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 Global Connection Inc. of America d/b/a Stand Up Wireless
   ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.: EB-IHD-13-00010970 NAL/Acct. No.: 201432080015 FRN:
   0018586909




                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: December 9, 2013 Released: December 11, 2013

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we continue
       our commitment to combatting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline
       program (Lifeline) by taking action and proposing monetary forfeitures
       against a company that apparently has ignored our rules and exploited
       a program dedicated to providing low-income Americans with basic
       telephone service. Specifically, we find that Global Connection Inc.
       of America, d/b/a Stand Up Wireless (Global) apparently willfully and
       repeatedly violated Sections 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the
       Commission's rules^ by requesting and/or receiving support from the
       Lifeline program of the Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund) for
       ineligible subscriber lines for the months of June 2012 and December
       2012 through May 2013 (inclusive). Based on our review of the facts
       and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we propose a
       monetary forfeiture in the amount of eleven million, seven hundred two
       thousand, six hundred ninety-five dollars ($11,702,695).

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. Lifeline Service. Lifeline is part of the USF and helps qualifying
       consumers have the opportunities and security that phone service
       brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family members, and
       emergency services.^ Lifeline service is provided by Eligible
       Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) designated pursuant to the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).^ An ETC may seek and
       receive reimbursement from the USF for revenues it forgoes in
       providing the discounted services to eligible customers in accordance
       with the rules.^ Section 54.403(a) of the Commission's rules specifies
       that an ETC may receive $9.25 per month for each qualifying low-income
       consumer receiving Lifeline service,^ and up to an additional $25 per
       month if the qualifying low-income consumer resides on Tribal lands.^
       ETCs are required to pass these discounts along to eligible low-income
       consumers.^

    3. The Commission's Lifeline rules establish explicit requirements that
       ETCs must meet to receive federal Lifeline support.^ Section 54.407(a)
       of the rules requires that Lifeline support "shall be provided
       directly to an eligible telecommunications carrier, based on the
       number of actual qualifying low-income consumers it serves."^ Pursuant
       to Section 54.407(b) of the rules, an ETC may receive Lifeline support
       only for qualifying low-income consumers.^ A "qualifying low-income
       consumer" must meet the eligibility criteria set forth in Section
       54.409 of the rules, including the requirement that he or she "must
       not already be receiving a Lifeline service,"^ and must, pursuant to
       Section 54.410(d) of the rules, certify his/her eligibility to receive
       Lifeline service.^

    4. Section 54.410(a) of the Commission's rules requires further that ETCs
       have procedures in place "to ensure that their Lifeline subscribers
       are eligible to receive Lifeline services."^ As explained above, such
       eligibility requires that a consumer seeking Lifeline service may not
       already be receiving Lifeline service. This obligation therefore
       requires, among other steps, that an ETC search its own internal
       records to ensure that the ETC does not provide duplicate Lifeline
       service to any subscriber (an "intra-company duplicate").^

    5. The Commission's rules further prohibit an ETC from seeking
       reimbursement for providing Lifeline service to a subscriber unless
       the ETC has confirmed the subscriber's eligibility to receive Lifeline
       service.^ In accordance with Section 54.410, before an ETC may seek
       reimbursement, it must receive a certification of eligibility from the
       prospective subscriber that demonstrates that the subscriber meets the
       income-based and program-based eligibility criteria for receiving
       Lifeline service, and that the subscriber is not already receiving
       Lifeline service.^ As the foregoing discussion reveals, when an ETC
       seeks Lifeline service support reimbursement for a low-income consumer
       who already receives Lifeline service from that same ETC, that ETC has
       violated its obligation under the Commission's rules to confirm the
       subscriber's eligibility for Lifeline service.

    6. ETCs that provide qualifying low-income consumers with Lifeline
       discounts file an FCC Form 497 with the Universal Service
       Administrative Company (USAC), either quarterly or monthly, to request
       support that reimburses them for providing service at the discounted
       rates. An ETC's FCC Form 497 documents the number of qualifying
       low-income customers served and the total amount of Lifeline support
       claimed by the ETC during the specified time period. Section 54.407(d)
       provides that an ETC may receive reimbursement from the Fund, however,
       only if it certifies as part of its reimbursement request that it is
       in compliance with the Lifeline rules.^ An ETC may revise its Form 497
       data within 12 months after the data are submitted.^

