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-05-IH-0808      
                                                                          
     Universal Telecommunications, Inc.   )   NAL/Acct. No. 200632080162  
                                                                          
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture    )   FRN 0010-5735-09            
                                                                          
                                          )                               



             NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER

   Adopted: June 13, 2006 Released: June 15, 2006

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL"),
       we find that Universal Telecommunications, Inc. ("Universal")
       apparently violated Commission orders by willfully and repeatedly
       failing to respond to directives of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau")
       to provide certain information and documents. Based on our review of
       the facts and circumstances of this case, and for the reasons
       discussed below, we find that Universal is apparently liable for a
       monetary forfeiture in the amount of $20,000.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. Universal is a Georgia-based company that characterizes itself as
       providing "an array of services for businesses across the United
       States and Canada." Universal offers various services to the public,
       including "affordable long distance to millions of satisfied customers
       throughout the country." It registered with the Commission as an
       interstate telecommunications carrier on March 22, 2004 and appears to
       have filed some Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets ("Worksheets")
       after that date.

    3. Starting in 2004, the Bureau has conducted several audits to identify
       resellers of telecommunications services that failed to register as
       telecommunications service providers with the Commission, and thus
       also may have failed to satisfy various Commission program
       requirements. Universal was identified as a reseller in one of these
       audits. Bureau staff determined that although Universal appeared to
       have registered and filed certain Worksheets, it subsequently failed
       to file required Worksheets and make associated program payments. The
       Bureau then issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Universal on August
       17, 2005. The LOI directed Universal, among other things, to submit a
       sworn written response to a series of questions relating to
       Universal's apparent failure to file Worksheets and to make mandated
       federal telecommunications regulatory program payments. Universal did
       not respond to the LOI on the due date for its response or at any time
       since that date. Universal also has not responded to telephone
       messages left by Bureau staff regarding the failure to respond to the
       LOI.

    4. As a result of Universal's failure to respond, the Bureau sent a
       follow-up letter on October 21, 2005, directing Universal to provide
       complete responses to inquiries in the original LOI. The October 21,
       2005 Letter also warned Universal that its failure to respond fully to
       the Bureau's LOI could subject Universal to potential enforcement
       action. Universal again failed to respond to the October 21, 2005
       Letter in any manner. In a final attempt to solicit a response, Bureau
       staff contacted Universal via telephone and left multiple messages
       about its continuing failure to respond. To date, the Bureau has not
       received any response from Universal.

   III. DISCUSSION

   A. Apparent Violation

    5. Under section 503(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       (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
       also may 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
       willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission order or
       rule.

    6. 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 403 of the Act grants the
       Commission "full authority and power at any time to institute an
       inquiry, on its own motion . . . relating to the enforcement of any of
       the provisions of this Act."

    7. We find that Universal apparently violated Commission orders by
       failing on multiple occasions to respond to Bureau inquiries. Section
       218 of the Act specifically 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." Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act
       unequivocally grant the Commission the power to direct responses to
       inquires in order to execute its functions. As indicated above, the
       Bureau directed Universal to provide certain documents and information
       to enable the Commission to perform its enforcement function and
       evaluate allegations that Universal violated Commission rules. There
       is no question that Universal received both the August 17, 2005 LOI
       and the October 21, 2005 Letter, as evidenced by confirmation of the
       facsimile transmissions and U.S. certified mail return receipts
       executed by Universal agents. Further, Bureau staff took the
       additional step of attempting to contact Universal by telephone. In
       those messages, Bureau staff specifically stated that the Bureau had
       not received the required response to the LOI. Despite the Bureau's
       significant efforts to elicit information from Universal, as of the
       date of this NAL, Universal has failed to provide any response to the
       Bureau's LOI. We conclude that Universal's continuing failure to
       respond to the Bureau's LOI constitutes an apparent willful and
       repeated violation of Commission orders.

     A. Forfeiture Amount

    8. Section 503(b)(1) 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. 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."

    9. 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. Universal's failures to
       respond occurred despite Bureau staff's repeated attempts to call
       Universal's attention to the importance of responding to the LOI. We
       find that the total failure to respond to the LOI, notwithstanding the
       Bureau's efforts to contact Universal executives, warrants a
       substantial increase to this base amount. Misconduct of this type
       exhibits a disregard for the Commission's authority and, more
       importantly, threatens to compromise the Commission's ability to
       adequately investigate violations of its rules. In this case, such
       misconduct inhibits our ability adequately to detect and deter
       potential rule violations in an area of critical importance to the
       Commission -- contributions to the Universal Service Fund. Prompt and
       full responses to Bureau inquiry letters are critical to the
       Commission's enforcement function. We therefore propose a total
       forfeiture against Universal of $20,000 for failing to respond to
       Commission communications. This forfeiture amount is consistent with
       recent precedent in similar cases, where companies failed to provide
       responses to LOIs concerning compliance with the Commission's
       universal service rules despite evidence that the LOIs had been
       received.

