Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
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-04-IH-0654
International Telecom Exchange, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632080161
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) FRN 0013218409
)
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER
Adopted: May 31, 2006 Released: June 1, 2006
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that International Telecom Exchange, Inc. and International Telecom
Exchange Group, Inc. (collectively, "ITE") apparently violated a
Commission order by willfully and repeatedly failing to respond on a
timely basis to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to
provide certain information and documents. Further, we find that ITE
has apparently violated section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the
Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly failing to contribute
to the Telecommunications Relay Service ("TRS") Fund. Based on our
review of the facts and circumstances of this case, and for the
reasons discussed below, we find that ITE is apparently liable for a
monetary forfeiture in the amount of $28,062.
2. We order ITE to submit within thirty days, either as part of its
response to this NAL or separately, a report, supported by a sworn
statement or declaration under penalty of perjury of a corporate
officer, setting forth in detail its plan to come into compliance with
the relevant payment and reporting rules that have been the subject of
the Commission's investigation.
II. BACKGROUND
3. ITE characterizes itself as a provider of residential and business
long distance telephone services, international telephone services,
and pre-paid phone card services. ITE began providing
telecommunications services in the United States in 2002.
4. On January 26, 2005, the Bureau sent ITE a Letter of Inquiry to obtain
information concerning ITE's compliance with sections 1.1157, 52.17,
54.706, 54.711, 64.604, and 64.1195 of the Commission's rules, which
require entities that provide interstate telecommunications services
to pay annual regulatory fees; to contribute to the Universal Service
Fund ("USF"), TRS Fund, and North American Numbering Plan
Administration ("NANPA") Fund; and to file information as set forth on
the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets (i.e., FCC Forms 499-A and
499-Q).
5. Section 225(b)(1) of the Act, which codifies Title IV of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, directs the Commission to "ensure that
interstate and intrastate 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." To that end, the Commission established the TRS Fund to
reimburse TRS providers for the costs of providing interstate
telecommunications relay services. Pursuant to section
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules, every carrier that
provides interstate telecommunications services, such as ITE, must
contribute to the TRS Fund based upon its interstate end-user
revenues. A carrier's contribution to the TRS Fund is based upon its
subject revenues for the prior calendar year and a contribution factor
determined annually by the Commission.
6. The Bureau sent the January 26, 2005 LOI to ITE's office in Huntington
Beach, California, by certified mail, return receipt requested,
facsimile, and electronic mail. The January 26, 2005 LOI directed ITE
to provide certain specified documents and information within twenty
calendar days of the date of the letter, i.e., by February 15, 2005.
7. On February 7, 2005, ITE requested a 60-day extension. On February 25,
2005, the Bureau granted ITE an extension of time to respond to March
25, 2005. On March 24, 2005, the Bureau received a letter from Telecom
Compliance Services ("TCS"), requesting another extension for ITE's
response until April 1, 2005.
8. On June 27, 2005, the Bureau still had not received ITE's response and
the Bureau notified ITE that failure to respond fully to the January
26, 2005 LOI constitutes a violation of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the "Act") and the Commission's rules, and can, by
itself, subject ITE to potential enforcement action, including
forfeitures. The Bureau notified ITE that unless ITE provided a full
response, supported by a properly executed affidavit or declaration,
by July 11, 2005, the Bureau would commence enforcement action for
ITE's failure to respond to the Bureau's inquiries. The Bureau did not
receive a response from ITE by July 11, 2005.
9. On July 27, 2005, Ms. Charnel Hamilton, an accountant for ITE, advised
Bureau staff by telephone that she was ITE's new point of contact,
that she did not have a full set of the Bureau's correspondence, and
that she thought the issue was resolved. Bureau staff provided the
correspondence and advised her to submit an LOI response immediately.
On July 29, 2005, Ms. Hamilton advised Bureau staff that ITE would
submit a response by August 5, 2005. On August 8, 2005, Ms. Hamilton
advised Bureau staff by telephone that ITE was waiting for information
from its Chief Executive Officer. Bureau staff again advised ITE to
submit a response immediately. On August 10, 2005, Ms. Hamilton
advised Bureau staff by telephone that ITE hired an attorney and would
respond by August 12, 2005. The Bureau did not receive ITE's LOI
Response on August 12, 2005.
