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 RBJ Corporation and      )   File Nos. EB-06-TC-4007,  
     its subsidiaries, KLM Telephone               4008, 4067, and 4553      
     Company, KLM Long Distance Company,       )                             
     Holway Telephone Company, and Holway          NAL/Acct. No.             
     Long Distance Company                     )   200732170034              
                                                                             
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture         )   FRN: 0003772274           
                                                                             
                                               )                             


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted:  March 29, 2007 Released:  March 29, 2007

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

   1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
   that KLM Telephone Company, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company,
   and Holway Long Distance Company, all operating subsidiaries of RBJ
   Corporation (collectively "KLM"), apparently violated section 64.2009(e)
   of the Commission's rules by failing to have a corporate officer execute
   an annual certificate stating that he had personal knowledge that the
   company has established operating procedures adequate to ensure compliance
   with the Commission's rules governing protection and use of customer
   proprietary network information ("CPNI"). Protection of CPNI is a
   fundamental obligation of all telecommunications carriers as provided by
   section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications
   Act" or "Act"). Based upon our review of the facts and circumstances
   surrounding this apparent violation, and in particular, the serious
   consequences that may flow from inadequate concern for and protection of
   CPNI, we propose a monetary forfeiture of $100,000 against KLM for its
   apparent failure to comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's
   rules.

   II. BACKGROUND

   2. The Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") has been investigating the adequacy
   of procedures implemented by telecommunications carriers to ensure
   confidentiality of their subscribers' CPNI, based on concerns regarding
   the apparent availability to third parties of sensitive, personal
   subscriber information. For example, some companies, known as "data
   brokers," have advertised the availability of records of wireless
   subscribers' incoming and outgoing telephone calls for a fee. Data brokers
   have also advertised the availability of call information that relates to
   certain landline toll calls.

   3. As part of our inquiry into these issues, the Bureau sent Letters of
   Inquiry ("LOIs") to KLM in December 2006, directing it to produce the
   compliance certificates for the previous five (5) years that it had
   prepared pursuant to section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules. On
   December 11, 2006, KLM submitted responses to the Bureau's LOIs. The
   documents submitted by KLM do not satisfy the requirements set forth in
   the rule. Accordingly, we issue this proposed forfeiture.

   III. DISCUSSION

   4. Section 222 imposes the general duty on all telecommunications carriers
   to protect the confidentiality of their subscribers' proprietary
   information. The Commission has issued rules implementing 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. Section 64.2009(e) is one such requirement. Pursuant to
   section 64.2009(e):

   A 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 rules in this
   subpart. The carrier must provide a statement accompanying the certificate
   explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in
   compliance with the rules in this subpart.

   5. KLM's December 11 responses to the Bureau's December 2006 LOIs consists
   of a letter explaining that KLM cannot locate a copy of its most recent
   compliance certificates and the company is not sure whether the compliance
   certificate was ever filed with the Commission or even prepared. Further,
   although the letter generally describes KLM's CPNI procedures, it does not
   contain any statement by an officer "that the officer has personal
   knowledge that [KLM] has established procedures that are adequate to
   ensure compliance with the [CPNI] rules...." Accordingly, KLM's
   submission, on its face, does not comply with section 64.2009(e) of the
   Commission's rules.

   6. We conclude that KLM has apparently failed to comply with the
   requirement that it have an officer certify on an annual basis that the
   officer has personal knowledge that KLM has established operating
   procedures adequate to ensure compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules.
   For this apparent violation, we propose a forfeiture.

   IV. FORFEITURE AMOUNT

   7. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to
   assess a forfeiture of up to $130,000 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.

   8. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines do not address the specific
   violation at issue in this proceeding. In determining the proper
   forfeiture amount in this case, however, we are guided by the principle
   that there may be no more important obligation on a carrier's part than
   protection of its subscribers' proprietary information. Consumers are
   increasingly concerned about the security of their sensitive, personal
   data that they must entrust to their various service providers, whether
   they are financial institutions or telephone companies. Given the
   increasing concern about the security of this data, and evidence that the
   data appears to be widely available to third parties, we must take
   aggressive, substantial steps to ensure that carriers implement necessary
   and adequate measures to protect their subscribers' CPNI, as required by
   the Commission's existing CPNI rules. Additionally, in three recent
   actions, the Commission has issued Notices of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture in the amount of $100,000 against carriers for failure to
   maintain certifications in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the
   Commission's rules. In this case, KLM has apparently failed to implement
   necessary and adequate measures, as required, to protect the subscribers'
   CPNI data entrusted to it, as evidenced by the apparent insufficiency of
   the required compliance certification. Based on all the facts and
   circumstances present in this case, we believe the proposed forfeiture of
   $100,000 is warranted.

   9. KLM will have the opportunity to submit further evidence and arguments
   in response to this NAL to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or
   that some lesser amount should be assessed. For example, KLM may present
   evidence that it has compelling, financial arguments to reduce the
   proposed forfeiture or that it has maintained a history of overall
   compliance. To support a claim of inability to pay, the petitioner must
   submit: (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. The
   Commission will fully consider any such arguments made by KLM in its
   response to this NAL.