    7. In addition to reviewing claims submitted by ETCs, USAC conducts
       in-depth data validations (IDVs) to further ensure compliance with the
       Lifeline rules.^ When a company is selected for an IDV, USAC will send
       the company a letter requesting subscriber data for a prior month or
       months.^ Once USAC receives the company's data, it analyzes the
       company's subscriber information to determine whether there are any
       duplicate subscribers and sends the company another letter with its
       initial results. USAC provides the company with an opportunity to
       submit a revised subscriber list to correct subscriber data or to
       remove subscribers that are no longer receiving service. If USAC
       determines that a low-income consumer is the recipient of multiple
       Lifeline benefits from that same ETC, it will send another letter to
       the ETC identifying the instances of intra-company duplicative
       support, seek a recovery, and notify the ETC that it must commence the
       deenrollment process for those duplicates.^

    8. Global. Global is a Georgia corporation^ that provides wireline and
       prepaid wireless telephone services to Lifeline customers. Global has
       been designated as an ETC^ to provide wireless Lifeline service in
       Arizona,^ Arkansas,^ Georgia,^ Louisiana,^ Maryland,^ Michigan,^
       Missouri,^ Pennsylvania,^ Texas,^ and West Virginia.^

    9. USAC conducted an IDV of the Lifeline support requested by Global for
       its subscribers in the following ten states for the months specified:
       Arizona (April 2013 and May 2013); Arkansas (April 2013 and May 2013);
       Georgia (April 2013 and May 2013); Louisiana (March 2013, April 2013,
       and May 2013); Maryland (June 2012, March 2013, April 2013, and May
       2013); Michigan (January 2013, April 2013, and May 2013); Missouri
       (February 2013, April 2013, and May 2013); Pennsylvania (April 2013
       and May 2013); Texas (April 2013 and May 2013); and West Virginia
       (December 2012). Based on USAC's analyses, Global apparently had 2,231
       individual intra-company duplicate lines for which Global improperly
       sought Lifeline support reimbursement.^ According to USAC, Global
       requested $22,565 in overpayments from USAC over the months covered by
       the IDVs.^ On May 14, 2013, Enforcement Bureau staff issued a letter
       of inquiry (LOI) to Global concerning the company's Lifeline
       compliance.^ Global provided its response to the LOI on June 18,
       2013.^ On June 3, 2013, Global entered into a tolling agreement with
       the Enforcement Bureau, which extended the applicable statute of
       limitations period.^

   III. DISCUSSION

   10. 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 a forfeiture if it finds, based on the evidence, that the person
       has violated the Act, or a Commission Rule or Order.^

   11. Based on the record evidence developed in this investigation, we
       conclude that Global apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
       Sections 54.407, 54.409, and 54.410^ of the rules by concurrently
       requesting Lifeline support reimbursement for 2,231 individual
       intra-company duplicate lines. Based on the facts and circumstances
       before us, we therefore conclude that Global is apparently liable for
       forfeiture penalties totaling $11,702,695.

   IV. Proposed FORFEITURES

   12. For the violations at issue here, Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act
       authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture against a
       telecommunications carrier 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,"^ as
       well as our forfeiture guidelines.^

   13. If an ETC violates our rules and submits a request for Lifeline
       support that it knew or should have known includes ineligible
       subscribers, and thus requests and/or receives more reimbursement from
       the Fund than the amount to which it is properly entitled, it
       undermines the low-income support reimbursement mechanism. The
       Commission believes that the imposition of a significant forfeiture
       amount is a necessary response to Lifeline overcollection violations.
       Lifeline ETCs must expend the necessary company resources to ensure
       compliance with the Commission's Lifeline rules, especially the rules
       and procedures requiring that providers request and/or receive federal
       universal service support only for service provided to eligible
       consumers. Imposing a significant forfeiture on such rule violators
       should deter those service providers that fail to devote sufficient
       resources to ferreting out company practices resulting in
       overcollection violations. In addition, a significant forfeiture
       should achieve broader industry compliance with Lifeline rules that
       are critically important to the effective functioning of the Fund.