10. On August 23, 2005, Ms. Hamilton left Bureau staff a voice mail
message stating that ITE's attorneys were still finalizing the LOI
response and would submit it "soon." On August 24, 2005, an ITE
employee identifying herself as Ms. Hamilton's assistant left Bureau
staff a voice mail message stating that the LOI response was "on the
way." On August 29, 2005, Bureau staff informed Ms. Hamilton that
ITE's LOI response had still not been received. On August 30, 2005,
Ms. Hamilton informed Bureau staff by telephone that she would check
with ITE's attorneys to determine the reasons for the delay. On August
31, 2005, Ms. Hamilton left Bureau staff a voice mail message,
requesting that Bureau staff call to discuss issues that ITE's
attorney had with the January 26, 2005 LOI. Bureau staff returned the
call but ITE did not respond.
11. On September 19, 2005, ITE submitted a response to the January 26,
2005 LOI. ITE submitted a supplemental response on September 27, 2005.
12. Pursuant to Commission rules, ITE was obligated to contribute to the
TRS Fund by July 26, 2005. As of March 13, 2006, ITE still had not
satisfied this obligation. The fund administrator, the National
Exchange Carriers Association ("NECA"), then transferred the debt to
the Commission's Debt Collection Improvement Act "red light" group for
collection action. On April 26, 2006, the Commission sent ITE a demand
for payment of the outstanding debt, which, including accrued
interest, administrative costs, and penalties, amounted to $6,124.49
as of April 26, 2006.
III. DISCUSSION
13. 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. 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. 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, and the
Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b) context.
The Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations that are
merely repeated, and not willful. "Repeated" means that the act was
committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day. 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. 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.
14. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, we conclude that ITE is
apparently liable for a forfeiture of $28,062 for apparently willfully
and repeatedly failing to respond on a timely basis to a directive of
the Bureau to provide certain information and documents, and
apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to make its contribution
to the TRS Fund. Specifically, we propose the following forfeitures
for apparent violations within the last year: (1) $15,000 for failure
to respond on a timely basis to a directive of the Bureau to provide
certain information and documents; and (2) $13,062 for failure to make
its TRS Fund contribution due on July 26, 2005. Although we propose
forfeitures only for apparent violations within the last year, we
discuss below the history of ITE's noncompliance in prior years as
useful background and to demonstrate the scope of ITE's misconduct and
the context of the misconduct that is within the statute of
limitations period and thus covered by this NAL.
A. Failure to Provide Information to the Enforcement Bureau on a Timely
Basis
15. Sections 4(i), 4(j), 218, and 403 of the Act afford the Commission
broad authority to investigate the entities it regulates. Section 4(i)
authorizes the Commission to "issue such orders, not inconsistent with
this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions," and
section 4(j) states that "the Commission may conduct its proceedings
in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business
and to the ends of justice." Section 218 of the Act authorizes the
Commission to "obtain from . . . carriers . . . full and complete
information necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties
and carry out the objects for which it was created." Section 403
likewise grants the Commission "full authority and power to institute
an inquiry, on its own motion . . . relating to the enforcement of any
of the provisions of this Act."
16. As indicated above, the Bureau directed ITE to provide certain
documents and information to enable the Commission to perform its
enforcement function and evaluate allegations that ITE violated
Commission rules. ITE received the January 26, 2005 LOI, as evidenced
by ITE's confirmation of receipt on January 27, 2005. Despite repeated
requests for extensions, and repeated promises that ITE would submit a
response promptly, ITE failed to respond to the Bureau LOI on a timely
basis. Only after extraordinary efforts by Bureau staff did ITE
respond to the Bureau's inquiries -- approximately eight months after
receiving the January 26, 2005 LOI. We conclude that ITE's substantial
and unwarranted delay in responding to the Bureau's January 26, 2005
LOI constitutes an apparent willful and repeated violation of a
Commission order.
A. Failure to Make Telecommunications Relay Service Fund Contributions
17. We also find that ITE apparently has violated section
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules by failing to make
required contributions to the interstate TRS Fund. As an interstate
telecommunications carrier, ITE is obligated to contribute to the TRS
Fund on the basis of its interstate and international end-user
telecommunications revenues. Subject carriers must make TRS
contributions on an annual basis, with certain exceptions that are not
applicable to ITE.
18. Although ITE has been providing telecommunications service since 2002,
it has apparently never contributed to the TRS Fund. Within the last
year, NECA's last invoice to ITE was due on July 26, 2005. Because ITE
has failed to make any payments, on March 13, 2006, NECA transferred
ITE's outstanding debt to the Commission for collection action, and on
April 26, 2006, the Commission sent ITE a demand for payment of the
outstanding debt of $6,124.49. Based on a preponderance of the
evidence, we therefore find that ITE apparently has violated section
64.604 of the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly failing
to pay its TRS Fund contributions when due, including its failure to
make the payment due on July 26, 2005.
