Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of File No. EB-08-TC-3240
Calmtel USA, Inc. NAL/Acct. No. 201032170270
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture FRN: 0006772602
ORDER OF FORFEITURE
Adopted: March 3, 2011 Released: March 3, 2011
By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION and background
1. In this Order of Forfeiture, we assess a monetary forfeiture of twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000) against Calmtel USA, Inc. ("Calmtel USA")
for willfully or repeatedly violating section 222 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or
"Act"), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the
Commission's EPIC CPNI Order by failing to timely file an annual
compliance certification with the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for
calendar year 2007 on or before March 1, 2008.
2. Calmtel USA is a telecommunications carrier located in Los Angeles,
California providing interexchange services. As a telecommunications
carrier, Calmtel USA is subject to the requirements of section 222 of
the Act and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules. Section 222
imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers to protect
the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary information.
Protection of CPNI is a fundamental obligation of all
telecommunications carriers as provided by section 222 of the Act. The
Commission required carriers to establish and maintain a system
designed to ensure that carriers adequately protected their
subscribers' CPNI. The Commission strengthened its privacy rules with
the release of the EPIC CPNI Order, requiring that all companies
subject to the CPNI rules file annually, on or before March 1, a
certification with the Commission pursuant to amended rule 47 C.F.R.
3. The Bureau sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Calmtel USA on
September 2, 2008. In the LOI the Bureau asked Calmtel USA to provide
copies and evidence of its timely filed CPNI compliance certificate
for 2007, which was due by March 1, 2008, or an explanation as to why
no certification was filed. In response to the LOI Calmtel USA
submitted a CPNI certification dated September 15, 2008. The Bureau
concluded that Calmtel USA failed to submit satisfactory evidence of
its timely filing of the annual CPNI compliance certification. On
February 24, 2009, the Bureau released the Omnibus NAL against
numerous companies, including Calmtel USA, proposing a monetary
forfeiture of $20,000 for the apparent failure to comply with section
64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission's EPIC CPNI
Order, and ordered Calmtel USA to either pay the proposed forfeiture
or file a written response within 30 days of the release date stating
why the proposed forfeiture should be reduced or canceled. Calmtel USA
submitted a response to the Omnibus NAL dated March 18, 2009; the
response confirmed that Calmtel USA had violated the Commission's
rules by failing to timely file its 2007 CPNI compliance
4. Section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules requires
telecommunications carriers such as Calmtel USA to file annually
before March 1st a CPNI compliance certification signed by an officer
of the carrier. By its own admission, Calmtel USA failed to comply
with this Commission rule and is subject to forfeiture. Section 503(b)
of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
forfeiture against a common carrier of up to $150,000 for each
violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by
the Commission under the Act. The Commission may assess this penalty
if it determines that the carrier's noncompliance is "willful or
repeated." For a violation to be willful, it need not be intentional.
In exercising our forfeiture authority, we are required to 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." In addition, the Commission has
established guidelines for forfeiture amounts and, where there is no
specific base amount for a violation, retained discretion to set an
amount on a case-by-case basis.
5. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base
forfeiture amount for the failure to timely file an annual CPNI
certification. The $3,000 base forfeiture amount suggested in the
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement for failure to file documents
generally is inadequate when applied to failure to file CPNI
certifications. The Commission adopted the annual CPNI certification
filing requirement to "ensure that carriers regularly focus their
attention on their duty to safeguard CPNI. . . [and] remind carriers
of the Commission's oversight and high priority regarding carrier
performance in this area." In the Omnibus NAL, the Commission took
into account the statutory factors for determining a forfeiture
amount, the gravity of the offense, FCC precedent involving violations
of our CPNI rules, and the fact that protection of a subscriber's CPNI
is an important carrier obligation and the certification filing is an
important part of that obligation. Taking these factors into account,
the Commission proposed a forfeiture amount in the Omnibus NAL of
$20,000 which is significantly lower than the maximum allowable
forfeiture under section 503(b) and is also much lower than the
$100,000 forfeitures assessed against carriers in prior Commission
actions involving violations of our CPNI rules. Further, we have
examined Calmtel USA's response to the NAL, pursuant to the statutory
factors, our rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement and find that
no further downward adjustment from the $20,000 forfeiture amount is
6. As a preliminary matter, Calmtel USA's failure to timely file its
annual 2007 CPNI certification is not disputed. By its own admission,
Calmtel USA failed to file its CPNI certification by the March 1st
filing deadline. Calmtel USA submitted the required certification only
after the Commission notified it that it was investigating Calmtel
USA's compliance with our rules and that it might be subject to
enforcement action, including forfeitures. That Calmtel USA may have
been unaware that it was required to file an annual CPNI certification
and then filed it after it was notified by the Commission, does not
rise to the level of a mitigating factor warranting a downward
adjustment. Claiming ignorance of one's responsibility under the law
is not a mitigating factor.
