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-08-IH-5265
Global NAPs California, Inc. )
NAL/Acct. No. 201032080005
OCN# 5300 )
FRN No. 0005052808
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture )

)

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER

Adopted: November 10, 2009 Released: November 12, 2009

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that Global NAPs California, Inc. ("Global NAPs"), apparently violated
sections 52.15(k)(1) and 52.15(f) of the Commission's rules, and
Commission orders, by willfully and repeatedly failing to submit to a
Commission numbering audit, failing to maintain accurate number use
data and submitting inaccurate North American Numbering Plan Numbering
Resource Utilization/Forecast ("NRUF") reports, failing to submit its
August 2009 NRUF report, and failing to respond on a timely and
complete basis to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") to
provide certain information and documents. Based on our review of the
facts and circumstances surrounding this matter, we find that Global
NAPs is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of $80,000.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Numbering Resource Utilization and Forecast Reporting Requirements

2. Section 251(e) of the Act grants the Commission plenary jurisdiction
over the North American Numbering Plan ("NANP") and related telephone
numbering issues in the United States. The Commission has identified
two primary goals related to this statutory mandate: to ensure that
the limited numbering resources of the NANP are used efficiently for
the benefit of both consumers and carriers, and to ensure that all
carriers have the numbering resources necessary to compete in the
rapidly growing telecommunications marketplace.

3. The Commission has adopted mandatory utilization and forecast data
reporting requirements to facilitate the monitoring of numbering
resource usage within the NANP and promote more efficient use of
numbering resources. Section 52.15(f) of the Commission's rules
requires U.S. carriers receiving numbering resources from the North
American Numbering Plan Administrator ("NANPA"), a Pooling
Administrator, or another telecommunications carrier to report
semiannually on their actual and forecasted number usage. To improve
the accuracy of utilization data reporting, the Commission has defined
a uniform set of categories in which carriers must classify and report
their numbers. Carriers report this data on FCC Form 502, the NRUF
report.

4. All telecommunications service providers are subject to audits to
verify compliance with Commission regulations and applicable industry
guidelines relating to numbering administration. The NANPA, the
Pooling Administrator, or a state commission, if it has reason to
believe that a service provider may have violated the Commission's
rules or orders or applicable industry guidelines, may request a "for
cause" audit of the service provider by written request to the Bureau.
Requests must state the reason for which a "for cause" audit is being
requested and include documentation of the alleged anomaly,
inconsistency, or violation of the Commission rules or orders or
applicable industry guidelines. The Chief of the Bureau will provide
carriers up to 30 days to submit a written response to a request for a
"for cause" audit.

B. The Commission's Investigation

5. Global NAPs has operated as a competitive local exchange and
interexchange carrier in California since 2000. Global NAPs designates
all of its numbers for Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") and
Enhanced Service Providers ("ESPs"), who use the numbers to provide
services to their own end-user customers. According to Global NAPs,
its ISP and ESP customers "may or may not" use the numbers at all
times.

6. On February 26, 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission
("CPUC") requested that the Bureau conduct a "for cause" numbering
audit of Global NAPs. The CPUC stated that it had reviewed Global
NAPs' NRUF reports for 2003-2006 and it believed that the company was
"not accurately reporting its use of numbering resources." On May 23
and June 27, 2008, the Bureau sent Global NAPs letters notifying the
company of the CPUC's request. Global NAPs did not respond to the
letters. On August 11, 2008, the Bureau notified Global NAPs that it
intended to proceed with the audit (the "Engagement Letter"). The
Engagement Letter informed Global NAPs of the audit objective, the
legal authority for the audit, the Bureau's expectations for Global
NAPs' cooperation with the audit, and the audit procedures. The
Engagement Letter also included a Data Request and Internal Control
Questionnaire directing Global NAPs to provide information relevant to
the audit, including information on Global NAPs' internal processes
and procedures for handling numbering resources. The Bureau directed
Global NAPs to contact a specified Bureau contact, and provide
responses to the Data Request and Internal Control Questionnaire by
September 8, 2008.

7. Global NAPs received the Engagement Letter, but failed to contact the
Bureau or provide responses to the Data Request and Internal Control
Questionnaire by the September 8, 2008 deadline. On September 17,
2008, Bureau staff contacted Global NAPs' in-house counsel via
telephone regarding the audit. Global NAPs' counsel acknowledged
receipt of the Engagement Letter, and advised the Bureau that a
response was forthcoming. After receiving no further response, Bureau
staff attempted to contact Global NAPs' counsel again, leaving voice
messages on September 25 and 26, 2008. These messages were not
returned.

8. On October 27, 2008, the Bureau initiated an investigation into Global
NAPs' failure to submit to the audit. The Bureau issued a letter of
inquiry ("LOI") directing Global NAPs, among other things, to provide
full responses to the Data Request and Internal Control Questionnaire
by November 5, 2008. On the day the LOI was issued, Bureau staff spoke
with Global NAPs' counsel by telephone, emphasizing the importance of
a timely response to the LOI, and provided a courtesy copy of the LOI
via e-mail to counsel. Despite these reminders, Global NAPs failed to
respond to the LOI by the deadline. Global NAPs did not contact Bureau
staff prior to the November 5 deadline to convey any difficulties in
responding to the LOI, or to request an extension.

