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
)
)
)
File Nos. EB-06-IH-5039,
)
In the Matter of EB-07-IH-5217
)
Global Crossing North America, Inc., NAL/Acct. No. 200832080080
)
Global Crossing Telecommunications, FRN No. 0002-8505-19
Inc., )
NAL/Acct. No. 200832080081
Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., and )
FRN No. 0003-7330-94
Budget Call Long Distance, Inc. )
NAL/Acct. No. 200832080082
)
FRN No. 0003-7330-78
)
)
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: April 8, 2008 Released: April 9, 2008
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that various subsidiaries of Global Crossing North America, Inc.
("Global Crossing") apparently violated sections 254(d) and 225 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and sections
54.706(a) and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules by
willfully or repeatedly failing to contribute fully and timely to the
Universal Service Fund ("USF") and Telecommunications Relay Service
("TRS") Fund. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances
surrounding these apparent violations, and for the reasons discussed
below, we find that the Global Crossing Companies are apparently
liable for forfeitures totaling $10,518,013.
2. We order the Global Crossing Companies to submit within thirty days a
report supported by a sworn statement or declaration under penalty of
perjury of a corporate officer setting forth in detail each entity's
plan to come into compliance with the payment obligations discussed
herein.
II. BACKGROUND
3. The Act codified Congress's historical commitment to promote universal
service to ensure that consumers in all regions of the nation have
access to affordable, quality telecommunications services. In
particular, section 254(d) of the Act requires, among other things,
that "[e]very telecommunications carrier [providing] interstate
telecommunications services . . . contribute, on an equitable and
nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient
mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance
universal service." In implementing this Congressional mandate, the
Commission directed all telecommunications carriers providing
interstate telecommunications services to contribute to the universal
service fund based upon their interstate and international end-user
telecommunications revenues. The Commission also requires certain
providers of interstate telecommunications, including Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, to contribute to the USF. Failure
by some providers to pay their share into the USF skews the playing
field by giving non-paying providers an economic advantage over their
competitors, who must then shoulder more than their fair share of the
costs of the universal service fund. The Universal Service
Administrative Company ("USAC") currently administers the USF. USAC
bills carriers each month, including Global Crossing, based on their
quarterly contribution amount. Consistent with the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 ("DCIA"), USF contributions that have become
over 90 days delinquent are transferred to the Commission for further
action to collect the outstanding debt.
4. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, codified at
47 U.S.C. S: 225, 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. The Commission
established the TRS Fund, currently administered by the National
Exchange Carrier Association ("NECA"), to reimburse TRS providers for
the costs of providing interstate TRS. TRS enables persons with
hearing and speech disabilities to communicate by telephone with
persons who may or may not have such disabilities. TRS provides
telephone access to a significant number of Americans who, without it,
might not be able to make or receive calls from others. Pursuant to
section 64.604 of the Commission's rules, every carrier providing
interstate telecommunications services must contribute to the TRS
fund. NECA invoices common carriers each year for their contribution
based on their interstate revenues. Like USF contributions,
outstanding TRS obligations are subject to the DCIA.
5. Global Crossing is the holding company of various telecommunications
companies providing service in the United States. On July 13, 2006,
USAC referred Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. ("GC
Telecommunications"), a subsidiary of Global Crossing, to the
Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for investigation concerning GC
Telecommunications' failure to fully and timely contribute to the
universal service fund. In response, the Bureau issued a letter of
inquiry ("LOI") to GC Telecommunications, initiating an investigation
into whether the company may have violated, among other things,
sections 54.706 and 64.604 of the Commission's rules. The LOI directed
GC Telecommunications to provide certain specified documents and
information. GC Telecommunications responded to the LOI on April 19,
2007. In its response, GC Telecommunications does not affirmatively
deny that it has failed to timely make full contributions to the USF
and TRS Fund.
6. As a supplement to its initial referral, following its investigation
of nine other Global Crossing subsidiaries, USAC referred additional
Global Crossing subsidiaries to the Bureau for investigation for
failure to fully and timely contribute to the USF. On June 14, 2007,
the Bureau sent a letter of inquiry to Global Crossing, expanding its
investigation into whether other Global Crossing subsidiaries may have
violated the Commission's rules. The Supplemental LOI directed Global
Crossing to provide certain specified documents and information. In
its response submitted on behalf of the Global Crossing Companies,
Global Crossing does not affirmatively deny that certain subsidiaries
failed to timely make full contributions to the USF and TRS Fund.
7. The evidence shows a pattern of delinquency by the Global Crossing
Companies. The Global Crossing Companies have repeatedly failed to
make full or timely USF contributions since the reorganization of the
parent company, Global Crossing North America, in December 2003.