   V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses

   10. We have determined that KLM has apparently violated Section 64.2009(e)
   of the Commission's rules by failing to prepare and maintain a
   certification in compliance with the rule. We find KLM apparently liable
   for $100,000.

   11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Section 1.80(f)(4) of the
   Commission's rules, and authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of
   the Commission's rules, KLM IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the
   amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for willfully or
   repeatedly violating Section 64.2009 of the Commission's rules, by failing
   to prepare and maintain a certificate that complies with 64.2009(e).

   12. 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, KLM SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed
   forfeiture 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 Forfeiture Collection Section,
   Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340,
   Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon
   Client Service Center, 500 Ross Street, Room 670, Pittsburgh, PA
   15262-0001. Attn: FCC Module Supervisor. Payment by wire transfer may be
   made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
   number 911-6229. Please include your NAL/Acct. No. with your wire transfer
   remittance. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL under an
   installment plan should be sent to Chief, Credit and Management Center,
   445 12^th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

   14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
   Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to KLM Telephone Company and its
   affiliates, KLM Long Distance, Holway Telephone Company, and Holway Long
   Distance Company, 208 Ash Street, Maitland, Missouri 64466.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kris A. Monteith

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   See 47 C.F.R. S64.2009(e).

   CPNI is defined as information that relates to the quantity, technical
   configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a
   telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a
   telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by
   the customer solely by virtue of the customer-carrier relationship. See 47
   U.S.C. S 222(h)(1)(A); 47 C.F.R. S 64.2003(d).

   See, e.g. http://www.epic.org/privacy/iei/.

   See id.

   Letter from Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
   to Bruce Copsey, Corporate Secretary, KLM Telephone Company and Robert
   Jackson, Esq., Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy and Prendergast, LLP
   (December 4, 2006); Letter from Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, to Bruce Copsey, Corporate Secretary, KLM Long
   Distance Company and Robert Jackson, Esq., Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens,
   Duffy and Prendergast, LLP (December 5, 2006); Letter from Marcy Greene,
   Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement
   Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Bruce Copsey, Corporate
   Secretary, Holway Telephone Company and Robert Jackson, Esq., Blooston,
   Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy and Prendergast, LLP (December 8, 2006); and
   Letter from Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
   to Bruce Copsey, Corporate Secretary, Holway Long Distance Company and
   Robert Jackson, Esq., Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy and
   Prendergast, LLP (December 5, 2006) (collectively "December 2006 LOIs").

   Letter from Gerard J. Duffy, Counsel to KLM Telephone Company, to Marcy
   Greene, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (December 11, 2006);
   Letter from Gerard J. Duffy, Counsel to KLM Long Distance Company, to
   Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (December
   11, 2006); Letter from Gerard J. Duffy, Counsel to Holway Telephone
   Company, to Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications
   Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
   (December 11, 2006); and Letter from Gerard J. Duffy, Counsel to Holway
   Long Distance Company, to Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief,
   Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission (December 11, 2006 ) (collectively "December 11
   responses").

   Section 222 of the Communications Act 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 U.S.C S 222.

   In the Matter of Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
   Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
   Information and Other Customer Information and Implementation of the
   Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications
   Act of 1934, as amended,  Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
   13 FCC Rcd 8061 (1998) ("CPNI Order"); see also  In the Matter of
   Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications
   Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other
   Customer Information and Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards
   of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
   Order on Reconsideration and Petitions for Forbearance,  14 FCC Rcd 14409
   (1999);  In the Matter of Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of
   1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
   Information and Other Customer Information and Implementation of the
   Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications
   Act of 1934, as amended; 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of
   Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long
   Distance Carriers,  Third Report and Order and Third Further Notice of
   Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 14860 (2002).

   47 C.F.R. S 64.2009(e).

   Section 503(b)(2)(B) provides for forfeitures against common carriers of
   up to $130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation up
   to a maximum of $1,325,000 for each continuing violation.  47 U.S.C. S
   503(b)(2)(B). See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
   Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221
   (2000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment
   of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004)
   (increasing maximum forfeiture amounts to account for inflation).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B) (the Commission has authority under this section
   of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty against a common carrier if the
   Commission determines that the carrier has "willfully or repeatedly"
   failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or with any rule,
   regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act); see also 47
   U.S.C. S 503(b)(4)(A) (providing that the Commission must assess such
   penalties through the use of a written notice of apparent liability or
   notice of opportunity for hearing). Here, as described above, KLM's
   actions were willful as it apparently failed to prepare the required
   compliance certification.

   Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

   See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D); see also The Commission's Forfeiture Policy
   Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC
   Rcd 17087 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); recon. denied, 15 FCC
   Rcd 303 (1999).

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd 17098-99, P 22.

   AT&T, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 751
   (Enf. Bur. rel. Jan. 30, 2006); Alltel Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 746 (Enf. Bur. rel. Jan 30, 2006); Cbeyond
   Communications LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC
   Rcd 4316 (Enf. Bur. rel. April 21, 2006).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(4)(A).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f)(3).

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4) (discussing factors the Commission or its designee
   will consider in deciding appropriate forfeiture amount).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b).

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f)(4).

   47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1408

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1408