Enforcement Bureau (May 31, 2013).
33 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).
34 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).
35 H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982) (“This provision [inserted in Section 312] defines the terms
‘willful’ and ‘repeated’ for purposes of section 312, and for any other relevant section of the act (e.g., Section
503) . . . . As defined[,] . . . ‘willful’ means that the licensee knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless
of whether there was an intent to violate the law. ‘Repeated’ means more than once, or where the act is continuous,
for more than one day. Whether an act is considered to be ‘continuous’ would depend upon the circumstances in
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 13-156Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.36 The Commission may also
assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.37 “Repeated” means that the act
was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.38 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.39 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds, based on the evidence, that the person
has violated the Act, or a Commission Rule or Order.40
Based on the record evidence developed in this investigation, we conclude that Cintex
Wireless apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 54.407, 54.409, and 54.41041 of the rules
by concurrently requesting Lifeline support reimbursement for 1,842 individual intra-company duplicate
lines. Based on the facts and circumstances before us, we therefore conclude that Cintex Wireless is
apparently liable for forfeiture penalties totaling $9,461,978.
For the violations at issue here, Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the
Commission to assess a forfeiture against a telecommunications carrier of up to $150,000 for each
violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act
or failure to act.42 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we consider the factors enumerated
in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, including “the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
(Continued from previous page)
each case. The definitions are intended primarily to clarify the language in Sections 312 and 503, and are consistent
with the Commission’s application of those terms . . . .”).
36 See, e.g., So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), recons. denied, 7
FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern California Broadcasting).
37 See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359,
1362, para. 10 (2001) (Callais Cablevision) (proposing a forfeiture for, inter alia, a cable television operator’s
repeated signal leakage).
38 Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5; Callais Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 136, para. 9.
39 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
40 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, para. 4 (2002).
41 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.407, 54.409, 54.410; see also supra paras. 3–6 (discussing these rules and observing that when an
ETC seeks Lifeline service support reimbursement for a low-income consumer who already receives Lifeline service
from that ETC, that ETC has failed in its obligation to confirm the subscriber’s eligibility for Lifeline service in
violation of the rules).
42 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2). These amounts reflect inflation adjustments to the
forfeitures specified in Section 503(b)(2)(B) ($100,000 per violation or per day of a continuing violation and
$1,000,000 per any single act or failure to act). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub.
L. No. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134,
Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA), requires the Commission to adjust its forfeiture penalties periodically for
inflation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note (4). The Commission most recently adjusted its penalties to account for
inflation in 2013. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary
Penalties to Reflect Inflation, DA 13-1615, 2013 WL 3963800 (Enf. Bur. 2013); see also Inflation Adjustment of
Monetary Penalties, 78 Fed. Reg. 49,370-01 (Aug. 14, 2013) (setting Sept. 13, 2013, as the effective date for the
increases). However, because the DCIA specifies that any inflationary adjustment “shall apply only to violations
which occur after the date the increase takes effect,” we apply the forfeiture penalties in effect at the time the
violation took place. 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note (6). Here, because the violations at issue occurred before September
13, 2013, the applicable maximum penalties are based on the Commission’s previous inflation adjustment that
became effective on September 2, 2008. See Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Forfeiture Penalties, 73 Fed. Reg.
44,663, 44,664 (July 31, 2008).
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 13-156violation 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,”43 as well as our forfeiture guidelines.44
If an ETC violates our rules and submits a request for Lifeline support that it knew or
should have known includes ineligible subscribers, and thus requests and/or receives more reimbursement
from the Fund than the amount to which it is properly entitled, it undermines the low-income support
reimbursement mechanism. The Commission believes that the imposition of a significant forfeiture
amount is a necessary response to Lifeline overcollection violations. Lifeline ETCs must expend the
necessary company resources to ensure compliance with the Commission’s Lifeline rules, especially the
rules and procedures requiring that providers request and/or receive federal universal service support only
for service provided to eligible consumers. Imposing a significant forfeiture on such rule violators should
deter those service providers that fail to devote sufficient resources to ferreting out company practices
resulting in overcollection violations. In addition, a significant forfeiture should achieve broader industry
compliance with Lifeline rules that are critically important to the effective functioning of the Fund.
To eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, maintain the integrity of the Fund, and protect the
consumers who contribute to the Fund, the Commission has implemented a three-part forfeiture
framework for Lifeline overcollection violations that imposes: (1) a base forfeiture of $20,000 for each
instance in which an ETC files an FCC Form 497 that includes ineligible subscribers in the line count,
which is a violation of the certification requirement contained in Section 54.407(d) of our rules;45 (2) a
base forfeiture of $5,000 for each ineligible subscriber for whom the ETC requests and/or receives
support from the Fund in violation of Sections 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of our rules;46 and (3) an
upward adjustment of the base forfeiture equal to three times the reimbursements requested and/or
received by the ETC for ineligible subscribers.47
Based on the facts and record before us, we have determined that Cintex Wireless has
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the rules.48 As
documented above, in connection with the submission of ten FCC Form 497s, Cintex Wireless requested
Lifeline support reimbursement of $17,326 for customers who were receiving more than one Cintex
Wireless Lifeline service. Accordingly, with respect to the first component of the structure articulated by
the Commission, we propose a base forfeiture of $200,000 for the submission of the FCC Form 497s that
included the ineligible intra-company duplicate subscribers in the line counts. With respect to the second
component, we propose a base forfeiture of $9,210,000 based on the 1,842 individual intra-company
duplicate lines for which Cintex Wireless requested and/or received compensation from the Fund.
Finally, with respect to the third component, we propose an upward adjustment of $51,978, which is three
times the amount of support Cintex Wireless requested and/or received for ineligible consumers. We
therefore conclude that a total proposed forfeiture of $9,461,978 against Cintex Wireless for its apparent
violations of the Commission’s Lifeline rules is warranted.
This NAL will in no way foreclose the Commission or any other governmental entity
from taking additional enforcement action and imposing additional forfeitures for other violations of the
Lifeline rules. Moreover, the Commission clarifies that the penalties that result from this NAL are
43 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
44 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8); Note to Paragraph (b)(8): Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures.
45 47 C.F.R. § 54.407(d).
46 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.407, 54.409, 54.410; see Easy Tel. Servs. d/b/a Easy Wireless, File No. EB-IHD-13-00010590,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 13-129, at 5–7, paras. 13–18 (Sept. 30, 2013) (Easy Wireless).
47 See Easy Wireless, FCC 13-129, at 5–7, paras. 13–18.
48 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 13-156separate from any amounts that an ETC may be required to refund to USAC in order to make the Fund
IT IS ORDEREDthat, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and 1.80 of
the rules,49 Cintex Wireless, LLC, is hereby
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
eight dollars ($9,461,978) for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 54.407, 54.409, and
54.410 of the rules.50
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the rules,51 within thirty
(30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Cintex Wireless
SHALL PAYthe full amount of the proposed forfeiture or
SHALL FILEa written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
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. Cintex Wireless
shall also send electronic notification of payment to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, at Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov
and to Mindy Littell, at Mindy.Littell@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.52 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.
Any request for making full payment over time 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. 20554.53 If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please
49 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
50 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.
51 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
52 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
53 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 13-156contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail,
The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any,
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant
to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the rules,54 and may include any data or information demonstrating that
the IDV results referenced in this NAL are materially erroneous or anomalous or that the forfeiture
proposed is otherwise inappropriate. 55 The written statement must be mailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh,
Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the
caption. The written statement shall also be emailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, at
Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov and to Mindy Littell, at Mindy.Littell@fcc.gov.
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 principles
(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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and first class mail to John Heitmann,
Kelley, Drye & Warren, L.L.P., 3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007-5108
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
54 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
55 For example, the written statement could include data showing that the months examined in the IDVs were
outliers or otherwise not representative.
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.