Specifically, between January 2004 and March 2008, the Global Crossing
Companies have failed to make full or timely USF contributions on
numerous occasions, often going months without making any contribution
at all. The Global Crossing Companies generally have followed a
pattern of payment for USF debt in which the companies skip payments
in one or more months and then make large, consolidated payments just
prior to USAC transferring the past due amounts to the Commission
pursuant to the DCIA transfer process. The Global Crossing Companies
have a similar pattern of non-compliance for TRS contributions. As
with their USF contributions, the Global Crossing Companies have made
large bulk payments to the TRS Fund for prior balances just before
those outstanding fees would be transferred to the Commission pursuant
to the DCIA. Therefore, notwithstanding the Global Crossing Companies'
frequent delinquencies in USF and TRS contributions, their pattern of
making large "catch-up" payments for prior balances has effectively
circumvented the procedures to facilitate collection of delinquent
debt and avoided the administrative sanctions and additional charges
that ordinarily result from continued delinquency and the transfer of
delinquent debt.
III. DISCUSSION
8. Under section 503(b)(1) 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
forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. As we set forth
below, we conclude under this standard that the Global Crossing
Companies are apparently liable for their apparent violations of the
Act and the Commission's rules.
9. The fundamental issue in this case is whether the Global Crossing
Companies apparently violated the Act and the Commission's rules by
willfully or repeatedly failing to timely pay in full their required
contributions towards the Universal Service and TRS Funds. We answer
this question in the affirmative. Based on a preponderance of the
evidence, we therefore find that the Global Crossing Companies are
apparently liable for a cumulative forfeiture of $10,518,013 for
apparently willfully or repeatedly violating sections 254(d) and 225
of the Act and sections 54.706(a) and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the
Commission's rules. Specifically, we propose forfeitures in the amount
of $9,898,722 for failure to timely pay in full USF contributions and
$619,291 for failure to timely pay in full TRS Fund contributions,
divided among the three Global Crossing subsidiaries listed the
caption to this NAL.
A. Failure to Make Universal Service Fund Contributions
10. We conclude that the Global Crossing Companies have apparently
violated section 254(d) of the Act and section 54.706(a) of the
Commission's rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to contribute
fully and timely to the universal service support mechanisms. Section
54.706(a) unambiguously directs that "[e]ntities [providing]
interstate telecommunications to the public ... for a fee ...
contribute to the universal service support mechanisms." "Interstate
telecommunications" include, among other things, "access to
interexchange service" and "resale of interstate services," such as
those provided by the Global Crossing subsidiaries.
11. The Global Crossing Companies have demonstrated a pattern of failing
to fulfill their contribution obligations by making irregular and
insufficient payments to the USF. The record is clear that between
January 2004 and the date of this NAL, the Global Crossing Companies
have failed to make timely and adequate payments to USAC on numerous
occasions, with GC Telecommunications alone failing to make timely and
adequate payments to USAC on forty-five occasions during the time
period in question. As a result of this misconduct, the Global
Crossing Companies have consistently maintained large outstanding USF
balances with USAC, particularly over the past two years.
1. GC Telecommunications
12. GC Telecommunications provides long distance telecommunications and
other services predominantly to enterprise customers. Between February
2007 and the date of this NAL, GC Telecommunications failed to pay
anything towards its USF obligations on six occasions; GC
Telecommunications paid less than the amounts due on eight occasions
during this time period. The company has provided no explanation for
its payment problems. During the period covered by this NAL, GC
Telecommunications has carried an outstanding monthly USF balance as
high as $9,485,968.55.
2. GC Bandwidth
13. In its response to the Supplemental LOI, Global Crossing describes GC
Bandwidth as the parent company's "wholesale sales entity that
provides [telecommunications] services to carriers and other wholesale
entities." Between February 2007 and the date of this NAL, GC
Bandwidth failed to contribute anything towards its USF obligations on
six occasions; GC Bandwidth paid less than the amounts due on eight
occasions during this time period. The company has provided no
explanation for its payment problems. During the period covered by
this NAL, GC Bandwidth has carried an outstanding USF monthly balance
as high as $7,754,883.98.
3. Budget
14. Budget is a "small casual-company" operating as a toll reseller in
various states. During 2007, Budget failed to contribute anything
towards its USF obligations on three occasions. The company has
provided no explanation for its payment problems. During the period
covered by our investigation, Budget has carried an outstanding USF
balance as high as $36,924.11.
15. The Global Crossing subsidiaries that are the subject of this NAL have
current outstanding USF balances ranging between approximately $11.08
million and $7.69 million. As we previously have stated,
[c]arrier nonpayment of universal service contributions undermines the
efficiency and effectiveness of the universal service support mechanisms.
Moreover, delinquent carriers may obtain a competitive advantage over
carriers complying with the Act and our rules. We consider universal
service nonpayment to be a serious threat to a key goal of Congress and
one of the Commission's primary responsibilities.
16. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that each of the
Global Crossing Companies has apparently violated section 254(d) of
the Act and section 54.706(a) of the Commission's rules by willfully
or repeatedly failing to contribute fully and timely to the USF on
multiple occasions between January 2004 and March 2008. Between
February 2007 and the date of this NAL, we find that the Global
Crossing Companies are apparently liable for a total of thirty-one
(31) violations, which includes fifteen (15) apparent violations for
failure to remit any contribution toward outstanding USF obligations
and sixteen (16) apparent violations for contributing less than the
amounts represented on invoices for payment during the time period in
question. Each of these violations is considered continuing until
cured by full payment of each monthly obligation, as provided on the
corresponding invoices.
B. Failure to Make TRS Contributions
17. We also find that the Global Crossing Companies have apparently
violated section 225 of the Act and section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of
the Commission's rules by willfully or repeatedly failing to
contribute fully and to the TRS Fund. As interstate telecommunications
carriers, the Global Crossing Companies were obligated to contribute
to the TRS on the basis of their interstate end-user
telecommunications 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. Subject
carriers must make TRS contributions on an annual basis, with certain
exceptions.
18. The record demonstrates that the Global Crossing Companies have
repeatedly made late and insufficient payments to the TRS fund,
including at least four failures within the statute of limitations
period covered by this NAL. Specifically, GC Telecommunications failed
to timely pay its 2006 and 2007 TRS assessments, and GC
Telecommunications has carried an outstanding TRS balance as high as
$526,207.10 during the period covered by this NAL. GC Bandwidth and
Budget each have failed to timely pay their respective 2007 TRS
assessments, and each company has carried outstanding TRS balances as
high as $617,058.40, and $15,315.73, respectively, during the period
covered by this NAL. We therefore conclude that the Global Crossing
Companies have apparently violated section 225 of the Act and section
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules by willfully or
repeatedly failing to make full and timely contributions for the 2006
and 2007 TRS assessments.
C. Proposed 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)(E) 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. Based on the facts above, it appears that the Global Crossing
Companies have consistently failed to make timely and full payments to
the USF since January 2004, with a noticeable increase in the
frequency of apparent non-compliance between May 2005 and the present.
Nonpayment of universal service contributions is an egregious offense
that bestows on delinquent carriers an unfair competitive advantage by
shifting to compliant carriers the economic costs and burdens
associated with universal service. A carrier's failure to make
required universal service contributions hampers realization of
Congress' policy objective in section 254(d) of the Act to ensure the
equitable and non-discriminatory distribution of universal service
costs among all telecommunications providers. The fact that the
outstanding USF balance has risen as high as over $11 million for one
Global Crossing subsidiary -- GC Telecommunications -- over the past
two years demonstrates the potential magnitude of competitive harm
when a carrier fails to fully satisfy its contribution obligations.
21. The Commission has established a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 or
$20,000 for each month in which a carrier has failed to fully pay
required universal service contributions, plus an upward adjustment
based on one-half of the company's approximate unpaid contributions.
Although we have stated that each failure to make a full monthly
payment to the USF constitutes a separate, continuing violation until
the carrier pays its outstanding contributions, we have not sought to
propose forfeitures on that basis. Instead, we have proposed
forfeitures based solely on violations that began in the previous
twelve month period, rather than those violations that began earlier
but continued into the limitations period. We have placed carriers on
notice, however, that they face potential liability of as much as the
statutory maximum for each continuing violation of our USF
contribution requirements. Most recently, in the Globcom Forfeiture
Order, we warned that "if the forfeiture methodology described herein
is not adequate to deter violations of our USF and TRS rules, our
statutory authority permits the imposition of much larger penalties
and we will not hesitate to impose them." Based on the facts of this
case, as well as the accumulating record of non-compliance by other
carriers, we find that it is now appropriate to revisit that
methodology.
22. The Commission has imposed increasingly larger forfeitures for USF
violations because of the scope and scale of violations in this area.
Since January 1, 2006, the Commission has issued orders regarding more
than $3.15 million in proposed forfeitures and voluntary contributions
for the nonpayment of contributions to USF and other programs. Despite
that aggressive enforcement, nonpayment into those programs remains a
serious concern as demands on the USF have increased.
23. Clearly, our previous forfeiture calculation methodology did not deter
the Global Crossing Companies from attempting to exploit USAC's
referral procedures, as the companies carried large outstanding USF
account balances from month to month, then made "catch-up" payments
just before USAC transferred the debts to the Commission. Over the
course of our investigation, the Global Crossing Companies have
consistently maintained large outstanding USF account balances, with a
cumulative, current outstanding balance of over $18.78 million.
Through this pattern of noncompliance, the Global Crossing Companies
have effectively circumvented the DCIA transfer process and improperly
shifted its USF contribution responsibilities to other carriers, in
direct contravention of section 254(d) of the Act.
