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-TC-5821
Unitec Hospitality Service, Inc. )
d/b/a Unitec Services NAL/Acct. No.: 200932170935
)
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture FRN: 0015389976
)
)
Order
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
Company).
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
imposed.
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.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Richard A. Hindman
Chief
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)
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1876
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1876