**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+---+--------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  |   | File No. EB-06-IH-0902   |
|                                  | *) |   |                          |
| Compass, Inc. d/b/a Compass      | ** |   | NAL/Acct. No.            |
| Global, Inc. f/k/a Forva, Inc.   |    |   | 200732080006             |
|                                  | *  |   |                          |
| Apparent Liability for           | *) |   | FRN No. 0010611416       |
| Forfeiture                       | ** |   |                          |
|                                  |    |   |                          |
|                                  | *  |   |                          |
|                                  | *) |   |                          |
|                                  | ** |   |                          |
|                                  |    |   |                          |
|                                  | *  |   |                          |
|                                  | *) |   |                          |
|                                  | ** |   |                          |
|                                  |    |   |                          |
|                                  | *  |   |                          |
|                                  | *) |   |                          |
|                                  | ** |   |                          |
|                                  |    |   |                          |
|                                  | *  |   |                          |
|                                  | *) |   |                          |
|                                  | ** |   |                          |
+----------------------------------+----+---+--------------------------+
|                                  |    |   |                          |
+----------------------------------+----+---+--------------------------+

**NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY**

**FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER**

**Adopted: December 22, 2006 Released: December 27, 2006**

By the Commission:

# 

# I. INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
    that Compass, Inc., d/b/a Compass Global, Inc. ("Compass Global"),
    has apparently failed to meet its statutory and regulatory
    obligations related to payphone compensation. Based upon our review
    of the facts and circumstances in this matter, we find that Compass
    Global is apparently liable for a total forfeiture of \$466,000.

2.  Specifically, as discussed in detail below, we find that Compass
    Global has apparently violated: (1) sections 64.1310(a)(1) and
    64.1320(c)(1) of the Commission's rules, by willfully and repeatedly
    failing to establish, on a timely basis, a call tracking system that
    accurately tracks coinless access code or subscriber toll-free
    payphone calls to completion;[^1] (2) section 64.1320 of the rules,
    by willfully and repeatedly failing to have its call tracking system
    audited, to file a System Audit Report, or to comply with any of the
    Commission's audit-related requirements in the payphone
    rules;[^2] (3) sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, by
    willfully and repeatedly failing to compensate payphone service
    providers ("PSPs") for each completed payphone call;[^3] (4) section
    64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, by willfully and repeatedly failing to
    provide to PSPs call data reports that satisfy the Commission's
    requirements;[^4] and (5) section 64.1310(a)(3) of the rules, by
    willfully and repeatedly failing to make available to PSPs a sworn
    statement from its Chief Financial Officer certifying payment
    accuracy and completeness.[^5] In addition, we find that Compass
    Global apparently violated a Commission order by willfully failing
    to respond on a timely basis to a directive of the Enforcement
    Bureau to provide certain information and documents.

3.  We order Compass Global to submit a report within thirty (30) days,
    either as part of its response to this NAL or separately. Compass
    Global's report must be supported by a sworn statement or
    declaration under penalty of perjury of a corporate officer, and
    must set forth in detail its plan to come into compliance promptly
    with the relevant payphone compensation rules discussed herein. We
    also order Compass Global to correct its past failures by having its
    call tracking system audited in compliance with Commission rules, by
    compensating each PSP for each payphone call it has completed and
    for which payment was already due, by filing with each PSP any
    overdue call data reports for payphone calls it has completed, and
    for providing each PSP any overdue statements of an officer
    certifying payment accuracy and completeness.

# II. BACKGROUND

## A. Payphone Compensation Regime 

4.  In the Telecommunications Act of 1996,[^6] Congress added section
    276, captioned "Provision of Payphone Service," to the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act").[^7] Section
    276(b) directed the Commission to adopt implementing regulations
    "\[i\]n order to promote competition among payphone service
    providers and promote the widespread deployment of payphone services
    to the benefit of the general public." In particular, section
    276(b)(1) directed the Commission to "establish a per call
    compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are
    fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and
    interstate call using their payphone."[^8]

5.  The Commission adopted its current rules in 2003,[^9] with some
    modifications on reconsideration in 2004,[^10] and they became
    effective on July 1, 2004.[^11] As envisioned in section 276, the
    rules govern the manner in which a PSP is compensated for a
    "subscriber toll-free call," (*e.g.,* 800-FLOWERS), and a "coinless
    access code call," (*e.g.,* 800-CALL-ATT).

6.  As a general matter, the rules require "Completing Carriers" to
    compensate PSPs for completed payphone calls at a rate agreed upon
    by contract,"[^12] or in the absence of such an agreement, "at a
    per-call rate of \$.494."[^13] A "Completing Carrier" is defined as
    "a long distance carrier or switch-based long distance reseller that
    completes a coinless access code or subscriber toll-free payphone
    call or a local exchange carrier that completes a local, coinless
    access code or subscriber toll-free payphone call."[^14] In other
    words, a Completing Carrier is a facilities-based long distance
    carrier, including a switch-based reseller ("SBR"), or a local
    exchange carrier that completes a toll-free payphone call. The
    Commission imposed the compensation obligation on Completing
    Carriers and SBRs because they "are the primary economic
    beneficiaries of coinless payphone calls transferred to their switch
    and because they possess the most accurate call completion
    information for such calls."[^15]

7.  To ensure that Completing Carriers compensate PSPs for each and
    every completed payphone call, a Completing Carrier must establish a
    call tracking system that (among other requirements) accurately
    tracks all toll-free payphone calls to completion.[^16] The deadline
    for establishing such a call tracking system was July 1, 2004.[^17]