24. Accordingly, consistent with our previous statements that nonpayment
of USF, TRS, and other contributions constitute continuing violations,
and to effectively deter companies like the Global Crossing Companies
from violating our rules governing payment into the USF, TRS, and
other programs, our forfeiture calculations in the instant matter will
reflect not only the violations that began within the last twelve
months, but all violations, whenever they began, unless they were
cured more than one year ago. By including such violations in our
forfeiture calculations, our enforcement actions now will provide
increased deterrence and better reflect the full scope of the
misconduct committed. As in previous orders, we warn carriers that if
the forfeiture calculation methodology described here does not
adequately deter violations of our rules, we will consider larger
penalties within the scope of our authority, including substantially
higher forfeitures and revocation of carriers' operating authority.
25. Applying this methodology to the instant case, we find that the Global
Crossing Companies are apparently liable for thirty-one continuing
violations for failure to make timely and full monthly payments to the
USF. Accordingly, we propose a $20,000 base amount for each of the
fifteen months in which the Global Crossing Companies failed to remit
any contribution toward their outstanding USF obligations. We also
propose $10,000 for each of the sixteen months in which the
Global Crossing Companies contributed less than the amount of their
monthly obligations, as provided on the corresponding invoices. Thus,
we find the Global Crossing Companies apparently liable for a total
base forfeiture of $460,000 for their willful and repeated failure to
contribute fully and timely to the USF on thirty-one occasions between
February 2007 and the date of this NAL. Consistent with our approach
for assessing liability for apparent USF violations, and taking into
account all the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
we also propose upward adjustments to the forfeitures proposed against
each of the Global Crossing Companies, consisting of fifty percent of
each of the Global Crossing subsidiaries' unpaid USF contributions.
This approach results in a total upward adjustment of $9,438,722 We
therefore issue a total, cumulative proposed forfeiture of $9,898,722
against the Global Crossing Companies for their apparent willful and
repeated failures to contribute fully and timely to the USF.
26. We also find that the Global Crossing Companies have failed to make
timely TRS contributions, including at least four such failures within
the period covered by this NAL. 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."
27. The Commission has established a base forfeiture amount of $10,000 for
each instance in which a carrier fails to make required TRS
contributions. As in the case of our proposed base forfeiture amount
for the Global Crossing Companies' apparent USF contribution
violations, we propose a forfeiture amount for each instance in which
a Global Crossing subsidiary failed to fully make TRS assessments. In
light of the Global Crossing Companies' failure to timely pay their
TRS obligations for the 2006 and 2007 funding periods, we find that
the companies are apparently liable for a base forfeiture in the
amount of $40,000. For the reasons discussed above regarding the
Global Crossing Companies' failure to make universal service
contributions and consistent with Commission precedent, we find that
upward adjustments in the amount of approximately one half of each of
the Global Crossing companies' unpaid TRS contributions is appropriate
for the Global Crossing Companies' apparent failure to make TRS
contributions. Taking into account the factors enumerated in section
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, we thus conclude that a total upward
adjustment of $579,291 is reasonable. Consequently, we find the Global
Crossing Companies are liable for a total proposed forfeiture of
$619,291 for their willful and repeated failure to satisfy its TRS
obligations for the 2006 and 2007 funding periods.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
28. 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. S: 1.80, that Global
Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,025,921.88 for
willfully or repeatedly violating sections 254(d) and 225 of the Act
and sections 54.706(a) and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's
rules.
29. IT IS FURTHER 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. S: 1.80, that Global
Crossing Bandwidth, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY
FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,395,971.19 for willfully or
repeatedly violating sections 254(d) and 225 of the Act and sections
54.706(a) and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules.
30. IT IS FURTHER 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. S: 1.80, that Budget
Call Long Distance, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY
FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $96,119.93 for willfully or
repeatedly violating sections 254(d) and 225 of the Act and sections
54.706(a) and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules.
31. 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, each of the Global Crossing Companies
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeitures or SHALL FILE a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeitures.
32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Global Crossing Companies each shall
submit within thirty days of the release date of this NOTICE OF
APPARENT LIABILITY, 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 reporting
and payment obligations discussed herein. The report must be mailed to
Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Suite 4-C330, Washington, D.C. 20554; e-mail address:
hillary.denigro@fcc.gov.
33. 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/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment[s] by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For
payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account
number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters
"FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full
payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial
Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations
Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with
any questions regarding payment procedures.
34. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY must be
mailed to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445
12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington, D.C. 20554 and must
include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. Any response should also
be sent via email to Hillary.Denigro@fcc.gov.
35. 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.
36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
FOR FORFEITURE shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to Michael J. Shortley, III, Vice President and Regional
General Counsel - North America, Global
Crossing North America, Inc., 1080 Pittsford Victor Road, Pittsford, New
York 14534.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Global Crossing North America, Inc. is the parent company of various
telecommunications companies providing service in the United States,
including, but not limited to: Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc.
("GC Telecommunications"); Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc. ("GC
Bandwidth"); and Budget Call Long Distance, Inc. ("Budget"). See infra
note 18. For the sake of brevity, unless stated otherwise, all references
to the "Global Crossing Companies" in this NAL refer to one or more of the
aforementioned Global Crossing operating subsidiaries.
