FCC Fines Starfone $409k for Int'l Licensing and Other Violations
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
File No.: EB-IHD-13-00011657
RB Communications, Inc., d/b/a Starfone
NAL/Acct. No.: 201232080018
Adopted: May 23, 2014
Released: May 23, 2014
By the Commission:
In this Forfeiture Order, we impose a penalty of $408,668 against RB Communications,
Inc., d/b/a Starfone (Starfone or the Company) for providing interstate and international
telecommunications services over a four-year period without first meeting important regulatory
obligations. Specifically, Starfone provided interstate telecommunications service without registering
with the Commission and international telecommunications service without obtaining Commission
authority. Starfone also failed to make timely contributions to the Interstate Telecommunications Relay
Service (TRS) Fund and to timely pay the regulatory fees it owed the Commission. Each of these
violations harmed the public. Starfone evaded Commission oversight for years by failing to register.
Starfone subjected the nation to potential national security and law enforcement risks by not timely
seeking or obtaining authority to provide international telecommunications service. Starfone’s TRS
violations harmed the critically important TRS program, which depends on timely contributions to
provide persons with disabilities access to the same communications services enjoyed by others. By
failing to pay its regulatory fees on time, Starfone unfairly shifted its share of regulatory costs to other
providers. Finally, since the Commission issued the proposed forfeiture against the Company, Starfone
has continued to default on its ongoing contribution obligations to the TRS Fund.
The forfeiture we
impose here reflects the seriousness, duration, and scope of Starfone’s violations, and also takes into
account the Company’s ongoing record of noncompliance.
The factual background for this Forfeiture Order is set forth in detail in the Notice of
Apparent Liability that the Commission previously issued against Starfone (Starfone NAL),2 and will not
be repeated here at length. RB Communications, Inc. is a California corporation that, through the trade
name Starfone, resells interstate and international telecommunications services to end users.3 Starfone
advertises itself as “a value added provider of Long Distance (International), prepaid and postpaid calling
1 This investigation was formerly assigned File No. EB-08-IH-5303.
2 See RB Communications, Inc., d/b/a Starfone, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd
4393 (2012). The Starfone NAL is incorporated by reference herein.
3 Id. at 4396, para. 8.
Federal Communications Commission
services based on an online pinless calling card system” that allows users global access to over 300
On April 13, 2012, the Commission adopted the Starfone NAL, which found that Starfone
had apparently violated: (1) Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act) and
Section 63.18 of the Commission’s rules (Rules) by failing to obtain international Section 214 authority
before providing international telecommunications service;5 (2) Section 64.1195(a) of the Rules by failing
to register with the Commission from the time it began providing interstate telecommunications services
until July 23, 2009;6 (3) Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Rules by failing to timely make required TRS
contributions for 2007, 2008, and 2009;7 and (4) Sections 1.1154 and 1.1157(b)(1) of the Rules by failing
to pay regulatory fees due to the Commission for each year from 2007 to 2011.8 The Commission also
found that each of these apparent violations had been willful or repeated and that, because Starfone’s TRS
contributions and regulatory fees for the periods at issue remained unpaid, these failure-to-pay violations
were continuing violations until cured by payment of all monies owed.9 The Commission proposed
forfeiture penalties totaling $408,668 for Starfone’s apparent violations.10
Starfone filed its response to the Starfone NAL on June 8, 2012.11 Starfone does not
dispute that it violated the Act and the Rules. Rather, Starfone contends that the forfeiture proposed for
its TRS violations may be inequitable and should be reduced. The Company also argues for a reduced
forfeiture on the grounds that it cooperated with Commission staff during the course of the investigation
and that it has registered and obtained authority to provide international telecommunications service from
the Commission. It claims that it “has corrected any deficiencies that come to its attention” and is “now
maintaining a history of compliance.”12 Starfone asserts that these factors support a reduction of the
proposed forfeiture.13 Finally, Starfone argues that the imposition of the full forfeiture on the Company
would cause it undue economic hardship and could cause it to go out of business.14
In the Starfone NAL, the Commission proposed a forfeiture penalty in accordance with
Section 503(b)(1) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the forfeiture guidelines.15 Section
503(b)(1)(B) provides that any person who “willfully or repeatedly” violates the Act or the Rules “shall
4 Id. at 4396, para. 8 n.26 (quoting Starfone web site at http://www.starfone.net/aboutus.aspx (visited April 9,
2012)). Starfone’s current web site also recites this information. See Starfone “About Us” Page,
http://www.starfone.net/aboutus.aspx (last visited May 22, 2014).