8.  As an additional safeguard, the call tracking system must be audited
    and verified to comply with the Commission's defined
    requirements.[^18] A "System Audit Report" regarding the Completing
    Carrier's compliance with the call tracking system requirements must
    conform to certain standards, and was to be filed with the
    Commission, PSPs, and Intermediate Carriers by the effective date of
    the rules.[^19] At the same time it filed its System Audit Report, a
    Completing Carrier was also required to file a statement that
    includes its name, as well as the name, address, and phone number of
    the persons responsible for handling its payphone compensation and
    for resolving disputes with PSPs; any change must be updated within
    sixty days of the change.[^20] The call tracking system must be
    audited, and corresponding reports must be filed, at annual
    intervals thereafter.[^21] Completing carriers must permit PSPs to
    inspect documents, including workpapers, underlying a System Audit
    Report.[^22]

9.  Central to implementing the core and express requirement of section
    276(b), the rules require each Competing Carrier, on a quarterly
    basis, to compensate all PSPs for each completed coinless access
    code or subscriber toll-free payphone call.[^23] To ensure that the
    payment tendered is accurate and complete, Completing Carriers must,
    on a quarterly basis, submit to each PSP a call data report that
    contains certain information about the calls the Completing Carrier
    completed from that PSP's payphone(s) during the quarter.[^24] Each
    Completing Carrier also must, on a quarterly basis, provide a sworn
    statement of its Chief Financial Officer certifying that the
    compensation paid for a quarter is accurate and complete.[^25]

10. As an additional measure to ensure that all payphone call activity
    is traced and accounted for, the Commission's rules also impose
    requirements on carriers that carry payphone traffic but do not
    themselves complete those calls. An "Intermediate Carrier" is
    defined as a "facilities-based long distance carrier that switches
    payphone calls to other facilities-based long distance
    carriers."[^26] An Intermediate Carrier also must, on a quarterly
    basis, submit a call data report to each PSP that contains certain
    information about the calls that the Intermediate Carrier switched
    to other long distance carriers.[^27] The quarterly reports provided
    by Intermediate Carriers, if accurate and complete, help PSPs ensure
    that they are getting appropriate compensation from Completing
    Carriers.

11. The current payphone compensation regime thus is an interdependent
    one that relies on the cooperation of Completing and Intermediate
    Carriers with PSPs to ensure that the goals of section 276 are
    realized. In adopting its current rules, the Commission expressly
    warned that noncompliance could result in "substantial forfeitures,"
    and that egregious cases could lead to "an Order to Show Cause why
    we should not revoke a\[n\] SBR's section 214 authority, and
    possibly bar the company's principals from participation in
    interstate telecommunications business activities without first
    obtaining explicit permission from the Commission."[^28] In a recent
    Public Notice, we again warned carriers about the consequences of
    noncompliance, stating that we "reiterate that the Commission will
    not hesitate to take enforcement action, including forfeitures,
    should Completing Carriers and Intermediate Carriers fail to comply
    with their compensation and reporting obligations under the payphone
    rules."[^29] Today's action against Compass Global is the first
    enforcement action the Commission will take to address noncompliance
    with the payphone compensation rules. We intend it to serve as an
    example of the Commission's resolve to fully enforce compliance with
    its payphone compensation rules.

##  Compass Global and the FCC Investigation

12. Compass Global is a privately held New Jersey-based
    telecommunications provider that describes itself as "predominantly
    a switch based international wholesale reseller."[^30] It began
    completing "long distance subscriber toll free calls" in August
    2003.[^31]

13. In 2005, after the current payphone rules had been in effect for a
    number of months, Commission staff became concerned about potential
    noncompliance of certain carriers with the payphone rules. The
    Commission's Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") initiated investigations
    of a number of carriers.

14. On March 6, 2006 the Bureau sent Compass Global a Letter of Inquiry
    ("LOI") seeking certain documents and information related to the
    company's compliance with the payphone rules.[^32] The LOI directed
    Compass Global, within 30 days, to submit (among other things) a
    sworn written response to a series of questions relating to its
    apparent failure to comply with the payphone rules. Compass Global
    did not respond in any way within the applicable time period. On
    April 19, 2006, Bureau staff contacted Compass Global by telephone,
    and its principal stated that the company had never received the
    LOI. Later that same day, the Bureau reissued the LOI to Compass
    Global.[^33] After receipt, Compass Global's principal contacted
    Bureau staff by telephone and reported that the company had, in
    fact, received the March 6 LOI, but had set it aside to address
    other priorities. Bureau staff then sent Compass Global a letter on
    April 20, 2006 noting this course of events, reminding the company
    that "failure to respond to an LOI in and of itself constitutes a
    violation of the Act and the Commission's rules," and stating that
    "failure to respond to the March 6, 2006 LOI has already exposed
    \[Compass Global\] to potential enforcement action, including a
    forfeiture."[^34] On May 6, 2006, Compass Global responded fully to
    the LOI.[^35]

15. As explained below, Compass Global's LOI Response indicates that the
    company is a Completing Carrier for payphone calls;[^36] that it
    has, after nearly three years of service, only recently established
    a call tracking system that reliably tracks calls to
    completion;[^37] that it has not engaged any third party auditor or
    filed initial or annual audit reports or otherwise complied with any
    of the Commission's audit requirements;[^38] that it has made only
    partial compensation to the PSPs for which it has completed the
    highest volume of calls, and has made no compensation whatsoever to
    other PSPs;[^39] that it has failed to submit to each PSP the
    quarterly call data reports required by the Commission's rules;[^40]
    and that it has never provided a sworn statement of an officer
    certifying to payment accuracy and completeness.[^41]

## Forfeiture Authority

16. Under section 503(b)(1)(B) 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.[^42] To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the
    Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, the notice
    must be received, 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.[^43] The Commission will then
    issue a forfeiture order if it finds by a preponderance of the
    evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission
    rule.[^44]

17. For the apparent violations in this case, section 503(b)(2)(B) of
    the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to
    \$130,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation,
    up to a statutory maximum of \$1.325 million for a single act or
    failure to act.[^45] In determining the appropriate forfeiture
    amount, we consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(D)
    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."[^46]

18. Under section 503(b)(6) of the Act, we may propose forfeitures only
    for apparent violations that accrued within one year of the date of
    the NAL.[^47] Nevertheless, section 503 does not bar us from
    assessing whether conduct occurring prior to that time period
    apparently violated the Act or our rules in determining the
    appropriate forfeiture amount for those violations within the
    statute of limitations.[^48]

# 

# III. DISCUSSION

19. As explained below, we find that Compass Global has apparently
    failed to comply with our payphone compensation rules. Based on its
    conduct, we find that Compass Global is apparently liable for a
    total forfeiture of \$466,000.