47 U.S.C. S:S: 254(d), 225. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the
Communications Act of 1934. See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
47 C.F.R. S:S: 54.706(a), 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).
See 47 U.S.C. S: 254.
47 U.S.C. S: 254(d).
47 C.F.R. S: 54.706(b). Beginning April 1, 2003, carrier contributions
were based on a carrier's projected, rather than historical, revenues. Id.
See also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 1998 Biennial
Regulatory Review - Streamlined Contributor Reporting Requirements
Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay Services, North
American Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability, and Universal Service
Support Mechanisms, Telecommunications Services for Individuals with
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, Administration of the North American Numbering Plan and North
American Numbering Plan Cost Recovery Contribution Factor and Fund Size,
Number Resource Optimization, Telephone Number Portability,
Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, Report and Order and Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952, 24969-74, P:P: 29-39
(2002) ("Interim Contribution Order").
See 47 U.S.C. S: 254(d) ("Any other provider of interstate
telecommunications may be required to contribute to the preservation and
advancement of universal service if the public interest so requires.");
Universal Service Contribution Methodology, Report and Order and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7518 (2006) (extending section 254(d)
permissive authority to require interconnected VoIP providers to
contribute to the USF) ("2006 Contribution Methodology Order"), petition
for review denied, and vacated in part on other grounds, Vonage Holding
Corp. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
47 C.F.R. S: 54.701(a).
See, e.g., Interim Contribution Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24971-72, P: 35;
Federal-State Board on Universal Service, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 19947, 19954, P: 17 (2000); Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Service, Sixteenth Order on Reconsideration in CC
Docket No. 96-45, Eighth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45, and
Sixth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-262, 15 FCC Rcd 1679, 1687, P:
18 (1999); Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange
Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Board on Universal Service,
Second Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 22423, 22425, P: 3 (1997).
Carriers must pay by the date shown on the invoice from the Administrator.
47 C.F.R. S: 54.711(a) ("The Commission shall announce by Public Notice
published in the Federal Register and on its website the manner of payment
and the dates by which payments must be made."). See, e.g., "Proposed
Second Quarter 2006 Contribution Factor," Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 2379
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2006) ("Contribution payments are due on the date
shown on the invoice."). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 54.713(b) (noting that if a
USF "contributor fails to make full payment on or before the date due date
of . . . the monthly invoice provided by the Administrator, the payment is
delinquent."). Id.
See Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321, 1358 (1996). In 2004, the Commission adopted rules
implementing the DCIA requirements. See Amendment of Parts 0 and 1 of the
Commission's Rules, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6540 (2004) ("DCIA
Order"). In its Order, the Commission codified procedures at 47 C.F.R. S:
1.1910, the "red light rule," to extend and clarify existing policies in
the management of the Commission's accounts, and to withhold action on
applications or other requests for benefits by delinquent debtors, and
ultimately to dismiss such applications or other requests if the
delinquency is not resolved. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1910; DCIA Order, 19 FCC
Rcd at 6541-45 P:P: 3-15. The DCIA rules specify that the term
"Commission" includes the USF, TRS Fund, "and any other reporting
components of the Commission." See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1901(b). Thus, the
Commission has determined that unpaid obligations to the USF and TRS Fund
are subject to the DCIA.
Effective July 1, 2003, USAC implemented new collection procedures as
required by the DCIA and the Commission. Pursuant to those procedures,
invoices for USF contributions that become over 90 days delinquent are
transferred to the Commission for further collection. See
http://www.universalservice.org/fund-administration/contributors/understanding-your-invoice/important-invoicing-deadlines.aspx.
Debt collection procedures may include further administrative efforts both
by the Commission and the United States Treasury or, as appropriate, the
Commission may refer the delinquent debt to the Department of Justice for
enforced collection action. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1917. Collection efforts may
result in additional charges, to include interest and penalties, as
provided under 31 U.S.C. S: 3717, and administrative charges pursuant to
47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.1940 and 54.713, 31 C.F.R. S: 285.12(j).
Pub. L. No. 101-336, S: 401, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69 (1990) (adding section
225 to the Act).
See Telecommunications Relay Services and the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 5300, 5301, P: 7 (1993)
(TRS III Order).
See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order, 15 FCC
Red 5140, 5143, P: 5 (2000).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 64.604(c)(5)(iii).
All carriers providing interstate telecommunications services (including,
but not limited to, cellular telephone and paging, mobile radio, operator
services, personal communications service, access, alternative access and
special access, packet-switched, WATS, 800, 900, message telephone,
private line, telex, telegraph, video, satellite, international,
intraLATA, and resale services) must contribute to the TRS Fund on the
basis of their interstate end-user telecommunications revenues. See 1998
Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlined Contributor Reporting
Requirements Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay
Services, North American Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability, and
Universal Service Support Mechanisms, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16602,
16630-34, P:P: 59-67; 47 C.F.R. S: 64.604(c)(5)(iii).