5 Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4397–98, para. 14 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 214; 47 C.F.R. § 63.18).
6 Id. at 4399, para. 17 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195(a)).
7 Id. at para. 18 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A)).
8 Id. at 4399–4400, para. 19 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1)).
9 Id. at 4397, 4402, paras. 13, 25, 27.
10 See id. at 4402, para. 28.
11 See Response of RB Communications, Inc. to Notice of Apparently Liability Requesting Consent Decree
Negotiations (filed June 8, 2012) (on file in EB-IHD-13-00011657) (NAL Response).
12 See id. at 3–7.
13 See id.
14 Id. at 3, 7. At Starfone’s request, id., Commission staff attempted to negotiate a consent decree with the
Company. The parties were unable to reach an agreement to resolve this matter.
15 See Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4400, para. 20 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(6) (2012),
Note to paragraph (b)(6): Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures); id. at 4400–02, paras. 21–28.
Federal Communications Commission
be liable . . . for a forfeiture penalty.”16 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires
that we 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.”17 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.18 The
legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312
and 503(b) of the Act,19 and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.20
We have examined Starfone’s NAL Response in light of the aforementioned statutory
factors, our Rules and precedent, and our forfeiture guidelines. After consideration of all relevant
information, including the information in the NAL Response, we conclude that Starfone willfully violated
the Act and the Rules, and that a forfeiture of $408,668 properly reflects the seriousness, duration, and
scope of Starfone’s violations and best serves the interest of justice. We therefore conclude that Starfone
is liable for a forfeiture of $408,668.
Starfone Willfully Violated the Communications Act and the Rules
Based on our review of the record, we find that Starfone violated the Act and the Rules as
alleged in the Starfone NAL, and that each of Starfone’s violations was willful. Starfone does not dispute
that it committed the violations identified in the Starfone NAL.21 Nor does Starfone dispute that its
violations were willful or otherwise suggest that its actions or omissions underlying the violations were
not “conscious and deliberate.”22
Starfone violated Section 214 of the Act and Section 63.18 of the Rules by providing
international telecommunications service for over six years before obtaining Section 214 authority from
the Commission to provide such service.23
Starfone continued to provide international
telecommunications service between February 1, 2010, when it finally applied for international Section
214 authority, and March 5, 2010, when the Commission granted Starfone that authority, even though
Starfone neither requested nor obtained special temporary authority (STA) to provide such service.24
Starfone violated Section 64.1195 of the Rules by providing interstate telecommunications service for
16 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).
17 Id. § 503(b)(2)(E).
18 Id. § 312(f)(1).
19 See 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 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 . . . .”).
20 See, e.g., So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991), recon.
denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
21 See NAL Response.
22 See id.
23 Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4396, 4397–98, 4400, paras. 11, 14, 21.
24 See id., 27 FCC Rcd at 4398, para. 14; see also Unipoint Technologies, Inc., File No. EB-IHD-13-00011665,
Forfeiture Order, FCC 14-11, 2014 WL 554086, at *2, paras. 7 (Feb. 11, 2014) (Unipoint Forfeiture Order); id. at
*7, para. 24 (citing Teleplus, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 7666, 7669, para. 8
(Enf. Bur. 2009)).
Federal Communications Commission
over four years before registering with the Commission.25 Starfone violated Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A)
of the Rules by failing to timely make contributions totaling $257,336 to the TRS Fund for 2007, 2008,
and 2009.26 Finally, Starfone violated Sections 1.1154 and 1.1157(b)(1) of the Rules by failing to timely
pay its regulatory fees for 2007 to 2011.27 All of these violations were willful because they resulted from
Starfone’s conscious and deliberate actions or omissions.28
A $408,668 Forfeiture is Warranted
The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement specifies that the Commission shall
impose a forfeiture based upon consideration of the factors enumerated in what is now Section
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,29 such as “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.”30 In this case, taking all of these factors into consideration, we find
that Starfone is liable for a total forfeiture of $408,668. This total forfeiture amount is broken down as
follows: $100,000 for providing international telecommunications service without Section 214 authority;
$100,000 for failing to register with the Commission prior to providing interstate telecommunications
service; $158,668 for failing to timely make required TRS contributions; and $50,000 for failing to timely
pay regulatory fees.