   14. To eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, maintain the integrity of the
       Fund, and protect the consumers who contribute to the Fund, the
       Commission has implemented a three-part forfeiture framework for
       Lifeline overcollection violations that imposes: (1) a base forfeiture
       of $20,000 for each instance in which an ETC files an FCC Form 497
       that includes ineligible subscribers in the line count, which is a
       violation of the certification requirement contained in Section
       54.407(d) of our rules;^ (2) a base forfeiture of $5,000 for each
       ineligible subscriber for whom the ETC requests and/or receives
       support from the Fund in violation of Sections 54.407, 54.409, and
       54.410 of our rules;^ and (3) an upward adjustment of the base
       forfeiture equal to three times the reimbursements requested and/or
       received by the ETC for ineligible subscribers.^

   15. Based on the facts and record before us, we have determined that
       Global has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections
       54.407, 54.409, and 54.410 of the rules.^ As documented above, during
       June 2012 and from December 2012 through May 2013, and in connection
       with the submission of twenty-four FCC Form 497s, Global requested
       Lifeline support reimbursement of $22,565 for customers who were
       receiving more than one Global Lifeline service. Accordingly, with
       respect to the first component of the structure articulated by the
       Commission, we propose a base forfeiture of $480,000 for the
       submission of the FCC Form 497s that included the ineligible
       intra-company duplicate subscribers in the line counts. With respect
       to the second component, we propose a base forfeiture of $11,155,000
       based on the 2,231 individual intra-company duplicate lines for which
       Global requested and/or received compensation from the Fund. Finally,
       with respect to the third component, we propose an upward adjustment
       of $67,695, which is three times the amount of support Global
       requested and/or received for ineligible consumers. We therefore
       conclude that a total proposed forfeiture of $11,702,695 against
       Global for its apparent violations of the Commission's Lifeline rules
       is warranted.

   16. This NAL will in no way foreclose the Commission or any other
       governmental entity from taking additional enforcement action and
       imposing additional forfeitures for other violations of the Lifeline
       rules. Moreover, the Commission clarifies that the penalties that
       result from this NAL are separate from any amounts that an ETC may be
       required to refund to USAC in order to make the Fund whole.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and 1.80 of the rules,^ Global Connection Inc. of America d/b/a
       Stand Up Wireless (Global) is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
       LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eleven million, seven
       hundred two thousand, six hundred ninety-five dollars ($11,702,695)
       for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 54.407,
       54.409, and 54.410 of the rules.^

   18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the rules,^
       within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of
       Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Global SHALL PAY the full amount of
       the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
       reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   19. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
       wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number
       and FRN referenced above. Global shall also send electronic
       notification of payment to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, at
       Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov and to Theodore C. Marcus at
       Theodore.Marcus@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made. Regardless
       of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice)
       must be submitted.^ When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the
       Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the
       letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code).  Below are
       additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment
       you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101.

   Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan
   should be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer--Financial Operations, Federal
   Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington,
   D.C.  20554.^  If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please
   contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201,
   or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   20. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
       proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
       supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
       Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the rules,^ and may include any data
       or information demonstrating that the IDV results referenced in this
       NAL are materially erroneous or anomalous or that the forfeiture
       proposed is otherwise inappropriate.^ The written statement must be
       mailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, Chief, Investigations and Hearings
       Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445
       12^th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct.
       No. referenced in the caption. The written statement shall also be
       emailed to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, at Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov and to
       Theodore C. Marcus at Theodore.Marcus@fcc.gov.

   21. 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 principles (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.

   22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
       requested, and first class mail to John J. Heitmann, Kelley Drye &
       Warren LLP, 3050 K Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   ^ This investigation, initiated under file no. EB-13-IH0204, was
   subsequently assigned to file no. EB-IHD-13-00010970.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.

   ^ Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Report and Order and
   Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656, 6662-67, paras.
   11-18 (2012) (Lifeline Reform Order); see also 47 C.F.R. SS 54.400-54.422.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 254(e) (providing that "only an eligible telecommunications
   carrier designated under section 214(e) of this title shall be eligible to
   receive specific Federal universal service support");  47 U.S.C. S 214(e)
   (prescribing the method by which carriers are designated as ETCs).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.403(a).

   ^ Lifeline provides a single discounted wireline or wireless phone service
   to each qualifying low-income consumer's household. See 47 C.F.R. S
   54.401; see also 47 C.F.R. S 54.400(h) (defining "household" as "any
   individual or group of individuals who are living together at the same
   address as one economic unit"); Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6760,
   para. 241 (noting that the costs of wireless handsets are not supported by
   the Lifeline program).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.403(a). Tribal lands include any federally recognized
   Indian tribe's reservation, pueblo, or colony, including former
   reservations in Oklahoma. See 47 C.F.R. S 54.400(e).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.403(a); Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6681,
   para. 53.