See supra note 10. Any entity owing money to the TRS Fund will be
considered delinquent if payment is not made by the due date specified on
the annual or monthly invoice. NECA notifies the Commission of all TRS
delinquencies. See http://www.neca.org/SOURCE/NECA_RESOURCES_3430.ASP.
See Letter from Michael J. Shortley, III, Vice President & Regional
General Counsel - North America, Global Crossing North America, Inc.,
dated July 12, 2007 ("Supplemental LOI Response") at 2-3. See also, e.g.,
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499detail.cfm?FilerNum=803667;
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499detail.cfm?FilerNum=809586;
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499detail.cfm?FilerNum=808107.
Letter from David Capozzi, Acting General Counsel, and Anne Marie Trew,
Senior Director of Finance, Universal Service Administrative Company, to
Trent Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division,
Enforcement Bureau, FCC, dated July 13, 2006 ("USAC Referral").
Letter from Trent Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Michael J. Shortley, III, General
Counsel North America, Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc., dated
Mar. 21, 2007 ("GC Telecommunications LOI" or "LOI").
See Letter from Michael J. Shortley, III, Vice President & Regional
General Counsel, Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc., to Raelynn
Tibayan-Remy, Attorney Advisor, Investigations & Hearings Division,
Enforcement Bureau, FCC, dated Apr. 19, 2007 ("LOI Response").
Letter from Letter from David Capozzi, Acting General Counsel, and Anne
Marie Trew, Senior Director of Finance, Universal Service Administrative
Company, to Raelynn Tibayan-Remy, Attorney Advisor, Investigations &
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, dated April 11, 2007 ("USAC
Supplemental Referral") at 1.
Letter from Trent Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Michael J. Shortley, III, Vice
President & Regional General Counsel - North America, Global Crossing
North America, Inc., dated June 14, 2007 ("Supplemental LOI").
See USAC Referral at 1. Global Crossing North America filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection on January 28, 2002, and confirmed its plan of
reorganization on December 9, 2003. See also
http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.241a.htm.
See LOI Response at Exh. 5; Supplemental LOI Response at Exh. 6. USAC has
updated the payment history of all of the subject Global Crossing
subsidiaries throughout the course of our investigation. At least one
Global Crossing subsidiary has failed to make full or timely payments on
forty-five occasions between January 2004 and March 2008. Most of these
apparent violations (31) were cured more than one-year ago and, as such,
are outside the statute of limitations. This information is being provided
to show the Global Crossing Companies' history of non-compliance. See LOI
Response at Exh. 5 (providing USF payment history for GC
Telecommunications).
See USAC Referral; LOI Response at Exh. 5; Supplemental LOI Response at
Exh. 6. One Global Crossing Company, GC Telecommunications, recently had
outstanding USF debt sent to the Commission for collection, pursuant to
the DCIA transfer process.
See LOI Response at Exh. 6; Supplemental LOI Response at Exh. 7. NECA has
provided the Commission with ongoing payment history updates for all of
the subject Global Crossing subsidiaries throughout the course of our
investigation.
See LOI Response at Exh. 6; Supplemental LOI Response at Exh. 7.
See supra notes 10 and 11 (citing to DCIA procedures and implementing
regulations of the Commission).
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, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982) ("This provision
[inserted in Section 312] defines the terms 'willful' and repeated' for
purposes of section 312, and for any other relevant section of the act
(e.g., section 503).... As defined ... 'willful' means that the licensee
knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of whether there
was an intent to violate the law. 'Repeated' means more than once, or
where the act is continuous, for more than one day. Whether an act is
considered to be 'continuous' would depend upon the circumstances in each
case. The definitions are intended primarily to clarify the language in
sections 312 and 503, and are consistent with the Commission's application
of those terms ...").
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, Inc.") (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, Inc., 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, P: 4 (2002).
See infra paras. 28-30 (providing individual proposed forfeitures for the
subject Global Crossing Companies).
47 U.S.C. S:S: 254(d), 225; 47 C.F.R. S:S: 54.706(a),
64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).
47 U.S.C. S: 254(d); 47 C.F.R. S: 54.706(a).
47 C.F.R. S: 54.706(a).
Id.
LOI Response at Exh. 5; Supplemental LOI Response at Exh. 6. USAC's
records confirm the history of noncompliance by various Global Crossing
subsidiaries.
Id.
See Supplemental LOI Response at 2.
Specifically, GC Telecommunications failed to remit any contribution
towards its respective USF obligations for payments due by March 15, June
15, July 13, November 15, and December 14, 2007, and February 15, 2008. GC
Telecommunications contributed less than the amounts due on February 15,
April 13, May 15, August 15, September 14, and October 15, 2007, and
January 15 and March 14, 2008.
As of March 25, 2008, the overall outstanding USF amount owed by GC
Telecommunications is $11,085,636.65, which includes delinquent debt that
was transferred to the Commission on February 15 and March 14, 2008,
pursuant to the DCIA transfer process. See supra notes 10-11, 26.
