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-04-IH-0587
Telecom Management, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200532080142
Apparent Liability for ) FRN No. 0005-8591-11
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
Adopted: August 12, 2005 Released: August
By the Commission:
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
(``NAL''), we find that Telecom Management, Inc. (``Telecom
Management'' or ``TMI''), d/b/a Pioneer Telephone, a
telecommunications carrier that has been operating since 2002 and
at least indirectly benefiting from federal programs supporting
the telecommunications industry since that time, apparently
failed to meet its statutory and regulatory obligations related
to those programs. Based upon the facts and circumstances
surrounding this matter, we conclude that TMI is apparently
liable for a total forfeiture of $280,000.
2. Specifically, we find that TMI has apparently violated
sections 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(the ``Act''),1 and section 54.706(a) of the Commission's rules
by willfully and repeatedly failing to contribute to the
Universal Service Fund (``USF'').2 We further find that TMI has
apparently violated sections 1.1154 and 1.1157(b)(1) of the
Commission's rules3 by failing to pay regulatory fees to the
3. The Commission is charged by Congress with regulating
interstate and international telecommunications and ensuring that
providers of such telecommunications comply with the requirements
imposed on them by the Act and our rules.4 The Commission also
has been charged by Congress to establish, administer and
maintain various telecommunications regulatory programs, which
are described in more detail below, and to fund these programs
through assessments on the telecommunications providers that
benefit from them. To accomplish these goals, the Commission
established ``a central repository of key facts about carriers''
through which it could monitor the entry and operation of
interstate telecommunications providers to ensure, among other
things, that they are qualified, do not engage in fraud, and do
not evade oversight.5 First, Commission rules require that, upon
entry or anticipated entry into interstate telecommunications
markets, telecommunications carriers must register by submitting
information on an FCC Form 499-A, also known as the annual
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet (``Worksheet'').6 The
Commission also requires telecommunications providers to submit
financial information on their annual and, with certain
exceptions not applicable to TMI, quarterly short-form Worksheets
to enable the Commission to determine and collect the statutorily
mandated program assessments.7
4. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified Congress's
historical commitment to promote universal service to ensure that
consumers in all regions of the nation have access to affordable,
quality telecommunications services.8 In particular, section
254(d) of the Act requires, among other things, that ``[e]very
telecommunications carrier [providing] interstate
telecommunications services . . . contribute, on an equitable and
nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and
sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve
and advance universal service.''9 In implementing this
Congressional mandate, the Commission directed all
telecommunications carriers providing interstate
telecommunications services and certain other providers of
interstate telecommunications to contribute to the Universal
Service Fund based upon their interstate and international end-
user telecommunications revenues.10 Failure by some providers to
pay their share into the Fund skews the playing field by
providing non-paying providers an economic advantage over their
competitors, who must then shoulder more than their fair share of
the costs of the Fund.
5. Pursuant to section 9(a)(1) of the Act and section
1.1151 of the Commission's rules, interstate telecommunications
and other providers must pay regulatory fees to the Commission to
cover the costs of certain regulatory activities.11 In
particular, sections 1.1154 and 1.1157(b)(1) of the Commission's
rules require that interstate telecommunications carriers pay
regulatory fees on the basis of their interstate and
international end-user revenues.12 Such fees must be paid on an
annual basis,13 and failure to do so subjects a carrier to late
payment penalties, as well as possible revocation of its
operating authority.14 Further, under the Commission's ``red
light rule,'' action will be withheld on any application to the
Commission or request for authorization made by any entity that
has failed to pay when due its regulatory fees or any other
program payment, such as USF contributions, and if payment or
payment arrangements are not made within thirty days from notice
to the applicant, such applications or requests will be
6. The Commission has established specific procedures to
administer the programs for universal service and regulatory
fees. In addition to its obligation to register, a carrier is
required to file Worksheets for the purpose of determining its
USF and regulatory fee program payments,16 and, with certain
exceptions, to file quarterly short-form Worksheets to determine
monthly universal service contribution amounts. These periodic
filings trigger a determination of liability, if any, and
subsequent billing and collection, by the entities that
administer the regulatory programs. For example, USAC uses the
revenue projections submitted on the quarterly filings to
determine each carrier's universal service contribution amount.17
Carriers are required to pay their monthly USF contribution by
the date shown on their invoice.18 The Commission's rules
explicitly warn contributors that failure to file their forms or
submit their payments potentially subjects them to enforcement
7. Telecom Management is a Maine-based telecommunications
service provider of, among other services, long distance plans,