## Compass Global's Payphone Rule and Other Violations

20. As a preliminary matter, we conclude that Compass Global is a
    Completing Carrier under the Commission's rules -- indeed, Compass
    Global acknowledges as much. In its LOI Response, Compass Global
    states that it is "predominantly a switch based international
    wholesale reseller," and that it completes "long distance subscriber
    toll free calls."[^49] Compass Global further states that it began
    completing such calls in August 2003, and that it has continuously
    completed these types of call since that time.[^50] As a result,
    Compass Global, as a Completing Carrier, is required to establish a
    call tracking system;[^51] to have that system audited in compliance
    with the Commission's rules;[^52] to compensate PSPs, on a quarterly
    basis, for each payphone call it completes;[^53] to file with PSPs,
    on a quarterly basis, call data reports for the payphone calls it
    completes;[^54] and to provide PSPs, on a quarterly basis, with a
    statement of its Chief Financial Officer certifying payment accuracy
    and completeness.[^55] As set forth in detail below, Compass Global
    has failed to satisfy any of these requirements.

    **1. Failure to Establish Call Tracking System**

21. We first conclude that Compass Global has apparently violated
    sections 64.1310(a)(1) and 64.1320(c)(1) of the Commission's rules
    by failing to establish, on a timely basis, a call tracking system
    that accurately tracks calls to completion. Compass Global has
    created a call tracking system, but admits that the system was not
    reliable until very recently. In its LOI Response, Compass Global
    explained that it "began creating the Toll Free Call Tracking System
    in October of 2004," and that the software evolved through different
    phases "until it reached the final version completed just last
    month" (April 2006).[^56] Compass Global further stated that the
    software "has only recently been completed to the point where the
    company is confident with the software's accuracy," and that
    previously "Compass Global did not have a Call Tracking Software in
    place that was sufficiently reliable or accurate enough to provide
    firm data to payphone service providers in the form of a
    report."[^57]

22. Compass Global's conduct falls far short of the Commission's
    requirement to establish an accurate call tracking system by July
    1, 2004. Indeed, Compass Global did not even begin to create a call
    tracking system until October 2004, and in the absence of filing the
    Commission-required audit of the call tracking system (discussed
    separately below) it is still not clear that Compass Global has
    fulfilled its obligation. As a result, we find that Compass Global
    apparently violated sections 64.1310(a)(1) and 64.1320(c)(1) of the
    Commission's rules by failing to establish by July 1, 2004 a call
    tracking system that accurately tracks coinless access code or
    subscriber toll-free payphone calls to completion, and that it has
    presented no reliable evidence that its violation does not continue
    to the present.

**2. Failure to Satisfy Audit-Related Requirements**

23. We next conclude that Compass Global has apparently violated each
    provision of section 64.1320 of our rules by failing to satisfy any
    of the audit-related requirements for its call tracking system.
    Section 64.1320 sets forth a comprehensive, detailed scheme for
    auditing the call tracking system.[^58] As a Completing
    Carrier,[^59] Compass Global had an obligation to comply with all of
    these audit-related requirements. To date, it has complied with
    none. In its LOI Response, Compass Global stated that due to the
    difficulties with its call tracking system, "the company has not yet
    finalized an agreement with an independent, third-party auditor to
    verify the accuracy and reliability of its call tracking
    system."[^60] Nearly two years after Compass Global was required to
    have its call tracking system audited and to have filed the System
    Audit Report that addressed specific requirements, Compass Global
    explains that "the company is researching such entities, and has
    \[been\] engaging in conversations with several entities to perform
    this audit."[^61] To date, Compass Global has not filed its System
    Audit Report with the Commission -- or presumably with the PSPs for
    which it completes calls, or the long distance carriers from which
    it receives payphone calls. As a result, we conclude that Compass
    Global has apparently violated section 64.1320 by failing to satisfy
    any audit-related requirements for its call tracking system, and
    that its violation continues to this day.

    **3. Failure to Compensate PSPs for Each Completed Call**

24. We further conclude that Compass Global has apparently violated
    sections 64.1300 and section 64.1310(a)(2) of our rules by willfully
    and repeatedly failing to compensate PSPs for each toll-free
    payphone call that it has completed. Compass Global acknowledges as
    much.[^62] Due to problems with the accuracy of its call tracking
    system, Compass Global stated as of the date of its LOI Response
    that it had only made "good faith estimated payments" of
    approximately \$125,000 to PSPs that Compass Global says are
    associated with 90% of the toll-free payphone calls it
    completed.[^63] Compass Global has also stated, however, that these
    PSPs have submitted claims for additional compensation, that
    "\[t\]he company is currently behind by approximately one or two
    quarters in those payments," and that it is "in the process of
    making payments . . . to these largest providers for the remaining
    balances just as soon as it possibly can."[^64] With respect to the
    PSPs associated with smaller call volume, Compass Global plainly
    admits that "the company has not yet made payments to these service
    providers."[^65] These admissions establish that Compass Global has
    not compensated each PSP for each completed call. Indeed, it appears
    that the degree of Compass Global's misconduct may be greater than
    it has described. Call data provided with Compass Global's LOI
    Response suggests the traffic carried by the two carriers to which
    it has made occasional and partial payment does not appear to
    comprise 90% of traffic for which Compass Global owes
    compensation,[^66] and payment to these and the other carriers
    appears to be much more than "a quarter or two" overdue.[^67] In
    light of Compass Global's LOI Response, we find that Compass Global
    has apparently violated sections 64.1300 and 64.1310(a)(2) of the
    Commission's rules by failing to compensate each PSP for each
    toll-free payphone call it completed, since the July 1, 2004
    effective date of the current rules.