9. On November 7, 2008, two days after the LOI deadline, Global NAPs'
counsel contacted the Bureau to request an in-person meeting regarding
the investigation. At the meeting, which took place on November 12,
2008, Global NAPs' counsel provided an incomplete, "draft" response to
the LOI, the Data Request, and the Internal Control Questionnaire,
including some documents. The draft response was not supported by an
affidavit or declaration, signed by an authorized officer of Global
NAPs under penalty of perjury, as required by the LOI. After receiving
another call from Bureau staff on November 14, 2008, Global NAPs
finally submitted a sworn response. The response did not completely
answer the questions in the LOI or the Data Request, apparently in
large part because Global NAPs had failed to follow Commission
recordkeeping requirements designed to facilitate audits.

10. In its partial response to the LOI, Global NAPs stated that it does
not have a formal plan to ensure compliance with FCC rules and
industry guidelines for numbering resources. Global NAPs further
stated that it has not made specific employees responsible for
monitoring compliance and implementation of numbering resource
optimization; that it does not have procedures for disseminating
information to appropriate staff about changes to FCC rules and
industry guidelines on numbering resources within 30 days of release;
and does not brief its management at least annually on compliance with
numbering resource requirements. Global NAPs also stated that it does
not provide training to employees on numbering rules, and that its
employees are not aware of numbering processes and procedures.

11. Finally, Bureau staff have confirmed, through the NANP Administration
System, that Global NAPs apparently did not file the mandatory NRUF
report due on August 3, 2009.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Global NAPs Apparently Failed to Submit to the Bureau's Audit

12. We conclude that Global NAPs has apparently violated section
52.15(k)(1) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit to the
Bureau's audit. All telecommunications providers shall be subject to
audits to verify compliance with the Commission's numbering
requirements. The Commission has clarified that this rule requires
providers to be prepared to demonstrate their compliance at any time.
Global NAPs, however, failed to demonstrate such compliance, and
simply ignored the Bureau's communications regarding the audit for
several months. Indeed, the Bureau provided Global NAPs nearly three
months advance notice of its intent to audit Global NAPs' numbering
use compliance, and upon formally initiating the audit, provided
Global NAPs numerous opportunities to respond to its requests.
Specifically, the Bureau directed Global NAPs to contact the Bureau
and respond to a Data Request and an Internal Control Questionnaire.
However, Global NAPs did not contact the Bureau, nor did it respond to
the Data Request and Internal Control Questionnaire, by the September
8 deadline. Global NAPs also ignored the subsequent communications by
Bureau staff on September 17, 25, and 26.

13. Ultimately, Global NAPs did not provide a formal response to the Data
Request and Internal Control Questionnaire until November 19, 2008 -
more than two months after its original deadline, almost six months
after it first received notice of a possible audit, and only after
numerous prompts from Commission staff. Even then, Global NAPs failed
to produce many records requested by the Bureau, including copies of
numbering applications and a detailed description of its procedures
for handling different categories of numbers, in large part because
Global NAPs had failed to comply with Commission recordkeeping
requirements designed to facilitate audits. As a result, by failing to
contact the Bureau and fully respond to the Data Request and Internal
Control Questionnaire, Global NAPs effectively prevented the Bureau
from proceeding with the audit. In short, Global NAPs' response shows
that the company has failed to submit to an audit, and has, therefore,
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 52.15(k)(1) of
the Commission's rules.

B. Global NAPs Apparently Failed to Maintain Accurate Number Use Data and
Submit Accurate NRUF Reports

14. Section 52.15(f) requires carriers receiving numbering resources to
classify and report utilization data in five categories:
administrative, aging, assigned, intermediate, and reserved. From
February 2002 to December 2003, Global NAPs reported that none of its
numbers were assigned, even though Commission rules require service
providers to activate and commence assignment to end users of
numbering resources within six months of receipt. In June 2004,
however, Global NAPs reported 100 percent of its numbers as assigned.
From 2004 to 2009, as its numbering inventory increased from 30,000 to
as many as 86,000 numbers, Global NAPs stated in every NRUF report
that 100 percent of its numbers were assigned. Based on the record, we
conclude that Global NAPs was not entitled to classify all of its
numbers as assigned, and therefore apparently failed to maintain
accurate number use data and submitted inaccurate NRUF reports in
violation of Section 52.15(f) of the Commission's rules, from 2004 to
2009.

15. "Assigned" numbers are numbers working in the Public Switched
Telephone Network ("PSTN") under an agreement such as a contract or
tariff at the request of specific end users or customers for their
use, or numbers not yet working but having a customer service order
pending for five days or less. Some numbers "work" in the PSTN only
periodically, but remain designated for a particular customer's use
even if they are not "working." These include numbers contained in
blocks assigned to Centrex or Private Branch Exchange ("PBX") users,
or to large entities, which typically use all or a portion of a block
of numbers at any given time. To the extent that they are "working,"
numbers used for such "intermittent" purposes should be categorized as
"assigned." Numbers contained in blocks assigned to Centrex or PBX
users may also be categorized as "assigned" (even if not all of the
numbers in the block are "working") if 50 percent or more of the
numbers in the block are working at all times. If the 50 percent
threshold is not met, numbers within the block that are not "working"
may not be categorized as "assigned," and must be made available for
use by other customers.