See Supplemental LOI Response at 2.
Specifically, GC Bandwidth failed to remit any contribution towards its
respective USF obligations for payments due by March 15, June 15, July 13,
November 15, and December 14, 2007, and February 15, 2008. GC Bandwidth
contributed less than the amounts due on February 15, April 13, May 15,
August 15, September 14, and October 15, 2007, and January 15 and March
14, 2008.
See Supplemental LOI Response at 2;
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499detail.cfm?FilerNum=808107.
Specifically, Budget failed to remit any contribution towards its USF
obligations for payments due by March 15, April 13, and June 15, 2007.
Supplemental LOI Response at 2.
Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893,19903, P: 26 (2003)
("Globcom NAL"), forfeiture ordered sub. nom. Globcom, Inc., Order of
Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4710, 4724, P: 37 (2006) ("Globcom Forfeiture
Order").
See infra para. 24. The earliest applicable statute of limitations period
for this NAL is April 9, 2008, based on USF payments received on April 9,
2007. See e.g., LOI Response at Exh. 5; Supplemental LOI Response at Exh.
6.
See Globcom NAL, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19900, P: 16 (2003) (stating that "each
month that Globcom failed to make its universal service contribution
constitutes a separate violation of the Commission's rules."). See 47
C.F.R. S: 54.711(a) (providing that contribution payments will be set by
Public Notice published in the Federal Register and on the FCC website).
The public notices implementing this rule have required that contributions
be made on the dates shown on the monthly USAC invoices. See, e.g.
"Proposed Second Quarter 2006 Universal Service Contribution Factor,"
Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 2379 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2006) ("Contributions
are due on the dates shown on the invoice.") See also
http://www.universalservice.org/fund-administration/contributors/paying-your-invoice/
(USAC Website advising of monthly payment requirements).
See Conquest Operator Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd
12518, 12525, P: 16 (1999); Matrix Telecom, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability, 15 FCC Rcd 13544 (2000); Globcom Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd
at 4723, P: 35 n.105 ("Each failure to pay the amount due each month
constituted a violation that continued for more than 10 days"). USAC's
practice is to apply partial payments to the oldest debt carried on USAC's
books first, and not the current billed amount. See North American
Telephone Network, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 4838, P: 8 n.12
(2001); Intellicall Operator Services, Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd
21,771, 21772, P: 6 n.8. This practice was codified by the Commission in
2007. See Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management,
Administration, and Oversight; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism;
Lifeline and Link Up; Changes to the Board of Directors for the National
Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372
(2007); 47 C.F.R. S: 54.713(e). As of the date of this NAL, GC
Telecommunications and GC Bandwidth have cumulative outstanding USF
balances of $11,085,636.65 and $7,696,725.71 respectively. Consistent with
sections 54.711 and 54.713 of the Commission's rules, we emphasize that
all of the Global Crossing Companies are required to pay the outstanding
USF contribution balances billed by USAC. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 54.711, 54.713.
We also remind the Global Crossing Companies that outstanding USF
contributions are considered delinquent and that any "such delinquent
amounts shall incur from the date of delinquency, and until all charges
and costs are paid in full, interest at the rate equal to the U.S. prime
rate . . . plus 3.5 percent, as well as administrative charges of
collection and/or penalties and charges permitted by applicable law. . .
." See 47 C.F.R. S: 54.713(b). In addition, failure to pay outstanding
fees, such as USF fees, is considered to be a continuing violation.
Therefore, failure to pay in full outstanding USF balances could subject
the Global Crossing Companies to additional enforcement action in the
future.
47 C.F.R. S: 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).
Id.
47 C.F.R. S: 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(B).
Id. Under the Commission's rules, each subject carrier must contribute at
least $25 per year, and carriers whose annual contributions are less than
$1,200 must pay the entire amount at the beginning of the contribution
period. Otherwise, carriers may divide their contributions into equal
monthly payments. Id. The billing cycle for TRS assessments runs from July
1 to June 30 of each year, with assessments made based on carriers'
reported revenues information for the corresponding FCC Form 499-A.
See LOI Response at Exh. 6; Supplemental LOI Response at Exh. 7. NECA's
records confirm the history of noncompliance by the Global Crossing
subsidiaries. Despite the fact that the Global Crossing Companies
consistently failed to remit full and timely payments for monthly TRS
invoices, we exercise our discretion in finding that the Global Crossing
Companies apparently violated section 225 of the Act and section 64.604 of
the Commission's rules only four times because the TRS obligation is an
annual assessment which can, and was in the instant matter, divided into
equal monthly payments for the 2006 and 2007 billing cycles for one Global
Crossing subsidiary - GC Telecommunications. See e.g., Globcom Forfeiture
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4721, P: 31 (assessing forfeiture based on carrier's
failure to pay monthly invoices for USF and TRS).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); see also
Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Order, 19 FCC Rcd
10945 (2004).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
See 47 U.S.C. S: 254(d).