We reject Starfone’s argument that the Commission did not properly consider the various
mitigating factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act.31 The Commission carefully considered
each of those factors in the Starfone NAL,32 and we do so again here. The proposed base forfeiture
amounts and upward adjustments are consistent with our Rules and precedent. We find no basis to
mitigate the forfeiture.
Starfone Has Provided No Basis to Reduce the $158,668 Forfeiture for TRS
The $158,668 forfeiture the Commission proposed for Starfone’s TRS violations includes
an upward adjustment of $128,668, which equals half of the $257,336 that Starfone owed the TRS Fund
for 2007 to 2009.33
Starfone contends, in effect, that this upward adjustment is too high because its
wholesale telecommunications services providers “may have . . . treated [Starfone] as an end-user
customer” and therefore these wholesale providers may have made TRS contributions based on the
revenue they received from Starfone.34 Under Starfone’s argument, such payments, if any, would reduce
25 See Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4396, 4398, 4401, paras. 11, 15, 23.
26 See id. at 4396, 4399, 4402, paras. 11, 18, 25–26.
27 See id. at 4396-97, 4399–400, 4402, paras. 11, 19, 27.
28 As stated above, willfulness in the context of Section 503(b) merely requires that an entity knows it is engaged in
the conduct constituting the rule violations. See supra nn.18–19 and accompanying text; 47 U.S.C. §§ 312(f)(1);
503(b); see also Unipoint Forfeiture Order, 2014 WL 554086, at *3, para. 8.
29 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
30 See Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100–01, para. 27 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy
Statement), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
31 See NAL Response.
32 See Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4400–4402, paras. 20–28.
33 Id. at 4402, para. 26.
34 See NAL Response at 3–4.
Federal Communications Commission
its TRS liability and therefore should reduce the upward adjustment imposed in the NAL for Starfone’s
failure to timely make TRS contributions.35
We reject this argument. As explained in the Starfone NAL, Section 64.1195(a) of the
Commission’s Rules requires that carriers that provide, or plan to provide, interstate telecommunications
service register with the Commission by submitting specified information on Form 499-A.36
information reported on Form 499-A is used to determine the provider’s payment obligations to the TRS
Fund, as well as other regulatory programs. In the Starfone NAL, the Commission determined that,
although Starfone began providing interstate service no later than 2004, it did not register with the
Commission until July 2009.37
As a consequence, no payments were made to the TRS Fund prior to
In its June 2012 NAL Response, Starfone recognizes that the end-user revenue it
belatedly reported on Form 499-A was the basis for the TRS Fund Administrator’s determination that the
Company owed $257,336 to the TRS Fund for 2007 to 2009.38 Starfone also admits that its belated Form
499-A filing did not identify any credit or offset to which it might be entitled.39 In its NAL Response,
Starfone states that it was reviewing its billing records “to ascertain the validity of [the] possibility” that it
had contributed to the TRS Fund through its wholesale providers.40 Although it has been over 23 months
since Starfone made that statement,41 Starfone has neither produced evidence to support an equitable
adjustment nor offered legal support to justify such an adjustment. Accordingly, we find no basis to
reduce the upward adjustment for Starfone’s failure to timely make TRS contributions.
Starfone’s Cooperation and Compliance Record Do Not Support a Reduced
Starfone also argues that the Commission should reduce the proposed forfeiture because
it: (1) cooperated with the Commission during the course of the investigation; (2) ultimately registered
with the Commission and obtained international Section 214 authority; and (3) “is now maintaining a
history of compliance with the Commission, and has corrected any deficiencies that have come to its
Starfone’s willingness to cooperate with the Commission during the course of its
investigation does not provide a basis to reduce the forfeiture. Full cooperation during the course of
Commission investigations and proceedings is expected, and is not considered a mitigating factor
warranting a reduced forfeiture.43
35 See id.
36 Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4398, para. 15.
37 Id.; see also id. at 4398, para. 15 n.48.
38 See NAL Response at 4.
39 See id. (stating that, in reporting revenue it gave “little to no account . . . of amounts” it had paid its wholesale
carriers “as an end user”).
40 See id.
41 As noted, Starfone and Commission staff engaged in lengthy, unsuccessful, settlement negotiations to resolve the
Starfone NAL. See supra n.14.
42 See NAL Response at 5–6.
43 See, e.g., Coleman Enter., Inc. d/b/a Local Long Distance, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Order of
Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 10023, 10027-28, paras. 10-11 (2001) (Coleman Reconsideration Order); So. Cal.