16. According to Global NAPs, all of its numbers are designated for the
use of ISP or ESP customers (five, as of November 14, 2008), for
provision of service to the ISP's or ESP's own end-users. Global NAPs
admitted that its ISP or ESP customers "may or may not use [the
numbers] at all times." To the extent that numbers were not
"working," Global NAPs should not have reported the numbers as
"assigned," unless the numbers were in blocks assigned to Centrex or
PBX users or large entities and at least 50 percent of the numbers in
each block assigned to a customer were "working" at all times. The
record indicates, however, that Global NAPs made no attempt to
determine whether 50 percent, or indeed any, of the numbers in the
blocks assigned to its customers were "working." Global NAPs' counsel
orally represented to Bureau staff at the November 12, 2008 meeting
that the company does not track its customers' use of its numbering
resources once numbers are designated for a customer's use. Global
NAPs' responses to the LOI and Data Request provide further support
for this statement. For example, Global NAPs failed to produce any
procedures for handling "assigned" numbers, and Global NAPs has no
written processes or procedures that govern the retrieval of this
information from its database and other system(s) to be recorded on
its NRUF reports. Indeed, Global NAPs was unable even to respond to a
Commission question about how many numbers were currently in its
numbering inventory. Furthermore, Global NAPs has admitted that it
does not train its employees or management on numbering requirements.
Therefore, based on the preponderance of the evidence, we find that
Global NAPs has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section
52.15(f) of the Commission's rules by failing to maintain accurate
number use data and submitting inaccurate NRUF reports from 2004 to
2009.

C. Global NAPs Apparently Failed to Submit its August 2009 NRUF Report

17. We conclude that Global NAPs has apparently violated section
52.15(f)(6) of the Commission's rules by failing to submit an NRUF
report due August 3, 2009. Section 52.15(f)(6) requires carriers to
file NRUF reports semi-annually, on February 1 and August 1. As
discussed above, the NANP Administration System indicates that Global
NAPs did not file the mandatory NRUF report due on August 3, 2009.
Based upon the record before us, we conclude that Global NAPs'
apparent failure to comply with the reporting requirements was
willful.

D. Global NAPs Apparently Failed to Provide a Timely and Complete Response
to the LOI

18. Finally, we conclude that Global NAPs has apparently violated
Commission orders by failing, after multiple opportunities, to respond
fully to the LOI. Sections 4(i), 4(j), 218, and 403 of the Act afford
the Commission broad authority to investigate the entities it
regulates. Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to "issue such
orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the
execution of its functions," and section 4(j) states that "the
Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best
conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of
justice." Section 218 of the Act authorizes the Commission to "obtain
from . . . carriers . . . full and complete information necessary to
enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out the objects
for which it was created." Section 403 likewise grants the Commission
"full authority and power to institute an inquiry, on its own motion .
. . relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act."

19. In the LOI, the Bureau directed Global NAPs to provide certain
documents and information to enable the Commission to perform its
enforcement function and evaluate allegations that Global NAPs failed
to submit to the audit, in violation of section 52.15(k)(1) of the
Commission's rules. As evidenced by the Bureau's facsimile
confirmation sheet, Global NAPs received the LOI on October 27, 2008,
and Bureau staff spoke to Global NAPs counsel by telephone the same
day to emphasize the importance of a timely response. The LOI
specifically warned Global NAPs that failure to respond to the LOI
could constitute a violation of the Communications Act or the
Commission's rules. Nevertheless, Global NAPs did not respond to the
LOI by the due date of November 5, 2008, or request an extension of
time in which to meet its obligations under the LOI. Several days
after the deadline, Global NAPs requested an in-person meeting with
Bureau staff, which took place on November 12, 2008. At the meeting,
Global NAPs provided staff with a "draft," unsworn response to the
LOI. Two days later, after a call from Bureau staff, Global NAPs
finally provided a sworn, but incomplete, response. To date, the
Bureau has not received a complete response to the LOI. Global NAPs'
willful and repeated failures to timely and adequately respond to the
Bureau's inquiries constitute an apparent violation of a Commission
order.

E. Proposed Forfeiture

20. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act provides that any person that willfully
or repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any
rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable
to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of
the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to
$150,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up
to a statutory maximum of $1,500,000 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," and our forfeiture guidelines.

1. Failure to Submit to the Audit

21. The Commission has not established a base forfeiture amount for a
failure to submit to a numbering audit in violation of section
52.15(k)(1) of our rules. The forfeiture guidelines establish a base
forfeiture of $4,000 for the failure to respond to Commission
communications. We find, however, that Global NAPs' conduct goes
beyond a mere failure to respond to Commission communications. Rather,
Global NAPs failed to contact the Bureau as directed and failed to
respond fully to the Data Request and Internal Control Questionnaire,
which in turn prevented the Bureau from conducting the audit. We
therefore find that Global NAPs' failure to submit to the audit
warrants a substantial forfeiture amount in light of the important
public policy aspects of the underlying rule and the egregiousness of
the violation.