toll free numbers, and phone cards.20 TMI provides these by
reselling interstate, interexchange services purchased from
Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc. (``Global Crossing'').21 TMI has
provided telecommunications services since 2002.22
8. In 2004, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') audit
staff sought to identify resellers of telecommunications service
that may have failed to register as telecommunications service
providers with the Commission and, thus, may also have failed to
satisfy various Commission program requirements.23 To identify
such resellers, the Bureau audit staff compared lists of
resellers provided by wholesale service providers against the
Commission's central repository of registered telecommunications
service providers with filer identification numbers. If a
reseller did not appear to have an identification number, the
audit staff sent an inquiry to that reseller. On March 30,
200424 and June 18, 2004,25 the Bureau's audit staff sent letters
to TMI at the address provided by its telecommunications
wholesale service provider, Global Crossing, requesting
information pertaining to TMI's compliance with the Commission's
registration requirement. After receiving no response, the
Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (``LOI'') on November 18, 2004,
directing TMI, among other things, to submit a sworn written
response to a series of questions relating to TMI's alleged
failure to satisfy its registration, filing and payment
obligations.26 TMI filed its response, which included documents
and information required by the LOI, on December 20, 2004,27 and
supplemented that response on January 17, 2005.28
9. TMI's responses confirmed that the carrier had not met
its contribution requirements to the aforementioned programs
supporting the telecommunications industry despite operating as
an interstate telecom carrier for more than two years.29 TMI
made its first payments to the USF and FCC regulatory fees
program more than two years after it began providing interstate
10. 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.30 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.31 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
rule.32 As set forth below, we conclude under this standard that
TMI is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful
and repeated violations of section 254(d) of the Act33 and
sections 54.706(a), 1.1154, and 1.1157(b)(1) of the Commission's
11. The fundamental issues in this case are whether TMI
apparently violated the Act and the Commission's rules by: (1)
willfully or repeatedly failing to make requisite contributions
toward the Universal Service Fund; and (2) willfully or
repeatedly failing to pay regulatory fees to the Commission. We
answer these questions in the affirmative. Based on a
preponderance of the evidence, we conclude that TMI is apparently
liable for a forfeiture of $280,000 for apparently willfully and
repeatedly violating section 254(d) of the Act35 and sections
54.706(a), 1.1154, and 1.1157(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.36
12. Specifically, we propose the following forfeitures for
apparent violations within the last year: (1) $270,000 for
failure to make USF contributions for the months August through
October, 2004; and (2) $10,000 for failure to make its 2004 FCC
regulatory fee payment when due on August 19, 2004 until December
2004. Although we propose forfeitures only for apparent
violations within the last year, we discuss below the history of
TMI's noncompliance in prior years to demonstrate the scope of
TMI's misconduct and to provide sufficient context for the
misconduct that is within the statute of limitations period and
thus covered by this NAL.
A. Universal Service Contributions
13. We conclude that TMI has apparently violated section
254(d) of the Act and section 54.706 of the Commission's rules by
failing to contribute to universal service support mechanisms.37
Section 54.706(c) unambiguously directs that ``entities
[providing] interstate telecommunications to the public . . . for
a fee . . . contribute to the universal service support
programs.''38 ``Interstate telecommunications'' include, among
other things, ``resale of interstate services'' such as those
provided by TMI.39 Although TMI has been providing interstate
telecommunications services since 2002,40 TMI made no universal
service contributions until November 8, 2004.41 As we previously
[c]arrier nonpayment of universal service
contributions undermines the efficiency and
effectiveness of the universal service support
mechanisms. Moreover, delinquent carriers may
obtain a competitive advantage over carriers
complying with the Act and our rules. We consider
universal service nonpayment to be a serious threat
to a key goal of Congress and one of the
Commission's primary responsibilities.42
Based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that TMI has
apparently violated section 254(d) of the Act and section
54.706(a) of the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly
failing to make any universal service contributions from 2002 to
B. Payment of Regulatory Fees
14. We also conclude that TMI apparently has violated
sections 1.1154 and 1.1157(b)(1) of the Commission's rules by
failing to pay, and untimely paying, required regulatory fees to
the Commission for two years.43 As an interstate telephone
service provider, TMI was apparently required as early as 2003 to
pay regulatory fees on the basis of its interstate and
international end-user revenues.44 TMI, however, made its first
fee payment, covering the 2004 fiscal year, on December 28, 2004
- nine months after the Bureau's compliance review identified TMI
as a non-filer and over four months past the August 19, 2004
filing deadline for 2004 regulatory fee payments.45 For these
reasons, we find that TMI apparently has violated sections 1.1154
and 1.1157(b)(1) of the Commission's rules by willfully and
repeatedly failing to pay regulatory fees program payments when
due, including one such failure in the past year.