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. SS 54.400-54.422.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.407(a).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.407(b). In 2011, the Commission took action to address
   potential waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program by preventing
   duplicate payments for multiple Lifeline-supported services to the same
   individual. See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Report and
   Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9022-23, 9026, para. 1 (2011) (Lifeline Duplicates
   Order); see also Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Order, 28
   FCC Rcd 9057 (Wir. Comp. Bur. 2013); 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(a). Specifically,
   the Commission amended Sections 54.401 and 54.405 of the rules to codify
   the restriction that an eligible low-income consumer cannot receive more
   than one Lifeline-supported service at a time. See Lifeline Duplicates
   Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9026, para. 7. In the Lifeline Reform Order, this
   codified restriction was moved from Section 54.401(a) to revised Section
   54.409(c). See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6689, para. 74, n.192.
   The Commission reiterated this limitation in the Lifeline Reform Order.
   See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6689, para. 74; 47 C.F.R. S
   54.405.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.400(a), 54.409(c).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(d).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(a).

   ^ See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6691, para. 78. In June 2013,
   the Wireline Competition Bureau on delegated authority underscored these
   obligations, prohibiting ETCs from activating "a service that it
   represents to be Lifeline service, even on an interim basis while the
   consumer's application is being processed, before verifying eligibility,"
   including that a consumer's household does not already subscribe to
   Lifeline service. Lifeline and Link Up Modernization and Reform, Order, 28
   FCC Rcd 9057, 9059, para. 6 (Wir. Comp. Bur. 2013); see also 47 C.F.R. S
   54.410(a).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(b).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(b), (c); see also 47 C.F.R. S 54.410(d).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 54.407(d).

   ^ See Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6788, para. 305. Subsequent
   revisions, however, do not vitiate violations of an ETC's duty to verify
   the eligibility of the subscribers that are reflected on any of its
   previously filed Form 497s.

   ^ See Lifeline Duplicates Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9026, para. 7.

   ^ See, e.g., Letter from Universal Service Administrative Company to
   Caitlyn Lumpkin, Global Connection Inc. of America (Jan. 29, 2013) (on
   file in EB-IHD-13-00010970).

   ^ Although USAC recovers the duplicative support payments for the month at
   issue in the IDV examination (generally a single month), it does not at
   present always seek to recover the duplicative support that the ETC may
   have received for the same duplicates for the preceding and following
   months.  We therefore direct USAC, when it determines that an ETC has
   sought support from the Fund for an intra-company duplicate, to require
   the ETC to report to USAC (a) the month in which the ETC began requesting
   and/or receiving duplicative support for each such subscriber, and (b) the
   month the ETC stopped requesting and/or receiving duplicative support for
   each such subscriber.  We further require that, after receiving such
   information, USAC shall recover from the ETC all of the duplicative
   support it has received for such subscribers.

   ^ See Georgia Secretary of State, Corporations Division, Global Connection
   Inc. of America, Certificate of Incorporation, Control No. 9821083 (June
   1, 1998), available at
   http://soskb.sos.state.ga.us/corp/soskb/Filings.asp?1071218# (last visited
   Nov. 19, 2013).

   ^ Global is authorized to provide Lifeline-supported services in other
   states that are not at issue in this NAL.

   ^ See Arizona Corp. Comm'n, Docket No. T-04259A-11-0392, Decision No.
   73556 (granted Oct. 17, 2012).

   ^ See Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Docket No. 11-015-U, Order No. 3
   (granted Apr. 19, 2011).

   ^ See Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Docket No. 33600 (granted Sept. 18,
   2012).

   ^ See Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Docket No. S-31822 (granted Mar. 16,
   2011).

   ^ See Maryland Pub. Serv. Comm'n, ML Nos. 128987, TE-10422 (granted Mar.
   30, 2011).

   ^ See Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Case No. U-16577 (granted June 26,
   2012).

   ^ See Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n, File No. RA-2011-0299 (granted Nov. 5,
   2011).

   ^ See Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, Docket No. P-2012-2245213 (granted
   Sept. 13, 2012).

   ^ See Pub. Util. Comm'n of Texas, Docket No. 40739, Order No. 3 (granted
   Nov. 5, 2012).

   ^ See Pub. Serv. Comm'n of West Virginia, Case No. 11-0381-C-PC (granted
   Sept. 29, 2011).