22. Audits are the only comprehensive method for verifying the validity
and accuracy of utilization data submitted by users of numbering
resources. Audits can also serve a number of other purposes, such as
verifying carriers' compliance with non-quantitative rules or
guidelines; deterring carrier behavior that is contrary to numbering
resource optimization goals, such as stockpiling of unneeded
resources; and allowing the Commission to identify inefficiencies in
the manner in which carriers use numbers, such as the excessive use of
certain categories of numbers (e.g., administrative, aging, or
intermediate numbers). Viewed in this light, Global NAPs' failure to
submit to the Bureau's audit is more than an administrative matter;
rather, Global NAPs' behavior prevents the Commission from carrying
out its numbering resource administration and optimization objectives.

23. We find that Global NAPs' apparent failure to submit to the audit is
egregious and repeated. Global NAPs ignored numerous written and oral
communications from the Bureau regarding the audit, failed to contact
the Bureau as directed, and only provided the information requested
after the Bureau initiated an enforcement investigation into Global
NAPs' noncompliance. Misconduct of this type exhibits a blatant
disregard for the Commission's authority that cannot be tolerated, and
more importantly, threatens to compromise the Commission's ability to
adequately investigate violations of its rules. Therefore, taking into
account all of the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D) of the
Act, we conclude that a proposed forfeiture of $15,000 is warranted
for Global NAPs' apparent failure to cooperate with the numbering
audit.

2. Maintenance of Accurate Data and Submission of Accurate NRUF Reports

24. The Commission has not previously proposed a forfeiture against a
carrier for submitting inaccurate NRUF reports. The Commission has
previously proposed forfeitures against carriers who failed to file
NRUF reports, using the base forfeiture of $3,000 in the forfeiture
guidelines for failure to file required forms or information. The
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and implementing rules also
prescribe a base forfeiture of $1,000 for failure to maintain required
records. The guidelines explicitly state, however, that "[t]he
Commission and its staff retain the discretion to issue a higher or
lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines." The guidelines
identify several factors for adjusting a base forfeiture upward,
including egregious misconduct, prior violations of FCC requirements,
and repeated or continuous violation. Taking into account the
egregious, repeated, and long-standing nature of Global NAPs'
violations, we find that a substantial upward adjustment of the
forfeiture amount, to $25,000, is warranted for Global NAPs' failure
to maintain accurate number use data and file accurate NRUF reports
during the statutory one-year limitations period.

25. The Commission's ability to monitor numbering resource use and
accurately predict numbering plan area ("NPA"), or area code, and NANP
exhaust is dependent on the quality of the data submitted by carriers.
Consistent, accurate, and complete reporting of numbering data serves
multiple purposes. First, it allows NANPA to develop a comprehensive
database on numbering resource demand, allocation, and use, which is
critical to the accurate forecasting of NANP and NPA exhaust. Second,
it deters carriers from requesting and holding excessive quantities of
numbering resources for which they have no immediate need. Third, it
facilitates the Commission's ability to formulate appropriate national
policy on numbering resource optimization by providing a complete
picture of how numbering resources are being used in all markets.
Finally, it provides the states, which have authority to conduct area
code relief, with location-specific data that enables them to make
appropriate decisions on such matters.

26. We find that Global NAPs' apparent failure to classify and report its
numbering utilization accurately is egregious. The Commission adopted
the numbering categories in 2000, and the 50 percent threshold for
numbers used for intermittent purposes in 2001. These requirements are
also incorporated in industry guidelines. Global NAPs and its parent,
Global NAPs, Inc., are sophisticated carriers that have participated
in numerous FCC and state commission proceedings. Yet Global NAPs
blatantly disregarded the Commission's rules governing the
classification and reporting of numbering resource utilization. As
described above, Global NAPs appears to have made no efforts at
compliance with numbering requirements, other than submitting
perfunctory and inaccurate NRUF reports. Due to the size and scope of
the numbering administration programs, the Commission and NANPA, by
necessity, must rely on carriers' compliance with our reporting rules
for filings that appear to be facially credible. Where a carrier
simply ignores its obligation under the statute, our rules, and
industry guidelines to report accurate numbering information, it
undermines the integrity and objectives of the Commission's numbering
administration and optimization strategies. By reporting all of its
numbers as "assigned," Global NAPs was able to obtain and keep up to
86,000 numbers in California without determining whether it was
required to return lightly-used blocks. Global NAPs' actions undermine
the Commission's purpose in adopting the 50 percent threshold, which
is to strike an appropriate balance between carriers' legitimate need
to provide numbers for intermittent use to their customers and our
responsibility to ensure that scarce numbering resources do not lie
fallow.