7. In addition, Calmtel USA failed to show past compliance with the
Commission's CPNI certification requirements. Prior to the annual
certification filing requirement, carriers were required to have a
CPNI compliance plan and keep an annual CPNI compliance certificate in
their files (i.e., carriers were required to annually certify but were
not required to file the certification with the Commission). In lieu
of an annual filing requirement, carriers were required to produce
their annual certifications for inspection upon Commission request.
Calmtel USA has failed to show that it was in compliance with the
earlier certification requirement. Thus, the Commission cannot
consider past CPNI compliance as a mitigating factor.
8. Moreover, in a number of recent actions, the Commission has held that
the failure to file forms is a continuing violation until cured, i.e.,
Calmtel USA continued to violate the certification filing requirement
for calendar year 2007 until it filed the certification. Failure to
file the annual CPNI certification jeopardizes the Commission's
ability to effectively monitor and respond to violations of consumer's
privacy. The annual certification filing obligation is specifically
intended to "ensure that carriers regularly focus their attention on
their duty to safeguard CPNI" and allow the Commission to "monitor the
industry's response to CPNI privacy issues and to take any necessary
steps to ensure that carriers are managing customer CPNI securely." As
we discussed above, Calmtel USA has failed to show that it maintained
an annual, but unfiled, CPNI compliance certification. Thus, no
downward adjustment is warranted in this case because Calmtel USA has
failed to show that it has a history of compliance with our CPNI
9. With respect to inability to pay or hardship adjustment, we stated in
the Omnibus NAL:
The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1)
federal tax returns for the most recent three year period; (2) financial
statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices;
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.
Calmtel USA has not provided federal tax returns, financial statements, or
any other information to support an inability to pay adjustment. We
therefore conclude that Calmtel USA has not demonstrated an inability to
pay the proposed forfeiture amount of $20,000.
10. In the Omnibus NAL, the Bureau considered several factors including
the amount of forfeiture necessary to have the intended deterrent
effect. The Bureau concluded that the goal of deterring future
non-compliance would be met by issuing forfeitures consistent with the
proposed amount. We take noncompliance with our CPNI rules very
seriously. This forfeiture order should advise Calmtel USA and other
carriers that the protection of a subscriber's CPNI and the annual
CPNI compliance certification filing requirements are important
IV. ordering clauses
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b), section
1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Calmtel USA,
Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States government the sum of $20,000
for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's
12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
section 1.80 of the rules within thirty (30) days of the release of
this Forfeiture 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. 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/Account No. and FRN referenced above. Payment by check
or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission,
P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail
may be sent to U.S. Bank-Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C 2-GL,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer
may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and
account number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159
(Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form
159, enter the NAL/Account Number in block number 24A. Calmtel USA,
Inc. will also send electronic notification on the date said payment
is made to email@example.com. Requests for full payment under an
installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer --
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
regarding payment procedures.
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order for Forfeiture shall
be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and First Class
Mail to the company at 3660 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 407, Los Angeles, CA
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Richard A. Hindman
Telecommunications Consumers Division
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1). The Commission has the authority under this
section of the Communications Act to assess a forfeiture against any
person who has "willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of the
provisions of this [Act] or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by
the Commission under this [Act] ...." For a violation to be willful, it
need not be intentional. See Application for Review of Southern California
Broadcasting Co. Licensee, Radio Station KIEV (AM) Glendale, California,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387-88, P: 5 (1991)
("Southern California Broadcasting"), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454
47 U.S.C. S: 222.
47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e).
Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications
Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other
Customer Information; IP-Enabled Services, CC Docket No. 96-115; WC Docket
No. 04-36, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22
FCC Rcd 6927, 6953, P: 51 (2007) ("EPIC CPNI Order"); aff'd sub nom. Nat'l
Cable & Telecom. Assoc. v. FCC, 555 F.3d 996 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Section 222 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C S: 222, provides that:
"Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the
confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other
telecommunications carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers,
including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services
provided by a telecommunications carrier."
47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e) is one such requirement.
EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 51. 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e).