    **4. Failure to Provide Quarterly Reports**

25. Compass Global has also apparently violated section 64.1320(a)(4) of
    our rules by willfully and repeatedly failing to submit call data
    reports to PSPs that satisfy the Commission's requirements. By its
    own admission, Compass Global has not complied with the quarterly
    reporting requirement: in its LOI response, the company stated that
    "Compass Global has not made available or provided to payphone
    service providers the reports of completed calls required by section
    64.1310(a)(4) of the Commission's rules."[^68] The company explained
    that it has not provided these reports due to the problems
    associated with the accuracy and reliability of its call tracking
    system, but that now it "is in the process of providing these
    payphone service providers with these reports, as well as CDRs (call
    detail records) for all completed calls originated from the ANI's
    they identified as belonging to them."[^69] Thus, we find that
    Compass Global has apparently violated section 64.1320(a)(4) of our
    rules by failing to submit to each PSP call data reports that
    satisfy the Commission's requirements since the effective date of
    the rules, and that its violation continues to this day.

    **5. Failure to Provide CFO Sworn Statement**

26. Compass Global has also apparently violated section 64.1310(a)(3) of
    the Commission's rules by willfully and repeatedly failing to
    provide to PSPs a sworn statement by its Chief Financial Officer
    (CFO) certifying payment accuracy and completeness. As with Compass
    Global's other apparent violations, there can be no dispute, and
    Compass Global itself acknowledges, that the company failed to
    comply with the requirement to provide a sworn statement certifying
    payment accuracy and completeness. In its LOI Response, Compass
    Global admits that "\[t\]he company has not provided to all payphone
    service provider \[sic\] a sworn statement from the company's Chief
    Financial Officer that the amount for that quarter is accurate and
    is based on 100% of all completed calls that originated from that
    payphone service provider's payphones."[^70] As with its other
    violations, Compass Global explains that its failure to comply with
    this requirement is a result of its inadequate call tracking system.
    We find that Compass Global has apparently violated section
    64.1310(a)(3) by failing to submit to any PSP a sworn statement
    certifying that the payment is accurate and based on 100% of calls
    that Compass Global completed from that PSP's payphones.

    **6. Failure to Provide Timely Response**

27. Finally, we also conclude that Compass Global has apparently
    violated a Commission order by willfully failing to respond on a
    timely basis to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau to provide
    certain documents and information. As indicated above,[^71] Compass
    Global failed to respond in any way to the Bureau's March 6 LOI
    within the time frame allotted. When the Bureau had not received a
    response several days after that time frame closed, staff contacted
    Compass Global. The company denied having received the LOI, and
    staff directed another LOI to it again on April 19, 2006. After
    receiving the LOI again, Compass Global acknowledged that it had
    actually received the March 6 LOI, but had decided to prioritize
    other matters over responding to the LOI. It was only on May 6,
    2006, nearly one month after the original due date, that Compass
    Global responded to the LOI. As a result, we find that Compass
    Global has apparently violated a Commission order by willfully
    failing to respond on a timely basis to the Bureau's March 6 LOI,
    which directed it to provide certain documents and information
    within thirty days.

## Proposed Forfeiture 

28. Although the Commission has acted on numerous formal complaints in
    the payphone compensation arena, we have not issued an NAL against a
    carrier for a violation of our current payphone compensation rules,
    which became effective July 1, 2004. As such, in calculating the
    appropriate penalty for Compass Global's violations of these rules,
    we consider the factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(D), and our
    forfeiture guidelines.

29. The misconduct for which the forfeiture guidelines establish a base
    forfeiture that most closely approximates Compass Global's is
    failure to file required forms or information. The base forfeiture
    is \$3,000 for this conduct. 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."[^72] The guidelines explicitly identify several
    factors to adjust a base forfeiture upward, and among these are
    "egregious misconduct," "substantial harm," "substantial economic
    gain," and "repeated or continuous violation."[^73] When it adopted
    its current payphone rules, the Commission explicitly warned that it
    would consider aggravating factors and fully utilize its enforcement
    power in penalizing violations: "We note that the current base
    penalty for failure to file required forms or information with the
    Commission is \$3,000; however, we have the discretion to impose
    substantially higher forfeitures based on the factors listed in our
    rules."[^74] The Commission explained that "late payment or
    non-payment to PSPs could result in substantial forfeitures: up to
    \$120,000 for a single non-payment and up to \$1.2 million for a
    continuing violation."[^75] (These figures were then the statutory
    maximums.) The Commission further warned that "\[i\]n egregious
    cases, we may issue an Order to Show Cause why we should not revoke
    a SBR's section 214 authority, and possibly bar the company's
    principals from participating in interstate telecommunications
    business activities without first obtaining explicit permission from
    the Commission."[^76] In short, the Commission clearly indicated
    that it would not tolerate noncompliance with its rules, and would
    use the full range of its enforcement powers to penalize violators.