27. We also find that Global NAPs' apparent violations were repeated over
a five-year period from June 2004 to April 2009, during which Global
NAPs submitted inaccurate reports for each semiannual reporting
period. We note that under section 503(b)(6) of the Act, we may only
propose forfeitures for apparent violations that occurred within one
year of the date of this NAL. Therefore, we only propose a forfeiture
for inaccurate NRUF reports filed within one year of this NAL - i.e.,
the April 9, 2009 report. It is a well-settled principle of law,
however, that the Commission may properly consider prior offenses that
occurred more than one year before a violation to establish the
context for determining an appropriate forfeiture amount. We further
note that Global NAPs' submission of inaccurate reports continued even
after the Bureau commenced an investigation into the company's
compliance with numbering requirements. Given the longstanding and
repeated nature of the inaccurate submissions, as well as the
egregious nature of the violation, we consider Global NAPs' submission
of inaccurate NRUF reports on April 9, 2009 to be a very serious
instance for which a sizable increase in the base forfeiture amount,
to $25,000, is warranted. We also find that the proposed forfeiture is
reasonable when compared to similar forfeitures in our Universal
Service Fund ("USF") enforcement actions.

3. Failure to Submit August 2009 NRUF Report

28. As discussed above, the Commission has emphasized that consistent,
accurate, and complete reporting of number utilization and forecast
data is critical to promoting efficiency and avoiding premature
exhaustion of numbering resources. The Commission has previously
established a base forfeiture of $3,000 for the failure to submit NRUF
reports. However, we find that the egregious nature of Global NAPs'
violation warrants a substantial upward adjustment from the base
forfeiture. Global NAPs has displayed a blatant disregard for the
Commission's numbering requirements by filing inaccurate NRUF reports
for the past five years, as discussed above. Its failure to file the
August 2009 report simply continues this pattern and, like the
submission of inaccurate reports, frustrates proper administration of
the Commission's numbering administration and optimization strategies.
Global NAPs' failure to file is even more egregious given that the
company had already failed to respond on a timely basis to both an
audit and an investigation of the company's numbering practices.
Therefore, taking into consideration the factors expressed in section
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we find that a forfeiture in the amount of
$25,000 is appropriate.

4. Failure to Respond to Letter of Inquiry

29. The forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000
for failure to respond to a Commission communication. As discussed
above, the Bureau issued the LOI after Global NAPs failed to respond
to multiple written and telephone attempts to reach the company
regarding the audit. Global NAPs failed to respond to the LOI by the
due date, despite an explicit warning that failure to respond
appropriately to the LOI could in itself constitute a violation of the
Communications Act or our rules. When Global NAPs did finally respond,
after another call from Bureau staff, its response was incomplete. We
find that Global NAPs' apparent pattern of ignoring Commission
directives, its delay in responding to the LOI, and its failure to
provide a complete response to the Bureau's LOI warrant an upward
adjustment to the base amount. Misconduct of this type exhibits a
disregard for the Commission's authority that cannot be tolerated,
and, more importantly, threatens to compromise the Commission's
ability to adequately investigate violations of its rules.

30. In the past, we have proposed a forfeiture of $8,000 for a company's
failure to respond in a timely and complete manner to a Commission
letter of inquiry. In that instance, we lowered the forfeiture, in
part, because the company was not represented by counsel. We have
also proposed a forfeiture as high as $15,000 for a company that
submitted a substantially late response that lacked the required
supporting affidavit or declaration, and forfeitures of $20,000 for
companies that have failed to respond entirely. In this case, Global
NAPs did provide a portion of the information and documents it was
ordered to produce by the Bureau's LOI. Global NAPs has been
represented throughout the Bureau's inquiry by counsel, however, and
the delay in its response continued a pattern of disregarding
Commission directives that began with the Engagement Letter for the
audit. Therefore, taking into account the factors enumerated in
section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we conclude that an upward adjustment
of the base amount to $15,000 is justified for Global NAPs' apparent
repeated and willful failure to provide a timely and complete response
to the LOI.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

31. 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
NAPs California, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
A FORFEITURE in the amount of $80,000 for willfully and repeatedly
violating the Act and the Commission's rules.

32. 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 FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER, Global NAPs
California, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture
or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of
the proposed forfeiture.

33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections 218 and 251(e)(2) of
the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 218 and 251(e)(2), and sections 52.15(k)(1)
and 52.15(f) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 52.15(k)(1) and
52.15(f), within thirty days of the release of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER, Global NAPs California, Inc. SHALL
SUBMIT a report, supported by a sworn statement or declaration under
penalty of perjury by a corporate officer, stating its plan promptly
to come into compliance with the reporting and recordkeeping rules
discussed herein.

34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 218, and
403 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 4(i), 4(j), 218, 403, Global NAPs
California, Inc. shall fully respond to the October 27, 2008 Letter of
Inquiry sent by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau within 30 days of the
release of this order.

35. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.
Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 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 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. Global NAPs California, Inc. will also
send electronic notification within forty-eight (48) hours of the date
said payment is made to Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov.

36. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
FORFEITURE AND ORDER 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. Global NAPs California, Inc. also will e-mail an electronic
copy of its response to Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov.

37. 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.

