******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                   )    File No.:  EB-01-MA-035
                              ) 
Lightning Electronics, Inc.             )    NAL/Acct.        No. 
200232700009
                              ) 
Miami, Florida                     )    FRN 0006-2915-95


                   MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

     Adopted:  October 7, 2003          Released:   October   10, 
2003  

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

     1.   In this Memorandum  Opinion and  Order (``Order''),  we 
deny  the   request   filed  by   Lightning   Electronics,   Inc. 
(``Lightning''), for  reconsideration  of  the  Forfeiture  Order 
issued to Lightning on October 2, 2002, for willful and  repeated 
violations of Section 302(b) of  the Communications Act of  1934, 
as amended (``Act'')1 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's 
Rules (``Rules'').2   The  noted violations  involve  Lightning's 
marketing of unapproved long-range cordless telephones.

     2.   On  May  21,  2002,   the  District  Director  of   the 
Enforcement Bureau's (``Bureau'') Tampa, Florida, Office (``Tampa 
Office'') released a Notice of Apparent Liability for  Forfeiture 
(``NAL'') against Lightning in the amount of $7,000.3   Lightning 
filed its response to the NAL dated June 11, 2002.  On October 2, 
2002, the Chief, Enforcement  Bureau, issued a Forfeiture  Order4 
affirming the forfeiture  proposed by  the NAL.   On October  30, 
2002, Lightning filed  a ``Notice of  Appeal of Forfeiture  Order 
and Request for Production of Documentation.''  We construed this 
filing, pursuant to Section  1.106 of the  Rules,5 as a  petition 
for reconsideration of the Forfeiture  Order and, because of  the 
request  for  documents,  held  action  upon  its  petition   for 
reconsideration in abeyance to give Lightning the opportunity  to 
obtain  information  through   a  Freedom   of  Information   Act 
(``FOIA'') request.

     3.   Lightning filed  a FOIA  request dated  May 30,  2003.6  
The Enforcement  Bureau granted  that FOIA  request in  part  and 
denied it  in part  on July  3,  2003.7  On  August 4,  2003,  we 
informed  Lightning  by  letter  that,  if  it  did  not  file  a 
supplement to  the petition  for  reconsideration by  August  19, 
2003, we would  review the  petition for  reconsideration on  the 
basis of the record currently before us.

     4.   On September 12, 2003, Lightning, through its attorney, 
filed a supplement to its  petition for reconsideration.  In  the 
supplement, Lightning asserts, in  pertinent part, that ``due  to 
poor economic  circumstances in  the retail  business,  Lightning 
Electronics, Inc., has ceased doing business.  Although I believe 
that the forfeiture order was improperly entered, this appears to 
be a moot issue.''  

     5.   Lightning's petition for reconsideration is essentially 
a request for documents and  does not contain any information  or 
arguments which could form the basis for any change in the action 
taken in the  Forfeiture Order.  The  only argument contained  in 
Lightning's supplementary filing is that this proceeding is  moot 
because Lightning has  ceased doing business.   We do not  agree. 
The Commission does not  routinely dismiss forfeiture cases  when 
the subject has  gone out of  business.8  In  PC Fixx, Inc.,  the 
Commission did dismiss a  monetary forfeiture proceeding as  moot 
after determining that  the subject  was ``no  longer a  business 
entity.'' 9   However,  that  precedent is  not  applicable  here 
because a check of the Florida Department of State internet  site 
indicates  that  Lightning  still  exists  as  a  legal   entity.   
Therefore, we find that there is no basis for changing our action 
and that the petition for reconsideration must be denied.

     6.   IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 405  of  the 
Act10 and Section  1.106 of the  Rules, Lightning's petition  for 
reconsideration IS DENIED.

     7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of this Order  shall 
be sent  by Certified  Mail  -- Return  Receipt Requested  --  to 
Lightning Electronics, Inc., at 231  E. Flagler Street, Unit  #1, 
Miami, Florida 33131, and to Lightning's attorney, Ira S. Silver, 
Esquire, Silver & Silver, 108 S. Miami Avenue, 2nd Floor,  Miami, 
Florida 33130.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

     1  47 U.S.C. § 302a (b).

2     47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a)(1).

     3 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL Acct. No. 
200232700009 (Enf. Bur., Tampa Office, released May 21, 2002).

     4 Lightning Electronics, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 3131 (Enf. Bur. 
2002)

     5 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.

     6 FOIA Control No. 2003-379.

     7 Letter from Joseph Casey, Chief Technical and Public 
Safety Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Ira S. Silver, Esquire, 
(July 3, 2003).

     8 See, eg., Certified Computers, 9 FCC Rcd 1850 (Field 
Operations Bureau 1994) and Hayward Squadron, 9 FCC Rcd 1761 
(Field Operations Bureau 1994).

     9  12 FCC Rcd 16575, 16575 (1997). 

     10 47 U.S.C. § 405.