Broad. Co., Licensee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3454, 3455, para. 7 (1992); 4M of Richmond,
Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15447, 15452, para. 15 (Enf. Bur. 2004); Northwest Utilities, Forfeiture Order,
17 FCC Rcd 4115, 4117, para. 13 (Enf. Bur. 2002).
Federal Communications Commission
Furthermore, even though Starfone became compliant during the course of the
investigation, we will not reduce the forfeiture on that basis. Post-investigation corrective measures are
not sufficient to avoid enforcement action and do not constitute mitigating factors supporting forfeiture
reduction.44 Moreover, it is clear from the record that Starfone’s compliance efforts were anything but
prompt. Although Starfone admitted in April 2009, in response to the Enforcement Bureau’s March 9,
2009, Letter of Inquiry (LOI),45 that it had not yet registered with the Commission or applied for
international Section 214 authorization, it did not actually register for another three months.46 Further, the
Company waited nearly a year after receiving the LOI before it finally sought international Section 214
authority.47 These remedial efforts were made years too late.48 The Company compounded these errors
by not quickly curing the noncompliance through the filing of an STA request seeking authorization to
continue operating while its Section 214 application was pending. We emphasize that the Company
should have requested an STA in these circumstances, and its failure to do so reinforces our conclusion
that a downward adjustment is unwarranted.49 The Commission has previously rejected downward
adjustments where “lengthy delays” in attempting to cure a violation “evince[d] a lack of diligence.”50
Starfone’s claimed compliance with the Commission’s Rules also appears contrary to the
facts. Although Starfone asserts that it “desire[s] to be compliant with the Commission’s Rules,” that it
“has corrected any deficiencies that have come to its attention” and that it is “now maintaining a history
of compliance,”51 the TRS Fund Administrator has informed the Commission that the Company did not
timely make its TRS payments due in 2013, and that the debt has been referred to the United States
Treasury for collection.
This apparent significant compliance failure belies Starfone’s claim that it has
complied with its regulatory obligations.
A Reduction of the Proposed Forfeiture is Unwarranted Given Starfone’s
Ongoing Record of Noncompliance
Starfone seeks a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on an asserted inability to
Starfone argues that the imposition of the full forfeiture would cause it undue economic hardship,
force it to lay off employees, and possibly cause it to go out of business.53 Starfone states that the
proposed forfeiture constitutes “a significant amount of [Starfone’s] net revenues in the preceding year,
44 Comm’cns Serv. Integrated, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17251,
17257, para. 16 (2005); AT&T Wireless Serv., Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21870–71, paras. 13–14
(2002); America’s Tele-Network Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 22350, 22355, para. 15 (2001); Coleman
Reconsideration Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 10027-28, paras. 10-11.
45 Letter from Trent B. Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau,
to Mr. Lyle Watkins, General Manager, Starfone (Mar. 9, 2009) (LOI).
46 See Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4396, paras. 9–11.
47 See id.
48 See id. at 4396, 4397, paras. 8, 14 (Starfone began offering telecommunications services in 2003).
49 See Unipoint Forfeiture Order, 2014 WL 554086, at *7, para. 24 & n.70 (quoting Teleplus. LLC, 24 FCC Rcd at
7669, para. 8 (carrier’s failure to seek STA while 214 application pending “‘further aggravate[ed] its apparent
50 See id. at *7, para. 24 & n.72 (quoting Sutro Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15274,
15277, para. 10 (2004) (delayed remediation does not reflect “‘good faith efforts to comply … entitl[ing the
company] to … mitigation of the assessed forfeiture amount’”)).
51 See NAL Response at 5–6.
52 See id. at 3.
53 See id. at 3, 7.
Federal Communications Commission
exclusive of net revenues and vender liabilities, and will impose a substantial economic hardship.”54 We
decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture.