38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY
FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER shall be sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to James R.J. Scheltema, Vice President -
Regulatory Affairs, Global NAPs, Inc., Southern Regional Office, 1311
East La Rua Street, Pensacola, FL 32501.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

P. Michele Ellison

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

47 C.F.R. S:S: 52.15(k)(1), 52.15(f).

Numbering Resource Optimization, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200, 15 FCC Rcd 7574 (2000) ("NRO
Order"); Numbering Resource Optimization, Second Report and Order, Order
on Reconsideration in CC Docket 96-98 and CC Docket 99-200, and Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket 99-200, 16 FCC Rcd 306
(Dec. 29, 2000) ("NRO Second Report and Order"); Numbering Resource
Optimization, Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration
in CC Docket No. 96-98 and CC Docket No. 99-200, 17 FCC Rcd 252 (2001)
("NRO Third Report and Order").

47 U.S.C. S: 251(e).

NRO Order,15 FCC Rcd at 7577, P: 1.

See id. at 7582-7621.

The NANPA is the entity or entities responsible for managing the NANP. 47
C.F.R. S: 52.7(e). NeuStar, Inc. ("NeuStar") currently serves as the
NANPA.

The Pooling Administrator is the entity responsible for administering the
thousands-block number pool. 47 C.F.R. S: 52.7(g). NeuStar also serves as
the Pooling Administrator.

47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(f).

NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7584, P: 14; 47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(f)(1).

The NRUF reports are due on or before February 1 and on or before August 1
of each year. See 47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(f)(6).

47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(k)(1).

NRO Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 345-346, P: 87. Carriers
receiving numbers are also subject to "random" audits. 47 C.F.R. S:
52.15(k)(1).

47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(k)(3).

Global NAPs obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN") in California as a limited facilities-based and resale provider
of competitive local exchange and interexchange services in 2000.
Application of Global NAPs California, Inc. for Authority to Operate as a
Provider of Resale and Facilities Based Telecommunications Service Within
the State of California, California Public Utilities Commission Decision
00-12-039 (Dec. 21, 2000). In 2007, Global NAPs' CPCN was suspended by the
CPUC. Cox California Telcom, LLC v.

(...continued from previous page)

Global NAPs California, Inc., Opinion Suspending Registrant's Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity, Case 06-04-026, Decision 07-06-044
(June 21, 2007).

Letter from James R.J. Scheltema, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs,
Global NAPs, Inc., to Michael Amato and Michael Evans, Communications
Division, State of California Public Utilities Commission (Feb. 7, 2008)
("Global NAPs February 7 Letter").

Id.

Letter from John M. Leutza, Director, Communications Division, California
Public Utilities Commission, to Kris Monteith, Chief, Enforcement Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 26, 2008) ("CPUC Letter").

Id. at 1-2.

Letter from Trent B. Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, to James R.J. Scheltema, Vice President -
Regulatory Affairs, Global NAPS, Inc. (May 23, 2008); Letter from Trent B.
Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement
Bureau, to James R.J. Scheltema, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs,
Global NAPS, Inc. (June 27, 2008).

Engagement Letter at 4.

Although the Engagement Letter was dated and sent via mail on August 11,
2008, Global NAPs received a copy of the final letter via facsimile on
August 8, 2008. Global NAPs provided Bureau staff with a copy of the faxed
letter during an in-person meeting on November 12, 2008. In addition, a
copy of the letter was received at the Global NAPs legal department office
in Norwood, Massachusetts on August 14, 2008, as shown by the certified
mail return receipt.

Global NAPs does not deny that its counsel informed Bureau staff that it
would be receiving responsive materials. See Global NAPS Responses to FCC
Requests for Production (Nov. 14, 2008) at 4 ("LOI Response").

Letter from Trent B. Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to James R.J. Scheltema, Vice President
- Regulatory Affairs, Global NAPs, Inc. (Oct. 27, 2008) ("LOI").

See E-mail from Chin Yoo, Attorney-Advisor, Investigations & Hearings
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to James R.J. Scheltema, Vice President
- Regulatory Affairs, Global NAPs, Inc. (Oct. 27, 2008).

Global NAPs provided copies of the NRUF reports it had filed with NANPA
and an internal e-mail discussing the data sought for the audit, as well
as copies of letters sent by the CPUC.

See LOI at 2.

See infra P:P: 13, 19.

Global NAPs Response to Internal Control Questionnaire, Questions
I.A.1.-I.A.4, II.A.1-II.B.4.

47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(k)(1).

NRO Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 346, P: 88.

As previously stated, the Bureau sent letters on May 23 and June 27, 2008
to Global NAPs notifying the company of the CPUC's request that the Bureau
conduct a for cause audit. See supra P: 6.

LOI Response, Response to Data Requests (j), (k), (r).