C. Proposed Forfeiture
15. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that any
person that willfully or repeatedly fails 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.46 For the apparent violations in this case,
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, 2004.47
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.''48
16. Under section 503(b)(6) of the Act, we may only propose
forfeitures for apparent violations that accrued within one year
of the date of this NAL.49 Nevertheless, section 503(b) does not
bar us from assessing whether TMI's conduct prior to that time
period apparently violated the Act or our rules in determining
the appropriate forfeiture amount for those violations within the
statute of limitations.50 Therefore, although we find that TMI
apparently violated the Act and our rules for over two years, we
propose forfeitures here only for violations that occurred within
the last year.
17. Based on the facts above, it appears that TMI has
failed to make the requisite contributions into the Universal
Service Fund for a period of over two years. Nonpayment of
universal service contributions is an egregious offense that
bestows on delinquent carriers an unfair competitive advantage by
shifting to compliant carriers the economic costs and burdens
associated with universal service. A carrier's failure to make
required universal service contributions hampers realization of
Congress' policy objective in section 254(d) of the Act to ensure
the equitable and non-discriminatory distribution of universal
service costs among all telecommunications providers.51 The
Commission has established a base forfeiture amount of $20,000
for each month in which a carrier has failed to make required
universal service contributions.52 Consequently, we initially
find that TMI is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of
$60,000 for its failure to make universal service contributions
for three months within the last year.53 That base amount is,
however, subject to an upward adjustment.
18. In the past, we have calculated upward adjustments to
forfeitures for failure to make USF payments based on one-half of
the company's unpaid contributions.54 During the course of this
investigation, TMI has back-filed the necessary Worksheets for
USAC to determine TMI's USF contribution assessments, and USAC
has completed billing for those back-payments. Based on those
bills, TMI had an unpaid USF obligation of approximately $420,000
at the time this investigation began. Therefore, taking into
account all the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
Act, we propose an upward adjustment of $210,000 for TMI's
apparent nonpayment violations. We thus find TMI liable for a
total proposed forfeiture of $270,000 for its apparent willful
and repeated failure to make contributions into the Universal
19. We also conclude that TMI has apparently failed to make
any regulatory fee payments to the Commission in 2003, and
untimely paid the regulatory fee payments for the 2004 fiscal
year on December 28, 2004, long after its August 19, 2004 due
date and only after receiving the Bureau's inquiries. A
carrier's failure to contribute toward the costs of certain
regulatory activities from which it benefits undermines the
efficiency, equitability, and effectiveness of the regulatory fee
program and accomplishment of Congress' objectives in section
9(a)(1) of the Act. In recent orders, the Commission has
established a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for failure to
timely make required regulatory fee payments.55 We, therefore,
find TMI apparently liable for a $10,000 forfeiture for its
apparent violation of sections 1.1154 and 1.1157 of the
20. In light of the seriousness, duration and scope of the
apparent violations, and to ensure that a company with
substantial revenues such as TMI does not consider the proposed
forfeiture merely ``an affordable cost of doing business,''56 we
find that a proposed forfeiture of $280,000 is warranted. As
discussed, this proposed forfeiture amount includes (1) a total
proposed penalty of $270,000 for TMI's apparent failure to make
required universal service contributions for three months in
2004; and (2) a total proposed penalty of $10,000 for TMI's
apparent failure to timely make 2004 regulatory fee payments.
21. We caution that additional violations of the Act or the
Commission's rules could subject TMI to further enforcement
action. Such action could take the form of higher monetary
forfeitures and/or possible revocation of TMI's operating
authority, including disqualification of TMI's principals from
the provision of any interstate common carrier services without
the prior consent of the Commission.57 In addition, we note
that, to the extent TMI is delinquent on any debt owed to the
Commission (e.g., has failed to pay all of its USF
contributions), the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss,
any application or request for authorization filed by TMI, in
accordance with the agency's red light rules.58
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
22. 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 Telecom Management, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $280,000 for
willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the Commission's
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of
the Commission's Rules,59 within thirty days of the release date
of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Telecom Management, Inc.
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL
FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
24. 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 Forfeiture Collection Section,
Finance Branch, 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.
25. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT
LIABILITY must be mailed to William Davenport, 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 above.