A. Forfeiture Amount
19. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a
continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,325,000 for a
single act or failure to act. 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."
20. Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture
Policy Statement establish a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for
failure to file required forms or information, and $4,000 for failure
to respond to a Commission communication. ITE's failure to respond to
the Bureau's inquiries for approximately eight months occurred
following two extension requests by ITE of the required response
deadline, repeated promises that a response would be submitted soon,
and numerous attempts by Bureau staff to obtain a response from ITE.
We find that the substantial delay in responding to a Bureau LOI in
the circumstances presented here warrants a substantial increase to
the base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits a blatant disregard
for the Commission's authority that cannot be tolerated, and, more
importantly, threatens to compromise the Commission's ability to
adequately investigate violations of its rules. In this case, the
misconduct inhibits our ability to adequately detect and deter
potential rule violations in areas of critical importance to the
Commission, i.e., the reporting and contribution requirements for the
Commission's regulatory programs. Prompt and full responses to Bureau
inquiry letters are critical to the Commission's enforcement function.
We therefore propose a forfeiture against ITE of $15,000 for failing
to respond to the Bureau's LOI on a timely basis.
21. This forfeiture amount is consistent with recent precedent in similar
investigations involving the failures of companies to respond to
Bureau inquiries concerning compliance with the reporting and
contribution requirements for the Commission's regulatory programs,
despite evidence that the LOIs had been received. In those cases, the
companies failed to provide any response to the LOIs at all after
Bureau staff made repeated attempts to obtain responses. As a result,
the Bureau imposed $20,000 forfeitures. In this case, after the Bureau
expended significant resources to obtain a response to the LOI, the
carrier ultimately provided a full response. Therefore, we find a
small downward adjustment in the proposed forfeiture amount from the
earlier cases is warranted. ITE and other carriers are warned that
they may not delay or resist the Bureau's direction to provide
information in response to an LOI. Such conduct obstructs the
enforcement process and will not be tolerated.
22. We also find that ITE apparently has failed to make any TRS
contributions since it began providing telecommunications service in
2002. ITE's last TRS Fund invoice from NECA was due on July 26, 2005,
and in spite of Bureau inquiries into ITE's compliance with its
payment obligations, ITE has failed to make its required payments.
Where a carrier 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."
23. The Commission has established a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for
each instance in which a carrier fails to make required TRS
contributions. We find ITE apparently liable for a base forfeiture in
the amount of $10,000 for failing to make its TRS Fund contribution
that was due on July 26, 2005. In the past the Commission has also
imposed an upward adjustment to forfeitures for the failure to pay TRS
Fund contributions based on half the company's unpaid contributions.
As a result and given that ITE has apparently failed to make any TRS
Fund contribution even though it has been providing telecommunications
service since 2002, we find that an upward adjustment, in an amount
approximately one-half of the carrier's unpaid TRS contributions
($6,124) is appropriate for ITE's apparent failure to make TRS
contributions. Taking into account the factors enumerated in section
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we conclude that an upward adjustment of
$3,062 is reasonable. Consequently, we find ITE liable for a total
proposed forfeiture of $13,062 for its willful and repeated violations
of section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules by failing
to contribute to the TRS Fund.
A. Conclusion
24. We find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of $28,062 is
warranted. As discussed above, this proposed forfeiture amount
includes: (1) a total proposed penalty of $15,000 for failing to
respond on a timely basis to a directive of the Bureau to provide
certain information and documents; and (2) a proposed total penalty of
$13,062 for failing to make its TRS program contribution when due on
July 26, 2005.
25. We caution that additional violations of the Act or the Commission's
rules could subject ITE to further enforcement action. Such action
could take the form of higher monetary forfeitures and/or possible
revocation of ITE's operating authority, including disqualification of
ITE's principals from the provision of any interstate common carrier
services without the prior consent of the Commission.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
26. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, International Telecom Exchange, Inc. and
International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., are hereby NOTIFIED of
their APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $28,062 for
willfully and repeatedly violating a Commission order to provide
certain information and documents on a timely basis, and willfully and
repeatedly violating section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's
rules by failing to contribute to the TRS Fund.