As discussed above, a violator’s “ability to pay” is only one of several factors the
Commission must consider when determining an appropriate forfeiture under Section 503 of the Act and
our forfeiture guidelines. It must also consider “the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, . . . and
such other matters as justice may require.”55 Here, as we evaluate Starfone’s argument concerning its
inability to pay, we also consider the Company’s compliance record after the Commission issued the
Starfone NAL.56 As discussed above, although the Commission issued the Starfone NAL in 2012, Starfone
again failed to make required TRS Fund contributions in 2013. The TRS program depends on timely
contributions so that persons with disabilities have access to the same communications services enjoyed
by others. Starfone’s ongoing failure to make required contributions continues to harm the TRS Fund and
those who rely upon TRS services. As stated in the Starfone NAL, “[w]here a provider fails to satisfy its
TRS obligations for an extended period of time, it thwarts the purpose for which Congress established
Section 225(b)(1) of the Act and its implementing regulations – to ensure that ‘telecommunications relay
services are available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to hearing-impaired and
speech-impaired individuals in the United States.’”57 Although forfeiture penalties are imposed to address
past violations of the Act and the Rules, such penalties are also intended to deter future violations.58
Indeed, in imposing the proposed forfeiture at issue here, the Starfone NAL sought to “effectively deter
companies like Starfone from violating our rules governing payment into the TRS and other programs.”59
Issuance of the Starfone NAL apparently did not have the intended deterrent effect. To discourage
ongoing defaults on payment obligations to the TRS Fund and other regulatory programs, we decline to
reduce a proposed forfeiture when, as here, after issuance of an NAL a company fails to meet its ongoing
contribution responsibilities. Accordingly, we decline to downwardly adjust the proposed forfeiture
notwithstanding Starfone’s inability to pay request.
Weighing the factors enumerated in the Act and our forfeiture guidelines, we conclude,
based upon the evidence before us, that the proposed forfeiture of $408,668 properly reflects the
seriousness, duration, and scope of Starfone’s violations.
In view of the seriousness, duration and scope of Starfone’s violations, we find that a
forfeiture of in the amount of four hundred eight thousand, six hundred sixty-eight dollars ($408,668) is
warranted, including: (1) one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully providing international
telecommunications service without Section 214 authority; (2) one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)
54 See id. at 7. We note that gross, rather than net, revenue, is the relevant financial information under our inability
to pay analysis. See Unipoint Forfeiture Order, 2014 WL 554086, at *8, para. 29 & n.83 (citing PJB Comm’cns of
Virginia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089, para. 8 (1992)).
55 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
56 We find that Starfone’s degree of culpability and history of prior offenses also militate against any reduction in
the proposed forfeiture based upon an inability to pay. As discussed above, Starfone has a long history of violations
and even its compliance efforts followed protracted delay. See supra paras. 3, 16; see also Presidential Who’s Who,
Inc., File No. EB-TCD-12-00000217, Forfeiture Order, FCC 14-34, 2014 WL 1273430, at *4, paras. 14–15 (rel.
Mar. 28, 2014) (rejecting an ability to pay request given violator’s continuous and repeated violations).
57 See Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4402, para. 25 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1)).
58 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd 17097, para. 19 (in enacting Section 503, “Congress recognized the
need to authorize the Commission to impose forfeitures sufficiently high to deter violations and constitute a
meaningful sanction when violations occur”).
59 See Starfone NAL, 27 FCC Rcd at 4402, para. 25.
Federal Communications Commission
for willfully failing to timely register with the Commission; (3) one hundred fifty-eight thousand, six
hundred sixty-eight dollars ($158,668) for willfully failing to make required TRS contributions in 2007,
2008, and 2009; and (4) fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for willfully failing to timely make regulatory
fee payments from 2007 to 2011. Given the Company’s record of continued noncompliance, we decline
to reduce the proposed forfeiture to reflect Starfone’s alleged inability to pay.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,60 and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules,61 RB
Communications, Inc., d/b/a Starfone IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount
of four hundred eight thousand, six hundred sixty-eight dollars ($408,668) for willfully violating Section
214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1), 63.18,
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A), and 64.1195 of the Commission’s Rules.
Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the
Rules within fifteen (15) calendar days after the release of this Forfeiture Order.62 If the forfeiture is not
paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for
enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.63 RB Communications, Inc., d/b/a
Starfone shall send electronic notification payment to William A. Kehoe at William.Kehoe@fcc.gov and
Margaret S. Dailey at Margaret.Dailey@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.
The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or credit card,
and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced in the caption to this Order. Regardless
of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.64 When
completing the 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 completed Form 159) must be
mailed to the 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 insure
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 From 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 –
60 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
61 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
63 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
64 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
Federal Communications Commission
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to Chief Financial
Officer – Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room
1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.65 If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please contact
the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by telephone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by first
class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to:
Jonathan S. Marashlian, Marashlian &
Donahue, LLC, 1420 Spring Hill Road, Suite 401, McLean, VA 22102.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
65 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
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.