26. 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 (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
27. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL
under an installment plan should be sent to Chief, Credit and
Management Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NOTICE OF
APPARENT LIABILITY shall be sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to Sue Bouchard, Telecom Management, Inc., 583
Warren Avenue, Portland, ME 04103, and Leon Nowalsky, Counsel for
Telecom Management, Inc., Nowalsky, Bronston & Gothard, APLLC,
3500 N. Causeway Blvd, Suite 1442, Metaire, LA 70002.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
147 U.S.C. § 254(d).
247 C.F.R. § 54.706(a).
347 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1).
4See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 151.
5See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report
and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996,
16024 (2000) (``Carrier Selection Order'').
647 C.F.R. § 64.1195.
7See 47 U.S.C. §§ 159(a),(b); 225(d)(3); 251(e)(2); 254(d). In
1999, to streamline the administration of the programs and to
ease the burden on regulatees, the Commission consolidated the
information filing requirements for multiple telecommunications
regulatory programs into the annual Telecommunications Reporting
Worksheet. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, Report and
Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16602 (1999). The next year the Commission
revised the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet slightly to
collect the additional information necessary to achieve its goal
of establishing a central repository for interstate
telecommunications providers by the least provider-burdensome
method. Carrier Selection Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16026.
8The Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the Communications
Act of 1934. See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (``1996 Act'').
947 U.S.C. § 254(d).
1047 C.F.R. § 54.706(b). Beginning April 1, 2003, carrier
contributions were based on a carrier's projected, rather than
historical, revenues. Id.
11Section 9(a)(1) of the Act directs the Commission to ``assess
and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs of the following
regulatory activities of the Commission: enforcement activities,
policy and rulemaking activities, user information services, and
international activities.'' 47 U.S.C. § 159(a)(1); see also 47
C.F.R. § 1.1151.
12See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1).
1347 C.F.R. § 1.1157(b)(1). Section 1.1154 of the Commission's
rules sets forth the schedule of annual regulatory charges and
filing locations for common carrier services. See 47 C.F.R. §
14See 47 U.S.C. §§ 159(c)(1), (c)(3).
1547 C.F.R. § 1.1910. The rule went into effect on November 1,
2004. See ``FCC Announces Brief Delay in Enforcement of Red
Light Rule,'' Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 19452 (2004).
16Upon submission of a Form 499-A registration, the carrier is
issued a filer identification number by USAC, which is then
associated with further filings by the company and used to track
the carrier's contributions and invoices.
17Individual universal service contribution amounts that are
based upon quarterly filings are subject to an annual true-up.
See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Petition for
Reconsideration filed by AT&T, Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 5748 (2001) (``Quarterly Reporting
Order''); 47 C.F.R. § 54.709(a).
18See Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19896 (2003) (``Globcom''); 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 (Wir. Comp. Bur. 2003)
(``Contribution payments are due on the date shown on the [USAC]
invoice.'') The Act and our rules, however, do not condition
payment on receipt of an invoice or other notice from USAC. See
47 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(b). A carrier that does
not file may not receive an invoice from USAC, but is nonetheless
required to contribute to the universal service fund, unless its
revenues are considered de minimus. The instructions for the
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet include tables for
carriers to determine their annual contributions.
1947 C.F.R. § 54.713.
20See Letter from Leon L. Nowalsky, Nowalsky, Bronston & Gothard,
Counsel for Telecom Management, Inc., to Hillary S. DeNigro,
Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement
Bureau, FCC, dated December 20, 2004 (``TMI December 20, 2004
Letter''), Response to Inquiry 5.
(providing evidence that TMI utilizes the underlying network of
Frontier/Global Crossing) (last accessed on July 11, 2005).
22TMI December 20, 2004 Letter, Response to Inquiry 4. TMI's
website states, however, that it is a long-distance service
provider founded in 1989. See
accessed July 11, 2005).
23See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195(a).
24See Letter from Hugh L. Boyle, Chief Auditor, Investigations
and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Telecom
Management, Inc., dated March 30, 2004 (requesting confirmation
that Telecom Management had filed registration information
pursuant to section 64.1195(a) of the Commission's rules)
(``March 30, 2004 Audit Letter'').
25See Letter from Hugh L. Boyle, Chief Auditor, Investigations
and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Telecom
Management, Inc., dated June 18, 2004 (requesting confirmation
that Telecom Management had filed registration information
pursuant to section 64.1195(a) of the Commission's rules) (``June
18, 2004 Audit Letter'').
26Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations
and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Sue Bouchard,
Telecom Management, Inc., dated November 18, 2004 (``November 18,
27See TMI December 20, 2004 Letter. On December 8, 2004, TMI
requested an extension of time to file its response to the LOI.
The Division granted TMI's request on December 9, 2004 by
extending the deadline to December 20, 2004. See Letter from
Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Leon Nowalsky, Counsel for
TMI, Nowalsky, Bronston & Gothard, APLLC, dated December 9, 2004.
28See Letter from Leon L. Nowalsky, Counsel for TMI, Nowalsky,
Bronston & Gothard, APLLC, to Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief,
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC,
dated January 17, 2005 (``TMI January 17, 2005 Supplemental
29The record shows that TMI filed its registration in April 2004
and back-filed Worksheets in December 2004 only after we
initiated our audit inquiry. See TMI December 20, 2004 Letter.
3047 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1). 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. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). 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, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51
(1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the
section 503(b) context. See, e.g., Application for Review of
Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) (``Southern California
Broadcasting Co.''). The Commission may also assess a forfeiture
for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful. 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).
``Repeated'' means that the act was committed or omitted more
than once, or lasts more than one day. Callais Cablevision,
Inc., 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9; Southern California Broadcasting
Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5.
3147 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
32See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).
3347 U.S.C. § 254(d).
3447 C.F.R. §§ 54.706(a), 1.1154, and 1.1157(b)(1).
3547 U.S.C. § 254(d).
3647 C.F.R. §§ 54.706(a), 1.1154, and 1.1157(b)(1).
3747 U.S.C. § 254(d); 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(c).
3847 C.F.R. § 54.706(c).
39See 47 C.F.R. § 54.706(a)(16).
40TMI December 20, 2004 Letter, Response to Inquiry 4.
41See TMI December 20, 2004 Letter, Response to Inquiry 10,
attaching USAC's November 2004 billing to TMI, which shows TMI's
full payment of its first (October 2004) USF billing. We note
also that TMI began making USF payments only after receiving the
Bureau's letters and it still owes a significant unpaid past due
balance. See March 30, 2004 Audit Letter; June 18, 2004 Audit
Letter; November 18, 2004 LOI. The Commission has repeatedly
stated that post-investigative corrective measures to address a
violation do not eliminate a licensee's responsibility for the
period during which the violation occurred. See AT&T Wireless
Services, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21870-71
(2002); America's Tele-Network Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 16 FCC
Rcd 22350, 22355, ¶ 15 (2001); Coleman Enters., Inc. d/b/a/ Local
Long Distance, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 24385,
24388, ¶ 8 (2000).
42Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903 ¶ 26.
4347 U.S.C. § 159(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157. Payments
of standard regulatory fees applicable to common carrier services
must be filed in full on an annual basis. Id. § 1.1157(b)(1).
44See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1154, 1.1157(b)(1). Regulatory fees are
paid in arrears for the previous calendar year. Thus, TMI failed
to pay any regulatory fees in 2003, and made an untimely payment
on December 28, 2004 for fiscal year 2004.
45TMI's regulatory fees were due on August 19, 2004. See FCC
Form 159-W (Interstate Telephone Service Provider Regulatory Fee
Bill); http://www.fcc.gov/fees/regfees.html. On December 28,
2004, TMI made an FCC regulatory fee payment of $5,339.24. See
TMI January 17, 2005 Supplemental Letter.
4647 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(2).
4747 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, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000). However, the new
rates apply to violations that occur or continue after September
7, 2004. 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).
4847 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy Statement,
12 FCC Rcd at 17100, ¶ 27; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).
4947 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c)(3).
50See, e.g., Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903; Roadrunner
Transp., Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671 (2000);
Liab. of E. Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 F.C.C.
2d 37 (1967).
51See 47 U.S.C. § 254(d).
52See Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19903-19904, ¶¶ 25-27.
53As noted above, TMI made no universal service payments until
November 2004. Thus, TMI's failure to make required universal
service contributions within the one-year statute of limitations
occurred in August, September, and October 2004.
54See, e.g., Globcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd at 19904.
55See Teletronics, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture and Order, FCC 05-146, ¶ 36 (rel. Jul. 25, 2005);
Carrera Communications, LP, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture and Order, FCC 05-147, ¶ 30 (rel. Jul. 25, 2005).
56Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099; see also 47
C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
57See Business Options, Inc., Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 2916
(2003); NOS Communications, Inc., Affinity Network Incorporated
and NOSVA Limited Partnership, Consent Decree, 2003 WL 22439710
58See supra n. 15.
59See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).
60See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.