Specifically, pursuant to section 64.2009(e): A telecommunications carrier
must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign and file with the
Commission a compliance certificate on an annual basis. The officer must
state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the
company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure
compliance with our CPNI rules. The carrier must provide a statement
accompanying the certification explaining how its operating procedures
ensure that it is or is not in compliance with our CPNI rules. In
addition, the carrier must include an explanation of any actions taken
against data brokers and a summary of all customer complaints received in
the past year concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI. This filing
must be made annually on or before March 1 in EB Docket No. 06-36, for
data pertaining to the previous calendar year. See also Enforcement
Advisory No. 2011-02, 26 FCC Rcd 650 (Enf. Bur. 2011); Enforcement
Advisory No. 2010-01, 25 FCC Rcd 361 (Enf. Bur. 2010).
Calmtel USA submitted its 2007 CPNI compliance certification (dated Sept.
15, 2008) on Sept. 30, 2008 after it received notice from the Commission
of this investigation of potential non-compliance with section 222 of the
Act and section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules. See Calmtel USA's
"Annual 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e) CPNI Certification," dated Sept. 15, 2008.
Annual CPNI Certification, Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 2299 (Enf. Bur. 2009) ("Omnibus NAL").
See Letter from Namsik Lee to Marcy Greene, Deputy Chief,
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC (Mar. 18,
2009) ("Response to NAL").
47 C.F.R. S: 64.2009(e); see also EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953-54,
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 1038
(1997)(inflation adjustment to $100,000/$1,100,000); Amendment of Section
1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to
Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000)(inflation adjustment to
$120,000/$1,200,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules
and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC
Rcd 9845 (2008) (inflation adjustment to $150,000/$1,500,000). See also
FCC Enforcement Advisory No. 2011-02, 26 FCC Rcd 650 (Enf. Bur. 2011). At
the time the Omnibus NAL was released the maximum forfeiture was $130,000
for each violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued
by the Commission. See Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2301, P: 5.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B).
See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387-88, P: 5.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E); see also The Commission's Forfeiture Policy
Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC
Rcd 17087, 17100-17101, P: 27 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement");
recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17098-99, P: 22.
EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 51
See Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2302, P: 8; see also EPIC CPNI Order, 22
FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 51.
See Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2299-2303, P:P: 5-8. The prior actions
involved violations of the Commission's CPNI rules in effect in 2006. See
id. at 2302, P: 7.
Response to NAL at 1 ("Calmtel USA filed CPNI certification for 2007 on
See id. ("We are very sorry to be late for filing, but we didn't have any
intention. From now on, we will keep the filing deadline.")
See Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387, P: 3; see also
STI Prepaid, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd
17836, 17845, P: 20 (Enf. Bur. 2010) ("STI Prepaid") ("It is well
established that administrative oversight or inadvertence is not a
mitigating factor warranting a downward adjustment of a forfeiture.
Likewise, a violator's lack of knowledge or erroneous beliefs is not a
mitigating factor warranting reduction of a forfeiture."). This case is
different than where the rule was recently modified and the violation was
due to a licensee's lack of actual knowledge of the rule change. Prior to
adoption of the annual CPNI certification filing requirement, our CPNI
rules already required telecommunications carriers such as Calmtel USA to
have a CPNI compliance program and to have an officer of the company
certify annually that the company was in compliance with our CPNI rules.
See EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 52. As discussed in paragraph
7, Calmtel USA failed to show it had complied with the certification
filings under the old rules let alone the new filing requirement. Thus,
any lack of knowledge in the instant case does not warrant a downward
Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2302, P: 7. This prior rule is discussed in the
EPIC CPNI Order: "each telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as
an agent of the carrier, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis
stating that the officer has personal knowledge that the company has
established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance
with the Commission's CPNI rules and to make that certification available
to the public." EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 52 (citation
Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2302, P: 7.
The 2007 CPNI compliance certification Calmtel USA submitted to the Bureau
was dated Sept. 15, 2008. Calmtel USA has failed to show that it had an
earlier CPNI compliance certification.
Annual CPNI Certification, Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture and Order, DA 11-371,P: 8 (Enf. Bur. Feb. 25, 2011); STI
Prepaid, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd
17836, 17845, P: 20 (Enf. Bur. 2010); Champaign Telephone Company d/b/a CT
Communications, Inc., Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 17814, 17818-18, P: 9 (Spec. Enf. Div. 2010);
Lightyear Network Solutions, LLC, Order and Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 16212, 16217, P: 12 (Spec. Enf. Div. 2010);
Alpheus Communications, LP, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
25 FCC Rcd 8993, 8998, P: 12 (Enf. Bur. 2010); Compass Global, Inc.,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6138-39, P:
31 (2008); Telrite Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7244, P: 30 (2008); VCI Company, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940, P:
EPIC CPNI Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6953, P: 51.
Omnibus NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 2304, P: 16.
See Long Distance Direct, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3305-06, P:P: 22-23 (2000).
(Continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-422
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-422