30. Although we acknowledge and encourage Compass Global\'s reported
    efforts to implement its tracking system and settle past-due
    accounts with its PSPs, we find that each of Compass Global's
    violations of our payphone rules discussed above -- failure to
    establish a call tracking system, failure to comply with
    audit-related requirements, failure to compensate PSPs for each and
    every completed call, failure to submit call data reports to PSPs,
    and failure to submit a sworn statement attesting to the
    compeleteness of payment -- warrants upward adjustment from the base
    forfeiture of \$3,000. Our conclusion is based on the determination
    that each of the violations involves egregious misconduct, has been
    continuous or repeated since our current payphone rules became
    effective, and involves substantial harm to each of the PSPs who
    have been deprived of compensation from Compass Global. The rules
    required Compass Global to have established a call tracking system,
    to have that system audited and to have filed a System Audit Report
    in accordance with certain defined standards, all by no later than
    July 1, 2004. As discussed above, Compass Global only recently
    established a call tracking system that appears to be reliable, and
    has not yet subjected that system to audit. In addition, although
    Compass Global states that it has paid the PSPs that deliver the
    highest call volume to the company, it acknowledges that it is
    behind in its payments to those PSPs, and has never paid the PSPs
    that deliver smaller call volume. Compass Global further admits that
    it has failed to submit to each PSP the quarterly call data reports
    required by the Commission's rules, and has never made available a
    sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of the payments it has
    tendered. As a result, Compass Global's violations of the payphone
    rules are egregious, have been continuous or repeated, and have
    caused substantial harm to PSPs. A substantial upward adjustment of
    the forfeiture amounts is therefore warranted.[^77]

31. As explained below, the rules Compass Global apparently violated are
    fundamental and necessary to the Commission's payphone compensation
    regime, which rests on intercarrier cooperation. Failures to comply
    with these requirements thwart realization of the statutory command
    of section 276 of the Act that PSPs be compensated "for each and
    every completed intrastate and interstate call using their
    payphone." Thus, we propose base forfeiture amounts consistent with
    the overarching import of the rule violations. We also find that the
    forfeitures proposed are reasonable when compared to similar
    forfeitures in our Universal Service Fund ("USF") enforcement
    actions.[^78] Finally, we warn carriers that we may impose harsher
    fines in future enforcement actions if we determine that those
    proposed here are insufficient to deter others from engaging in the
    same misconduct.

    **1. Failure to Establish Call Tracking System**

32. We find that an appropriate penalty for the failure to establish, on
    a timely basis, a call tracking system that accurately tracks calls
    to completion is \$50,000. This requirement is a fundamental and
    necessary precursor to compliance with the Commission's compensation
    and other payphone requirements; indeed the entire payphone
    compensation regime rests on inter-carrier compliance and
    cooperation. The Commission's rules do not require carriers to
    report to, or even file with, the Commission; instead, they provide
    to each other the information and compensation required by our
    rules.[^79] Failure to establish an accurate call tracking system on
    a timely basis is , thus, a serious dereliction of a Completing
    Carrier's responsibilities because it prevents the carrier from
    fulfilling any of the other payphone requirements, including the
    core statutory requirement of compensating PSPs for each and every
    payphone call the carrier completes. Indeed, as Compass Global
    itself explains, it is the failure to establish an accurate and
    reliable call tracking system that has rendered it difficult if not
    impossible for the company to comply with any of the other payphone
    requirements. As a result, this failure should be associated with a
    significant penalty.

    **2. Failure to Satisfy Audit-Related Requirements**

33. We also find that \$50,000 is an appropriate penalty for Compass
    Global's failure to have its call tracking system audited in
    compliance with the requirements of section 64.1320. Failure to
    complete an audit in conformity with section 64.1320 is another
    element of the fundamental requirements in the payphone rules that
    are designed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of a Completing
    Carrier's call tracking system (and, consequently, the amount of
    compensation paid to each PSP). Although this \$50,000 fine relates
    to Compass Global's failure to comply with *any* provision of
    section 64.1320 in the Commission's rules, we warn carriers that
    compliance with some but not all of the provisions of that section
    will still result in forfeitures. For example, a Completing Carrier
    that has had its call tracking system audited and filed a System
    Audit Report but fails to file a statement identifying the person
    responsible for handling its payphone compensation -- or fails to
    update the statement if any change occurs -- violates section
    64.1320(e) and is potentially subject to forfeiture. Likewise, a
    Completing Carrier that fails to engage an auditor to evaluate its
    call tracking system annually violates section 64.1320(f) and is
    also subject to forfeiture. All components of the audit requirements
    are critical and must be satisfied. We also find that a \$50,000
    proposed forfeiture for Compass Global's failure to establish a call
    tracking system in a timely fashion and a \$50,000 proposed
    forfeiture for its failure to have the call tracking system audited
    in compliance with Commission requirements are appropriate
    penalties, particularly when compared to the Commission's treatment
    of a carrier's failure to register in our USF enforcement cases,
    given that these specific payphone rules, like a carrier's failure
    to register, impose such fundamental requirements.[^80]

    **3. Failure to Compensate PSPs for Each Completed Call**

34. With respect to the failure of a Completing Carrier to compensate
    PSPs for each and every toll-free payphone call it completes, we
    find an appropriate penalty to be \$50,000 per quarter. A Completing
    Carrier's failure to pay PSPs violates the fundamental goal of
    section 276 of the Act that all PSPs be "fairly compensated for each
    and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their
    payphone," just as a carrier's failure to contribute to the USF
    violates the requirement in section 254(d) that "\[e\]very
    telecommunications carrier that provides interstate services shall
    contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the
    specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the
    Commission." We also note that this violation is similar to the
    failure to contribute to the USF.[^81] We therefore propose a
    forfeiture of \$50,000 for each of the four quarters within the past
    twelve months that Compass Global failed to compensate PSPs for each
    and every toll-free payphone call it completed, for a total
    forfeiture of \$200,000.