   10. We also direct Universal to respond fully to the August 17, 2005 LOI
       within thirty (30) days of the release of this order. Failure to do so
       may constitute an additional violation potentially subjecting
       Universal to further penalties, including potentially higher monetary
       forfeitures, the revocation of operating authority, and the
       disqualification of any Universal principal from the provision of any
       common carrier services without the prior consent of the Commission.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), and
       section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S1.80, Universal
       Telecommunications, Inc., is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY
       FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of $20,000 for willfully and repeatedly
       violating Commission orders.

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80, within thirty (30) days of the
       release date of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE,
       Universal Telecommunications, 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.

   13. 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.

   14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218 and
       403 of the of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS
       4(i), 4(j), 218 and 403, and section 54.711 of the Commission's rules,
       47 C.F.R. S 54.711, Universal Telecommunications, Inc., shall fully
       respond to the August 2005 and October 2005 Letters of Inquiry sent by
       the FCC's Enforcement Bureau within thirty (30) days of the release of
       this order.

   15. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
       FORFEITURE must be mailed to William H. Davenport, Chief,
       Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Suite 4-C330,
       Washington, D.C. 20554 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced
       above. E-mail address: william.davenport@fcc.gov.

   16. 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.

   17. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
       LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE under an installment plan should be sent to
       Associate Managing Director -- Financial Operations, Room 1A625, 445
       12^th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

   18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
       shall be sent, by certified mail/return receipt requested to Ms. Ruth
       Peterson, President, Universal Telecommunications, Inc., 3781
       Presidential Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 30340 and 2799 Lawrenceville
       Highway, Suite 111, Decatur, Georgia 30033 and CT Corporation,
       Registered Agent, Universal Telecommunications, Inc, 111 Eighth
       Avenue, New York, New York 10011.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kris Anne Monteith

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   See [1]http://www.utiworldnet.com/USP/servicesUSP.asp (last accessed on
   June 13, 2006.

   Id.

   See  47 C.F.R. S 64.1195(a).

   Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Ruth Peterson, Universal and CT
   Corporation, Registered Agent for Universal, dated August 17, 2005
   ("August 17, 2005 LOI"). The LOI specifically required Universal to
   provide relevant information with respect to Universal and any affiliate,
   predecessor-in-interest, parent company, subsidiary, director, officer,
   employee, and agent. Receipt of the letter is shown by confirmation of the
   facsimile transmission to the Universal and CT Corporation facsimile
   numbers and by the certified mail return receipts.

   Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Ruth Peterson, Universal, dated October
   21, 2005 ("October 21, 2005 Letter"). The letter was sent by certified
   mail/return receipt and by facsimile to Universal in Atlanta and Decatur,
   Georgia and CT Corporation, Universal's Registered Agent, in New York, NY.
   Receipt of the letter is shown by confirmation of the facsimile
   transmission to the Universal and CT Corporation facsimile numbers and by
   the certified mail return receipts.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. S
   503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. S 1464).

   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 (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, 1362, P 10
   (2001) ("Callais Cablevision") (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability
   for, inter alia, a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage).

   Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, P 5; Callais
   Cablevision., 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, P 9.

   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 (2002) ("SBC Forfeiture Order").

   $7 U.S.C. SS 154(i), (j), 218, & 403.

   47 U.S.C. S 154(i), (j).

   47 U.S.C. S 403; see also 47 U.S.C. S 154(i), (j).

   47 U.S.C. S 218.

   47 U.S.C. SS 154(i),(j), & 403.

   See, e.g., SBC Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7599-7600, PP 23-28
   (ordering $100,000 forfeiture for egregious and intentional failure to
   certify the response to a Bureau inquiry); Globcom, Inc., Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19898 n. 36
   (2003) (noting delayed response to an LOI is considered dilatory behavior
   which may result in future sanctions); BigZoo.Com Corporation, Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24437 (Enf. Bur.
   2004), Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3954 (Enf. Bur. 2005) ("BigZoo")
   (ordering $20,000 forfeiture for failure to respond to an LOI); American
   Family Association, Licensee of Station KBMP(FM), Enterprise, Kansas,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 14072, Forfeiture
   Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22025 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (ordering $3,000 forfeiture
   against non-commercial educational station for a partial response to an
   LOI); World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 18545 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (proposing
   $10,000 forfeiture for non-responsive reply to an LOI); Donald W.
   Kaminski, Jr., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd
   10707 (Enf. Bur. 2001), Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26065 (Enf. Bur.
   2003) (ordering $4,000 forfeiture for individual's failure to respond to
   an LOI).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(2).

   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., BigZoo, 20 FCC Rcd at 3955 (ordering $20,000 forfeiture for
   failure to respond to LOI); QuickLink Telecom, Inc., Order of Forfeiture,
   20 FCC Rcd 14464 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (same).

   See CCN, Inc., et al, Order to Show Cause and Opportunity for Hearing,
   Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13599 (1998) (revoking carrier's operating authority
   based on findings of repeated violations); see also, e.g., 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).

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1267

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1267

References

   Visible links
   1. http://www.utiworldnet.com/USP/servicesUSP.asp