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-06-TC-4518       
                                                                          
     Mechanicsville Telephone Company    )   NAL/Acct. No. 20073217 0041  
                                                                          
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture   )   FRN: 0003748340              
                                                                          
                                         )                                
                                                                          
                                         )                                
                                                                          
                                         )                                


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted:   July 19, 2007  Released:  July  19, 2007

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

   1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
   that Mechanicsville Telephone Company ("Mechanicsville Telephone")
   apparently violated section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules by
   failing to maintain an annual certificate signed by a corporate officer
   stating that the officer has 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 Mechanicsville Telephone 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 a Letter of
   Inquiry ("LOI") to Mechanicsville Telephone on December 12, 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 14, 2006, Mechanicsville Telephone
   submitted a document in response to the Bureau's LOI. The document
   submitted by Mechanicsville Telephone does 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. The Bureau's December 12 LOI directed Mechanicsville Telephone to
   produce the company's compliance certificates for the previous five (5)
   years that it had prepared in compliance with section 64.2009(e) of the
   Commission's rules. On December 14, 2006, Mechanicsville Telephone
   provided a three-page document executed by a Mechanicsville Telephone
   company general manager on December 14, 2006. The document states that the
   general manager is not able to locate the 47 C.F.R. 2009(e) compliance
   certificate for 2005 and that Mechanicsville Telephone did not prepare
   compliance certificates for the years 2001-2004. Further, Mechanicsville
   Telephone asserts that it was not aware that a compliance certificate was
   necessary if it did not use CPNI. Mechanicsville Telephone, however, as a
   local exchange carrier, clearly receives and possesses CPNI, as defined in
   section 222 and the Commission's rules. Thus, Mechanicsville Telephone is
   obligated to implement procedures to protect its customers' CPNI,
   regardless of whether it uses that CPNI for marketing purposes.
   Accordingly, Mechanicsville Telephone's submission, on its face, does not
   comply with section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules.

   6. We conclude that Mechanicsville Telephone has apparently failed to
   comply with the requirement that it maintain an annual certificate in
   which a corporate officer certifies on an annual basis that the officer
   has personal knowledge that Mechanicsville Telephone 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 consumers'
   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, Mechanicsville Telephone 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. Mechanicsville Telephone 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, Mechanicsville Telephone 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 Mechanicsville Telephone in its response to this
   NAL.

   V. CONCLUSION AND ordering clauses

   10. We have determined that Mechanicsville Telephone Company 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 Mechanicsville Telephone Company 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, MECHANICHVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY 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, MECHANICSVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY 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 12th 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 Mechanicsville Telephone
   Company at its address of record, 107 N. John Street, Mechanicsville,
   Iowa, 52306.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kris A. Monteith

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   See 47 C.F.R. S:64.2009(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 Robert G. Horner, Secretary -Treasurer, Mechanicsville Telephone
   Company and James U. Troup, McGuire Woods LLP, counsel to Mechanicsville
   Telephone Company (December 12, 2006) ("December 12 LOI").

   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).

   47 C.F.R. S:64.2009; see also supra note 5, at 2.

   Letter from Jason Best, General Manager, Mechanicsville Telephone Company,
   to Marcy Greene, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 14,
   2006) (Dec. 14 Response).

   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,
   Mechanicsville Telephone'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. S:S: 0.111, 0.311.

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3281

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3281