    **4. Failure to Provide Call Data Reports**

35. We find that an appropriate penalty for Compass Global's failure to
    provide call data reports that satisfy the Commission's requirements
    is \$20,000 per quarter. A Completing Carrier's provision of call
    data reports is an important obligation, the failure of which is
    correspondingly important. This violation is similar to the failure
    to file Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets in the USF context,
    which results in a proposed forfeiture of \$50,000 for each missed
    filing with the Commission.[^82] The impact of the failure to file
    the call data reports upon which payphone compensation is based,
    however, is less than the failure to file Worksheets, on which a
    carrier's contribution to multiple regulatory programs is based. In
    addition, other requirements in the payphone context, such as the
    audit, serve as additional safeguards to ensure the accuracy of
    reports. We therefore propose a forfeiture of \$20,000 for each
    quarter within the past twelve months that Compass Global failed to
    submit call data reports to PSPs. The total proposed forfeiture is
    therefore \$80,000.

    **5. Failure to Provide CFO Sworn Statement**

36. We likewise find that an appropriate penalty for Compass Global's
    failure to provide a sworn statement of an officer attesting to the
    accuracy of the compensation it tenders to PSPs is \$20,000 per
    violation. This failure is similar to the failure to file a
    Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet that is accurate and complete
    in all material respects. The Commission has assessed a \$50,000
    penalty for the misreporting by a carrier of its revenues on a
    Worksheet, which as noted above is the same penalty as the
    Commission has assessed for failure to file a Worksheet at all.[^83]
    The penalty for failure to file the sworn statement pursuant to the
    payphone rules, however, should be less than the failure to file an
    accurate Worksheet, given that failure to file the sworn statement
    impacts only PSPs rather than an industry-wide fund like the USF. In
    addition, there are other requirements in the payphone context, such
    as the call data reports, that serve to reinforce the accuracy of
    the payment. We therefore propose a penalty of \$20,000 for each of
    the four quarters within the past twelve months that Compass Global
    failed to provide the sworn statement of an officer attesting to the
    accuracy of the compensation it tendered to PSPs. The total proposed
    forfeiture is therefore \$80,000.

    **6. Failure to Provide Timely Response**

37. Finally, we find that Compass Global's failure to respond to the
    Bureau's March 6, 2006 LOI warrants a penalty of \$6,000. The base
    forfeiture for failure to respond to Commission communications is
    \$4,000.[^84] We have imposed higher penalties, however, for failure
    to respond to LOIs at all (\$20,000),[^85] and for incomplete and
    untimely responses to LOIs (*e.g.,* \$8,000).[^86] Since Compass
    Global ultimately responded in full to the LOI when the Bureau
    reissued it, we find its conduct less egregious than the failure to
    respond at all or both incompletely and untimely, and therefore
    propose a smaller upward adjustment of \$2,000 to the base
    forfeiture of \$4,000 for failure to respond to Commission
    communications.

    **IV. CONCLUSION**

38. In light of the seriousness, duration and scope of the apparent
    violations, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the amount of
    \$466,000 is warranted. This proposed forfeiture amount
    includes: (1) \$50,000 for failure, in apparent violation of
    sections 64.1310(a)(1) and 64.1320(c)(1) of the Commission's rules,
    to establish, on a timely basis, a call tracking system that
    accurately tracks calls to completion; (2) \$50,000 for failure, in
    apparent violation of section 64.1320 of the rules, to undergo a
    system audit and comply with other audit-related requirements; (3)
    \$200,000 for failure, in apparent violation of section
    64.1310(a)(2) of the rules, to compensate PSPs for each and every
    payphone call completed for the four quarters within the last
    year; (4) \$80,000 for failure, in apparent violation of section
    64.1310(a)(4) of the rules, to submit to each PSP the required call
    data reports for the four quarters within the last year; (5)
    \$80,000 for failure, in apparent violation of section
    64.1310(a)(3), to make available sworn statements from an officer
    attesting to accuracy of payments tendered to PSPs for the four
    quarters within the last year, and (6) \$6,000 for failure to
    respond to the Bureau's March 6 LOI.

39. We caution that additional violations of the Act or the Commission's
    rules could subject Compass Global to further enforcement action.
    Such action could take the form of higher monetary forfeitures
    and/or possible revocation of Compass Global's operating authority,
    including disqualification of Compass Global's principals from the
    provision of any interstate common carrier services without the
    prior consent of the Commission.[^87] In addition, we note that, to
    the extent Compass Global is found to be delinquent on any debt owed
    to the Commission, the Commission will not act on, and may dismiss,
    any application or request for authorization filed by Compass
    Global, in accordance with the agency's "red light" rules.[^88] We
    order Compass Global to submit within thirty (30) days, either as
    part of its response to this NAL or separately, a report, supported
    by a sworn statement or declaration under penalty of perjury of a
    corporate officer, stating its plan to come into compliance promptly
    with the relevant payment and reporting rules discussed herein. We
    also order Compass Global to correct its past failures by having its
    call tracking system audited in compliance with Commission rules, by
    compensating each PSP for each payphone call it has completed and
    for which payment was already due, by filing with each PSP any
    overdue call data reports for payphone calls it has completed, and
    for providing each PSP any overdue statements of an officer
    certifying payment accuracy and completeness.

    **V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

40. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^89] and section 1.80 of the
    Commission's rules,[^90] that Compass Global, Inc. is hereby
    NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
    \$466,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating the Act and the
    Commission's rules.

41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
    Commission's Rules,[^91] within thirty days of the release date of
    this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Compass Global, Inc. SHALL PAY
    the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
    statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
    forfeiture.