To facilitate audits, all carriers must maintain detailed internal records
of their number usage for a period of not less than five years in five
categories (administrative, aging, assigned, intermediate, reserved) and
eight sub-categories (soft dialtone numbers, ported-out numbers, dealer
number pools, test numbers, employee/official numbers, Local Routing
Numbers, Temporary Local Directory Numbers, wireless E911 emergency
services routing digits/ key (ESRD/ESRK) numbers). NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd
at 7601, P: 62 and n.104. With respect to the Bureau's request for a
detailed description of Global NAPs' processes and procedures for handling
different categories of numbers, a company representative admitted that
"there are no [such] processes and procedures." See LOI Response, Response
to Data Request (r); E-mail from Keith Herron, Global NAPs, to James R.J.
Scheltema, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs, Global NAPs, Inc. (Nov. 3,
2008). Additionally, in its response to the Internal Control
Questionnaire, Global NAPs: (1) stated that questions regarding
"administrative" numbers were "not applicable" to the company, without
further explanation; (2) did not respond to questions about "aging"
numbers; (3) stated that it "does not utilize an assigned category that is
distinguished based on a 5-day period"; (4) stated that it does not
separately inventory "intermediate" numbers; and (5) stated that it does
not use "reserved" numbers. Global NAPs also stated that it does not
separately inventory "ported-out" numbers, one of the eight sub-categories
for which carriers must maintain records. Global NAPs Response to Internal
Control Questionnaire, Question III.A-E.

A sixth category, "available numbers," is a residual category. Therefore,
the Commission does not require carriers to report such numbers. NRO
Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7600 n. 99. Available numbers are defined as numbers
that are available for assignment to subscriber access lines, or their
equivalents, within a switching entity or point of interconnection and are
not classified as assigned, intermediate, administrative, aging, or
reserved. 47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(f)(1)(iv).

Global NAPs Feb. 1, 2002, Aug. 1, 2002, Mar. 3, 2003, and Dec. 16, 2003
NRUF Reports.

NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7678, 7682, P:P: 233, 240.

Global NAPs June 17, 2004, Nov. 1, 2004, Feb. 1, 2005, Aug. 1, 2005, Feb.
1, 2006, Aug. 1, 2006, Feb. 16, 2007, Aug. 1, 2007, Feb. 1, 2008, Aug. 1,
2008, and April 9, 2009 NRUF Reports.

47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(f)(1)(iii). Numbers that are not yet working and have a
service order pending for more than five days should not be classified as
assigned numbers.

NRO Third Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 303, P: 119.

NRO Third Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 303-305, P:P: 119-122; North
American Numbering Plan Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast Reporting
(NRUF) Guidelines, ATIS-0300068 (reissued Nov. 9, 2007) at 17, available
at www.atis.org/INC/Docs/finaldocs/NRUF-FinalDocument-11-9-07.doc.

Id.

See LOI Response, Response to Data Request (f).

Global NAPs February 7 Letter at 2.

Id.

NRO Third Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 305, P: 122.

See supra n. 34.

Global NAPs Response to Internal Control Questionnaire, Question III.G.2.

LOI Response at 5. NeuStar has advised Bureau staff that Global NAPs
continues to include in its NRUF reports some NXX codes that were
reassigned to other reporting carriers after the suspension of Global
NAPs' operating authority in California. See supra n. 15.

Global NAPs Response to Internal Control Questionnaire, Questions III.G.1,
II.A.1, 2.

47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(f)(1).

47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(f)(6)(i).

47 U.S.C. S: 154(i).

47 U.S.C. S: 154(j).

47 U.S.C. S: 218.

47 U.S.C. S: 403. Section 403 provides, in part: "The Commission shall
have full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its
own motion, in any case and as to any matter or thing concerning which
complaint is authorized to be made, to or before the Commission by any
provision of this Act, or concerning which any question may arise under
any of the provisions of this Act."

LOI at 3.

Global NAPs never responded to Request No. 9 in the LOI, see LOI Response
at 5 ("This response will be compiled and provided as soon as information
is received from PMC"), despite its counsel's assurances that the
information would be provided. See E-mail from James R.J. Scheltema, Vice
President - Regulatory Affairs, Inc., Global NAPs, Inc., to Chin Yoo,
Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 14, 2008).

See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7599-7600, P:P: 23-28 (2002) ($100,000
forfeiture for egregious and intentional misconduct, i.e., refusing to
attest to truthfulness and accuracy of responses to LOI); Globcom, Inc.,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893,
19898 n. 36 (2003) ("Globcom NAL") (subsequent history omitted) (delayed
response to an LOI considered dilatory behavior that may result in future
sanctions); BigZoo.Com Corporation, Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3954
(Enforcement Bureau 2005) ($20,000 forfeiture for failure of an entity to
provide any response to a USF LOI); American Family Association, Licensee
of Station KBMP(FM), Enterprise, Kansas, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 14072 (Enforcement Bureau 2004) ($3,000 forfeiture
for a partial response to an LOI); World Communications Satellite Systems,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 18545
(Enforcement Bureau 2003) ($10,000 forfeiture for a non-responsive reply
to an LOI); Donald W.

(...continued from previous page)

Kaminski, Jr., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd
10707 (Enforcement Bureau 2001) ($4,000 forfeiture after individual
refused to respond to an LOI).

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

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2); see also
Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, Adjustment of
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008). The
Commission most recently adjusted the maximum statutory forfeiture amounts
for inflation effective September 2, 2008. See 73 FR 44663-5. Apparent
violations which occurred before that date were subject to lower statutory
maxima.

