Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


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-TC-5821      
     Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc.       )                                
     d/b/a Unitec Services                      NAL/Acct. No.: 200932170935  
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture          FRN: 0015389976              


   Adopted: November 10, 2011 Released: November 14, 2011

   By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau:

    1. In this Order, which follows upon our Notice of Apparent Liability for
       Forfeiture (Omnibus NAL), we determine that no forfeiture penalty
       should be imposed on Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. (Unitec or

    2. In the Omnibus NAL, we found several hundred companies apparently
       liable for forfeitures in the amount of $20,000 each for violating
       section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or
       the Communications Act), section 64.2009(e) of the Commission's rules,
       and the Commission's EPIC CPNI Order  because it appeared they had not
       filed a timely CPNI compliance certification for calendar year 2007.
       Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Act, each of these companies
       was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture
       should be imposed.

    3. Upon review of the record, and based upon additional information
       provided by Unintec, we agree that no forfeiture penalty should be

    4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and
       1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture issued
       to Unitec WILL NOT BE IMPOSED.

    5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
       Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Unitec
       Hospitality Service, Attn: Walter E. Bader, President, 122 Sherman
       Street, Denver, CO 80209.


   Richard A. Hindman


   Telecommunications Consumers Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Annual CPNI Certification, Omnibus Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 24  FCC Rcd 2299 (Enf. Bur. 2009).

   47 U.S.C. S: 222.

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

   Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications
   Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other
   Customer Information; IP-Enabled Services, Report and Order and Further
   Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 6927, 6953 (2007) (EPIC CPNI
   Order); aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Cable & Telecom. Assoc. v. FCC, 555 F.3d 996
   (D.C. Cir. 2009).

   (...continued from previous page)


   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1876


   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1876