42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Act, 47
    U.S.C. § 4(i), within thirty days of the release of this NOTICE OF
    APPARENT LIABILITY AND ORDER, Compass Global, Inc. SHALL SUBMIT a
    report, supported by a sworn statement or declaration under penalty
    of perjury by a corporate officer, stating its plan to come into
    compliance promptly with the payment and reporting rules discussed
    herein. Compass Global, Inc. also SHALL HAVE its call tracking
    system audited in compliance with Commission rules, SHALL PAY
    overdue compensation to PSPs, SHALL FILE overdue call reports to
    PSPs, and SHALL PROVIDE to PSPs overdue statements of an officer
    certifying payment accuracy and completeness.

43. 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 358340, Pittsburgh, PA
    15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon
    Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
    15251.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
    Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
    number 911-6229.

44. The response, if any, to this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY must be
    mailed to William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445
    12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 and must include the
    NAL/Acct. No. referenced above.

45. 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.

46. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL under an
    installment plan should be sent to: Federal Communications
    Commission, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Room 1-A637, 445 12^th^
    Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.[^92]

47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NOTICE OF APPARENT
    LIABILITY AND ORDER shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
    requested, to Dean Cary, President/CEO, Compass Global, Inc., 50
    Tice Blvd., Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1310(a)(1), 64.1320(c)(1).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1300, 64.1310(a)(2).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. 64.1310(a)(4).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a)(3).

[^6]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
    (1996).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 276.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 276. *See* Conf. Rep. No. 104-458 at 158. The
    Conference Report explains: "In place of the existing regulatory
    structure, the Commission is directed to establish a new system
    whereby all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for
    every interstate and intrastate call made using their payphones,
    including, for example, "toll-free" calls to subscribers to 800 and
    new 888 services and calls dialed by means of carrier access codes.
    In crafting implementing rules, the commission is not bound to
    adhere to existing mechanisms or procedures established for general
    regulatory purposes in other provisions of the Communications Act."
    The quoted language comes from the House amendment to the Senate
    bill. The Conference agreement indicates that Congress adopted the
    House provision with some changes.

[^9]: *See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
    Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*,
    Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19975 (2003), (subsequent
    history omitted) (*Second Payphone Order*). The Commission had
    earlier adopted different rules, *Implementation of the Pay
    Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20541
    (1996) (subsequent history omitted).

[^10]: *See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
    Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*,
    Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 21457 (2004) (subsequent
    history omitted).

[^11]: 60 Fed. Reg. 26825 (May 14, 2004); 69 Fed. Reg. 71383 (Dec. 9,
    2004).

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(b).

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(c).

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1300(a).

[^15]: *Second Payphone Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19988, ¶ 26.

[^16]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1310(a)(1), 64.1320(c)(1). Section 64.1320(c)
    sets forth nine specific requirements with which the call tracking
    system must comply, and for which an independent third-party auditor
    must verify compliance.

[^17]: The Commission's current rules became effective July 1, 2004.
    *See supra* at ¶ 5. Because, as discussed below, the rules
    explicitly required a Completing Carrier to file an audit report
    regarding its compliance with section 64.1310(a)(1) by the effective
    date of the rules, a Completing Carrier needed to establish a call
    tracking system that satisfies the Commission's requirements by the
    effective date.

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1320(a), 64.1320(c).

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1320(b), 64.1320(d).

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320(e).

[^21]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320(f).

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320(g).

[^23]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a)(2).

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320(a)(4). Each quarterly report must be in
    computer readable format and include: (1) a list of the coinless
    access code and subscriber toll-free calls dialed and completed by
    the Completing Carrier from the PSP's payphone, and the Automatic
    Number Identification (ANI) for each payphone; (2) the total volume
    of calls completed for each of these numbers; (3) the name, address,
    and phone number of the individuals responsible for handling the
    Completing Carrier's payphone compensation; and (4) the carrier
    identification code ("CIC") of all facilities-based long distance
    carriers that routed calls to the Completing Carrier, organized by
    access code and toll-free number.

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320(a)(3). In lieu of providing such a statement
    to each PSP, a Completing Carrier may instead provide a single
    statement addressed to all PSPs to which compensation is tendered,
    and may electronically notify PSPs of the existence of the statement
    by either sending the report or posting it on the website of the
    Completing Carrier or a clearinghouse. *Id*.

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(b).

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(c). Each quarterly report must be in computer
    readable format and include: (1) a list of all facilities-based long
    distance carriers to which the Intermediate Carrier switched access
    code and toll-free calls dialed from the PSP's payphone; (2) a list
    of all access code and toll-free numbers dialed from each PSP's
    payphones that local exchange carriers delivered to the Intermediate
    Carrier and the Intermediate Carrier switched to the identified long
    distance carrier; (3) the total volume of calls switched to each of
    these numbers; and (4) the name, address, and phone number of the
    individuals for each identified long distance carrier who serves as
    the Intermediate Carrier's contact at the identified carrier. *Id*.

[^28]: *Second Payphone Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19998, ¶ 44.

[^29]: Wireline Competition Bureau Reminds Carriers of Their Obligations
    Under the Payphone Compensation Rules, Public Notice, DA 06-1862,
    rel'd Sept. 13, 2006.

[^30]: Letter from Dean Cary, President/CEO Compass Global, to Raelyn
    Tibayan Remy, Attorney, Investigations and Hearings Division,
    Enforcement Bureau, FCC, dated May 6, 2006, at 1 ("LOI Response").

[^31]: *Id.*

[^32]: Letter from Hilary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Dean Cary, President,
    Compass Global, Inc., dated March 6, 2006 ("LOI" or "March 6 LOI").

[^33]: Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations &
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Dean Cary, President,
    Compass Global, Inc., dated April 19, 2006 ("April 19 LOI").