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures.

Although the Commission stated in the NRO Third Report and Order that
carriers that fail to comply with audit requests will be denied numbering
resources, it did not foreclose use of traditional enforcement tools such
as this NAL. See NRO Third Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 252, P:P:
96-98.

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures.

NRO Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 344, P: 81.

Id., 16 FCC Rcd at 344, P:P: 81, 83.

See, e.g., Allpage, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16
FCC Rcd 8580 (2002); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note, Guidelines for
Assessing Forfeitures. In determining the forfeiture amount, the
Commission made upward adjustments based on the amount of unreported
numbering resources held by the carrier.

See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80; Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Report and Order, 12
FCC Rcd 17087, 17114 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), recon.
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures.

NRO Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 344, P: 83.

NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7593, P: 37.

Id. The Commission requires carriers to achieve a 75% utilization
threshold before requesting additional numbering resources in a rate
center. 47 C.F.R. S: 52.15(h).

NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7593, P: 37.

Id.

NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7582-7592, P:P: 10-36. The numbering categories,
codified in Section 52.15(f) of the Commission's rules, became effective
on July 17, 2000. See 65 FR 37703, 43251.

NRO Third Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 303-305, P:P: 119-122. The
requirements adopted in the NRO Third Report and Order became effective on
March 14, 2002. See 67 FR 6431.

See Guidelines for the Administration of Telephone Numbers, ATIS-0300070
(Nov. 9, 2007) at 3, available at
www.atis.org/INC/Docs/finaldocs/TN-Administration-Guidelines-Final-Document-11-9-07.doc;
North American Numbering Plan Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast
Reporting (NRUF) Guidelines, ATIS-0300068 (Nov. 9, 2007) at S: 6.2,
available at
www.atis.org/INC/Docs/finaldocs/NRUF-FinalDocument-11-9-07.doc.

See, e.g., Bell-Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., et al. v. Global NAPs, Inc.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12946 (1999) (Global NAPs I),
recon denied, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 5997 (2000) (Global
NAPs I Recon Order), aff'd sub nom., Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCC, 247 F.3d
252 (D.C. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 808 (2002); Global NAPs,
Inc. v. Verizon Communications, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17
FCC Rcd 4031 (2002); Global NAPs, Inc. Petition for Preemption of
Jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and
Energy Pursuant to Section 252(e)(5) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4943 (2000).

NANPA is required to review submitted utilization and forecast data for
inconsistencies and anomalies. NRO Second Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 345
at n.233.

The Commission uses numbering data to identify carriers that are holding
excessive inventories of numbers and to facilitate reclamation of those
numbers. NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7600, P: 61. In areas where
thousands-blocks pooling has been implemented, service providers must
donate thousands-blocks with ten percent or less "contamination" (i.e.
with more than ninety percent of numbers in the block "available") to the
number pool for the applicable rate center. 47 C.F.R. S:S: 52.20(c);
52.7(h).

NRO Third Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 304-305, P: 122.

47 U.S.C S: 503(b)(6)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3).

See, e.g., InPhonic, Inc., Order of Forfeiture and Further Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 8689, 8701 P: 28 (2007);
Roadrunner Transp., Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72, P: 8
(2000) ("While the Commission may not ... find the Licensees liable for
violations committed prior to [the NAL], it may lawfully look at facts
arising before that date in determining an appropriate forfeiture
amount."); Cate Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 60 Rad
Reg 2d 1386, 1388, P: 7 (1986) (holding that facts prior to the statute of
limitations period may be used to place "the violations in context, thus
establishing the licensee's degree of culpability and the continuing
nature of the violations"); Eastern Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion
& Order, 11 FCC 2d 193, 195, P: 6 (1967) ("Earlier events may be utilized
to shed light on the true character of matters occurring within the
limitations period.").

See, e.g., Communications Options, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 13680, 13687, P: 19 (2007) (proposing $50,000
forfeiture for a contributor's failure to maintain and provide records and
documentation to justify information reported in Telecommunications
Reporting Worksheets); Globcom NAL, 18 FCC Rcd at 19905, P: 32 (proposing
$50,000 forfeiture for each failure to file quarterly Telecommunications
Reporting Worksheets within one-year limitations period, where company
failed to file or filed inaccurate Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets
for more than two years).

NRO Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7593, P: 37.

See, e.g., Litelco Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 8625 (2001). The Commission has proposed upward
adjustments of the $3,000 base forfeiture for carriers who hold 10 or more
NXX codes. See, e.g., Allpage, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 8580, 8582 P: 7 (2001) (doubling base forfeiture
for carrier holding 26 NXX codes). However, Global NAPs has never held
100,000 or more numbers, or the equivalent of 10 or more NXX codes.

See supra P:P: 26-27.

See supra S: III.A, D.

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note, Guidelines for Assessing Forfeitures.

LOI at 3.

Carrera Communications, LP, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13307, 13319, P: 31 (2005).

Communications Options, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd at 13687-13688, P: 21.

See, e.g., BigZoo.com Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3954 (Enf.
Bur. 2005); QuickLink Telecom, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 14464
(Enf. Bur. 2005).

See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2375

Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-xx