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 225(b)(1) of
the Act, and section 64.604(c)(5)(iii) of the Commission's rules,
within thirty days of the release of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
AND ORDER, International Telecom Exchange, Inc. and International
Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., SHALL SUBMIT a report, supported by a
sworn statement or declaration under penalty of perjury by a corporate
officer, stating its plan promptly to come into compliance with the
payment and reporting rules that have been the subject of the
Commission's investigation.
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY AND ORDER, International Telecom
Exchange, Inc. and International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., SHALL
PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture currently outstanding
on that date or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
29. 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 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. Requests for payment of the full
amount of the forfeiture under an installment plan should be sent to:
Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12th St, SW,
Room 1A625, Washington, DC 20554.
30. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY AND ORDER
must be mailed to William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations and
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, Room 4-A237, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.
31. 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 submitted.
32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
AND ORDER shall be sent, by certified mail/return receipt requested to
Ms. Charnel Hamilton, Accountant, International Telecom Exchange,
Inc., 5061 Springdale Street, Suite 206, Huntington Beach, CA 92649;
and Lance Steinhart, Esq., counsel to ITE, 1720 Windward Concourse,
Suite 250, Alpharetta, GA 30005.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kris Anne Monteith
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
47 C.F.R. S 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).
See [1]http://www.itetelecom.com (accessed July 6, 2005).
Letter from Lance J.M. Steinhart, attorney for International Telecom
Exchange, Inc. to David Janas, Special Counsel, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated
September 19, 2005, Attachment at 4 ("September 19, 2005 LOI Response").
International Telecom Exchange, Inc. first provided telecommunications
service in 2002, which ceased on May 31, 2003; International Telecom
Exchange Group, Inc. commenced providing telecommunications service on
June 1, 2003. Id.
Letter from Hillary DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Brian
Jarrah, President/CEO, International Telecom Exchange, Inc., dated January
26, 2005 ("January 26, 2005 LOI").
See 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1157, 52.17, 54.706, 54.711, 64.604, and 64.1195.
47 U.S.C. S 225(b)(1).
See Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300, 5301, P 7 (1993).
Telecommunications relay services enable persons with hearing and speech
disabilities to communicate by telephone with persons who may or may not
have such disabilities. Such services provide telephone access to a
significant number of Americans who, without it, might not be able to make
or receive calls from others. See Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5143, P 5 (2000).
47 C.F.R. S 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A). Each subject carrier must contribute at
least $25 per year. Carriers whose annual contributions are less than
$1,200 must pay the entire amount at the beginning of the contribution
period. 47 C.F.R. S 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(B). Otherwise, carriers may divide
their contributions into equal monthly payments. Id.
47 C.F.R. S 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(B).
The Company confirmed receipt of the January 26, 2005 LOI on January 27,
2005. Electronic mail message from Shelly Dinley-Soderman, Vice President,
International Telecom Exchange, Inc., to David Janas, Special Counsel,
Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, dated January 27, 2005 ("January 27, 2005 ITE
Letter").
Letter from Bassam Jarrah, President/CEO, International Telecom Exchange,
Inc. to David Janas, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated February 7, 2005.
Letter from David Janas, Special Counsel, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Brian
Jarrah, President, and Shelly Dinley-Soderman, Vice President,
International Telecom Exchange, Inc., dated February 25, 2005.
Letter from Patrick Hardy, Regulatory Compliance Analyst, Telecom
Compliance Services, to David Janas, Special Counsel, Investigations &
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
dated March 24, 2005 ("March 24, 2005 ITE Letter") (stating that TCS was
providing regulatory and consulting services to ITE). The March 24, 2005
ITE Letter was not received in the Commission's mailroom until April 4,
2005.
Letter from Hillary DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Bassam
Jarrah, President/CEO, Shelly Dinley-Soderman, Vice President,
International Telecom Exchange, Inc., and Patrick Hardy, Regulatory
Compliance Analyst, Telecom Compliance Services, dated June 27, 2005
("June 27, 2005 Bureau Letter") (citing SBC Communications, Inc., Order of
Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7600, P 28 (2002); Globcom, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19898 n. 36
(2003); World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19
FCC Rcd 2718 (Enf. Bur. 2004); American Family Association, Licensee of
Station KBMP(FM), Enterprise, Kansas, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 14072 (Enf. Bur. 2004); Donald W. Kaminski, Jr.,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 10707 (Enf. Bur.
2001)).
June 27, 2005 Bureau Letter at 2.
See Electronic mail message from David Janas, Special Counsel,
Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, to Charnel Hamilton, Accountant, International
Telecom Exchange, Inc., dated July 27, 2005.