   ^ See Letter from Universal Service Administrative Company, to Caitlyn
   Lumpkin, Global Connection Inc. of America (Jan. 29, 2013). This letter
   addressed 1,952 intra-company duplicates found for June 2012. The
   remaining duplicates were found in the subsequent IDV analyses described
   above. An "intra-company duplicate line" is any line for which Global
   sought and/or received reimbursement in violation of the Commission's one
   line per household rule. See 47 C.F.R. S 54.409(c). For the purposes of
   applying the second prong of our three-part forfeiture framework (a base
   forfeiture of $5,000 per duplicate), given the unique circumstances
   presented by Lifeline intra-company duplicate cases involving multiple
   months of duplicate service, we have counted each intra-company duplicate
   line once, regardless of the number of months in which Global sought
   and/or received reimbursement for that line. We account for the duration
   of each intra-company duplicate line (i.e., the number of months that
   Global sought compensation for each intra-company duplicate line) in the
   first and third prongs of our forfeiture calculation. See infra paras.
   14-15.

   ^ See Letter from Universal Service Administrative Company to Caitlyn
   Lumpkin, Global Connection Inc. of America (Jan. 29, 2013).

   ^ See Letter from Pamela S. Kane, Deputy Chief, Investigations and
   Hearings Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to David Skogen, CEO, Global
   Connection Inc. of America (May 14, 2013) (on file in EB-IHD-13-00010970).

   ^ See Letter from John J. Heitmann, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, to Marlene
   Dortch, Secretary, FCC (June 18 2013) (LOI Response) (on file in
   EB-IHD-13-00010970).

   ^ See Tolling Agreement between Global Connection Inc. of America and FCC
   Enforcement Bureau (June 3, 2013).

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

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1).

   ^ H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th 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., So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd
   4387, 4388 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern
   California Broadcasting).

   ^ See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para. 10 (2001) (Callais
   Cablevision) (proposing a forfeiture for, inter alia, a cable television
   operator's repeated signal leakage).

   ^ Southern California Broadcasting, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5; Callais
   Cablevision, 16 FCC Rcd at 136, para. 9.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f).

   ^ See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591, para. 4 (2002).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410; see also supra paras. 3-6
   (discussing these rules and observing that when an ETC seeks Lifeline
   service support reimbursement for a low-income consumer who already
   receives Lifeline service from that ETC, that ETC has failed in its
   obligation to confirm the subscriber's eligibility for Lifeline service in
   violation of the rules).

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(2). These amounts
   reflect inflation adjustments to the forfeitures specified in Section
   503(b)(2)(B) ($100,000 per violation or per day of a continuing violation
   and $1,000,000 per any single act or failure to act). The Federal Civil
   Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-410, 104 Stat.
   890, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L.
   No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA), requires the Commission to
   adjust its forfeiture penalties periodically for inflation. See 28 U.S.C.
   S 2461 note (4). The Commission most recently adjusted its penalties to
   account for inflation in 2013. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the
   Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect
   Inflation, DA 13-1615, 2013 WL 3963800 (Enf. Bur. 2013); see also
   Inflation Adjustment of Monetary Penalties, 78 Fed. Reg. 49,370-01 (Aug.
   14, 2013) (setting Sept. 13, 2013, as the effective date for the
   increases). However, because the DCIA specifies that any inflationary
   adjustment "shall apply only to violations which occur after the date the
   increase takes effect," we apply the forfeiture penalties in effect at the
   time the violation took place. 28 U.S.C. S 2461 note (6). Here, because
   the violations at issue occurred before September 13, 2013, the applicable
   maximum penalties are based on the Commission's previous inflation
   adjustment that became effective on September 2, 2008. See Inflation
   Adjustment of Maximum Forfeiture Penalties, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,663, 44,664
   (July 31, 2008).

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

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8); Note to Paragraph (b)(8): Guidelines for
   Assessing Forfeitures.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 54.407(d).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410. See Easy Tel. Servs. d/b/a Easy
   Wireless, File No. EB-IHD-13-00010590, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, FCC 13-129, at 5-7, paras. 13-18 (Sept. 30, 2013) (Easy
   Wireless).

   ^ See Easy Wireless, FCC 13-129, at 5-7, paras. 13-18.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 54.407, 54.409, 54.410.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

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

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).

   ^ For example, the written statement could include data showing that the
   months examined in the IDVs were outliers or otherwise not representative.

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-155

                                       6

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-155