[^34]: Letter from Hillary S. DeNigro, Deputy Chief, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Dean Cary,
    President/CEO Compass Global, dated April 20, 2006.

[^35]: *See* LOI Response, *supra* note Error: Reference source not
    found. This response was filed within the new time frame established
    in the April 19 LOI.

[^36]: Compass Global LOI Response at Inquiry 5.

[^37]: *Id.* at Inquiries 7, 8.

[^38]: *Id.* at Inquiry 8 b.

[^39]: *Id.* at Inquiry 13.

[^40]: *Id.* at Inquiry 9.

[^41]: *Id.* at Inquiry 13 b.

[^42]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1). 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. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). 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, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982),
    and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b)
    context. *See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California
    Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388 (1991) ("*Southern California Broadcasting Co.*"). The
    Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations that are
    merely repeated, and not willful. *See, e.g.,* *Callais Cablevision,
    Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359 (2001) (issuing a Notice of
    Apparent Liability for, *inter alia*, a cable television operator's
    repeated signal leakage). "Repeated" means that the act was
    committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.
    *Callais Cablevision, Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶ 9; *Southern
    California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5.

[^43]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^44]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

[^45]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2).

[^46]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); *see also Forfeiture Policy Statement*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 17100, ¶ 27; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).

[^47]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6)(B); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c)(3).

[^48]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).

[^49]: LOI Response to Inquiries 3, 4.

[^50]: LOI Response to Inquiry 6.

[^51]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1310(a)(1), 64.1320(c)(1).

[^52]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320(c).

[^53]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a)(2).

[^54]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a)(4).

[^55]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1310(a)(3).

[^56]: LOI Response to Inquiry 8.

[^57]: LOI Reponse to Inquiry 9.

[^58]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1320.

[^59]: *See supra* n.14.

[^60]: LOI Response to Inquiry 8.

[^61]: *Id*.

[^62]:  *See* LOI Response to Inquiries 9 and 13.

[^63]: *Id.*

[^64]: LOI Response to Inquiry 13.

[^65]: LOI Response to Inquiry 13.

[^66]: As part of its LOI Response, Compass Global attached a chart that
    appears to show amounts due and payments made for the last two
    quarters of 2004 and all four quarters of 2005 (no data for 2006).
    The chart suggests that Compass Global made at least partial
    payments to APCC in March and July 2005, and to Verizon in September
    2005. These two entities, of seven named by Compass Global, comprise
    some \$376,000 due (before any payment), while the other five named,
    and some unnamed (set forth as "No ANI Ownership Information"),
    total some \$181,000 due. *See* Compass Global LOI Response at
    Attachment. Thus it appears that the two entities to which some
    payment has been made account for about two thirds of the traffic
    for which Compass Global owes payphone compensation, and that the
    last time Compass Global made any payment was about a year ago.

[^67]: Since it filed its LOI Response, Compass Global has not provided
    any information indicating that it has made any additional payments
    to PSPs. Given the company's continuing obligation to produce
    additional information responsive to the LOI as it becomes
    available, *see* LOI at 3, the absence of any such additional
    information suggests that Compass Global's only payments to PSPs are
    those partial payments noted above, in March, July, and September
    2005. In addition, in recent conversations between Bureau staff and
    Compass Global, the principal confirmed that the company had not
    made any payments other than those described in the LOI Response.

[^68]: LOI Response to Inquiry 9.

[^69]: *Id.* Since it filed its LOI Response, Compass Global has not
    provided any information indicating that it has submitted reports.
    Given the company's continuing obligation to produce additional
    information responsive to the LOI as it becomes available, *see* LOI
    at 3, the absence of any such additional information suggests that
    Compass Global still has not submitted any reports to PSPs. In a
    recent telephone conversation with staff, Compass Global's principal
    stated that the company has recently provided certain call data to
    some of its major PSPs, but did not characterize this data as the
    quarterly report required by our rules.

[^70]: LOI Response to Inquiry 13.

[^71]: *See supra* ¶ 14.

[^72]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80 (b)(4), Note, Guidelines for Assessing
    Forfeitures.

[^73]: *Id*., Section II., Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
    Forfeitures (criteria (1), (4), (6) and (7)).

[^74]: *Second Payphone Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 19998, ¶ 44.

[^75]: *Id*.

[^76]: *Id*.

[^77]: As explained below, we impose a forfeiture of \$6,000 for Compass
    Global's failure to respond to the March 6 LOI on a timely basis.

[^78]: *See, e.g., Global Teldata II, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture & Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17264 (2005) ("*Global
    Teldata NAL*"); *InPhonic, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture & Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13277 (2005); *Telecom House, Inc.,*
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture & Order, 20 FCC Rcd
    15131 (2005); *Teletronics, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture & Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13291 (2005).

[^79]: *See* para. 11, *supra.*

[^80]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1195(a).

[^81]: *See, e.g., id.* at 17275, ¶¶ 26-27.

[^82]: *See, e.g., id.* at 17274-75, ¶ 25.

[^83]: *See Globcom Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications*, Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893
    (2003), *Globcom Inc., Order of Forfeiture,* FCC 06-49*.*

[^84]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).

[^85]: *See, e.g., BigZoo.com Corp.,* Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd
    3954 (2005); *QuickLink Telecom, Inc.,* Order of Forfeiture, 20 FCC
    Rcd 14464 (2005).

[^86]: *Carrera Communications, LP,* Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture & Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13307 (2005).

[^87]: *See Business Options, Inc.,* Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 2916
    (2003); *NOS Communications, Inc., Affinity Network Incorporated and
    NOSVA Limited Partnership,* Consent Decree, 2003 WL 22439710 (2003).

[^88]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1910.

[^89]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^90]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80,

[^91]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).

[^92]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.