See LOI Response at Exh. 5.
See OCMC, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 10479, 10482, P: 10 (2006)
("OCMC Forfeiture Order"); Globcom NAL, 18 FCC Rcd at 19903-19904, P:P:
25-27; Globcom Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 at 4721-4724, P: 31-38.
See, e.g., Globcom Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4722, P: 33; OCMC
Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 10482, P: 10. For similar reasons, we also
apply an upward adjustment for TRS payments based on half of a company's
unpaid contributions. Globcom NAL, 18 FCC Rcd at 19903-19904, P:P: 25-27.
See supra note 55.
See, e.g., Globcom Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4723, P: 35 (stating
under the then applicable maximum forfeiture amount "the carrier had full
notice under the APA that the maximum potential forfeiture for each
violation could be as high as $1,200,000") (emphasis in original).
Id. at 4724, P: 38.
See, e.g., id. at 4723-24, P:P: 36-37.
See e.g., Telus Communications, Inc., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 17251 (2007)
(order adopting a Consent Decree in which the carrier agreed to make a
voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury in the amount of
$450,000); Verizon Business Global LLC f/k/a MCI, LLC, Order, 22 FCC Rcd
12097 (2007) (order adopting a Consent Decree in which the carrier agreed
to make a voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury in the
amount of $500,000); Carrera Communication LP, Order of Forfeiture, 22 FCC
Rcd 9585 (2007) (imposing a $345,900 forfeiture for, inter alia, failing
to make required universal service contributions); Teletronics, Inc.,
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8681 (2007) (Teletronics Consent Decree) (order adopting
a Consent Decree in which the carrier agreed to make a voluntary
contribution to the United States Treasury in the amount of $250,000);
InPhonic, Inc., Order of Forfeiture and Further Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 8689 (2007) (proposing a new
forfeiture of $100,000 as part of the Further Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture for apparent violations of the Act and the Commission's
rules); Intelecom Solutions, Inc., Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14327 (2006) (order
adopting a Consent Decree in which the carrier agreed to make a voluntary
contribution to the United States Treasury in the amount of $150,000);
Telecom House, Inc., Order, 21 FCC Rcd 10883 (2006) (order adopting a
Consent Decree in which the carrier agreed to make a voluntary
contribution to the United States Treasury in the amount of $170,000);
Communication Services Integrated, Inc., Order, 21 FCC Rcd 10462 (2006)
(order adopting a Consent Decree in which the carrier agreed to make a
voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury in the amount of
$250,000); Local Phone Services Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 9974 (2006) (proposing forfeiture of $529,000 for
apparent violations of USF related requirements); FPL FiberNet, LLC,
Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8530 (2006) (order adopting a Consent Decree in which
the carrier agreed to make a voluntary contribution to the United States
Treasury in the amount of $150,000); Clear World Communications Corp.,
Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5304 (2006) (order adopting a Consent Decree in which
the carrier agreed to make a voluntary contribution to the United States
Treasury in the amount of $290,000).
See, e.g., High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board
on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No.96-45, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 9705 (2007) (seeking comment on
Federal-State Joint Board's recommendation that the Commission take
immediate action regarding increasing demand for USF monies for high-cost
support); Written Statement of The Honorable Kevin J. Martin, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission, Before the Committee on Commerce,
Science & Transportation, U.S. Senate, February 1, 2007 at 7 (describing
increasing pressure on the stability of the USF due to "[c]hanges in
technology and increases in the number of carriers who are receiving
universal service support").
See supra para. 7.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 254(d) (requiring that every telecommunications
contribute to the USF on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis). As
previously noted, one Global Crossing company has outstanding monthly USF
debt that has been transferred to the Commission for collection pursuant
to the DCIA transfer process. See supra note 47.
See Globcom Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4724, P: 38 & n.105.
See supra para. 16.
See supra paras. 12-16.
Id.
See supra paras. 12-15.
As noted previously, we could propose as much as $1,325,000 for each
continuing violation. Thus, if we proposed the maximum forfeiture
permitted under the Act, calculating a base forfeiture amount as provided
herein, the Global Crossing Companies could face a cumulative forfeiture
of more than $50.5 million (i.e.,$1.325 million for each of the 31
apparent violations, plus a cumulative upward adjustment of $9,438,722)
for the Global Crossing Companies' failures to contribute to the USF.
See supra para. 18.
47 U.S.C. S: 225(b)(1).
See Globcom NAL, 18 FCC Rcd at 19904, P: 29.
In the instant matter, GC Telecommunications failed to make timely and
complete for monthly invoices that covered the company's 2006 and 2007 TRS
assessments. See LOI Response at Exh. 6. GC Bandwidth and Budget failed to
timely pay their respective 2007 TRS invoices, which were due on July 26,
2007. Supplemental LOI Response at Exh. 7.
See supra para. 21.
See supra para. 18.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-96
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-96