Electronic mail message from David Janas, Special Counsel, Investigations
& Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, to Charnel Hamilton, Accountant, International Telecom
Exchange, Inc., dated August 29, 2005.
September 19, 2005 LOI Response (stating that ITE would provide companies'
certificates of good standing when they became available).
Letter from Lance J.M. Steinhart, attorney for International Telecom
Exchange, Inc. to David Janas, Special Counsel, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated
September 27, 2005 (providing companies' certificates of good standing).
In 2004, the Commission adopted rules implementing the requirements of the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L.No. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321, 1358 (1996) ("DCIA"). See Amendment of Parts 0 and 1 of the
Commission's Rules, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6540 (2004). The "red
light" rule requires the Commission to withhold action on applications and
other requests for benefits when the entity applying for or seeking
benefits is delinquent in non-tax debts owed to the Commission, and to
dismiss such applications or other request if the delinquency is not
resolved. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1910; Amendment of Parts 0 and 1 of the
Commission's Rules, 19 FCC Rcd at 6541-45 PP 3-15.
Letter from M. Washington, Credit Manager, Revenue and Receivables
Operations Group, Office of Managing Director, Federal Communications
Commission to International Telecom Exchange Group, Inc., dated April 26,
2006.
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1).
H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).
See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, P 5 (1991) ("Southern
California Broadcasting Co.").
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) ("Callais Cablevision,
Inc.").
Callais Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, P 9; Southern California
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, P 5.
47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f).
See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
7591, P 4 (2002) ("SBC Forfeiture Order") (forfeiture paid).
See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6).
47 U.S.C. S 154(i).
47 U.S.C. S 154(j).
47 U.S.C. S 218.
47 U.S.C. S 403. Section 403 provides, in part: "The Commission shall have
full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own
motion, in any case and as to any matter or thing concerning which
complaint is authorized to be made, to or before the Commission by any
provision of this Act, or concerning which any question may arise under
any of the provisions of this Act."
Commission rules specifically require ITE to maintain these documents and
produce them upon the Commission's request. Section 54.711 of the rules
requires contributors to "maintain records and documentation to justify
information reported in the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet for
three years and [to] provide such records and documentation to the
Commission or the Administrator upon request." 47 C.F.R. S 54.711.
January 27, 2005 ITE Letter.
See, e.g., SBC Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 7599-7600, PP 23-28 (2002)
($100,000 forfeiture for egregious and intentional misconduct, i.e.,
refusing to attest to truthfulness and accuracy of responses to LOI);
Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18
FCC Rcd, 19893, 19898 n. 36 (2003) (delayed response to an LOI considered
dilatory behavior, which may result in sanctions in the future);
BigZoo.Com Corporation, Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3954 (Enforcement
Bureau 2005) ($20,000 forfeiture for failure of an entity to provide any
response to a USF LOI); American Family Association, Licensee of Station
KBMP(FM), Enterprise, Kansas, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
19 FCC Rcd 14072 (2004) ($3,000 forfeiture for a partial response to an
LOI); World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 18545 (2003) ($10,000 forfeiture for
a non-responsive reply to an LOI); Donald W. Kaminski, Jr., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 10707 (2001) ($4,000
forfeiture after individual refused to respond to an LOI).
47 C.F.R. S 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).
See id.
See id.
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(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima
to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).
47 C.F.R. S 1.80; 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, 17114 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy
Statement"); recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
See, e.g., June 27, 2005 Bureau Letter at 2.
See BigZoo.com Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3954 (Enf. Bur.,
2005) (imposing $20,000 forfeiture); QuickLink Telecom, Inc., Order of
Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 14464 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (same).
47 U.S.C. S 225(b)(1).
See Globcom, Inc., FCC 06-49, 2006 WL 1027131 (F.C.C.) at 12-15, PP 31-28
(released April 19, 2006).
47 C.F.R. S 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).
We note that ITE is already subject to the Commission's "red light" rule.
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1910; Amendment of Parts 0 and 1 of the Commission's
Rules, 19 FCC Rcd at 6541-45 PP 3-15.
See 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 (2003).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S1.80.
47 C.F.R. S 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).
47 U.S.C. SS 4(i), 225(b)(1).
47 C.F.R. S 64.604(c)(5)(iii).
See 47 C.F.R. SS 1.1157, 52.17, 54.706, 54.711, 64.604, and 64.1195.
47 C.F.R. S 1.80.
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
(Continued from previous page)
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1176
1
3
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1176
References
Visible links
1. http://www.itetelecom.com/