**Before the**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**Washington, D. C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

) File No. ENF-99-11

Qwest Communications )

International, Inc. )

) NAL/Acct. No. 916EF0008

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture )

**NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE**

# Adopted: October 15, 1999 Released: October 19, 1999

By the Commission:

##  I. INTRODUCTION

1 By this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for slamming
(NAL),[^1] we initiate enforcement action against Qwest Communications
International, Inc. (Qwest).[^2] For the reasons set forth below, we
find that Qwest apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 258
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),[^3] as well as
Commission rules and orders, by changing the designated preferred
carriers of thirty consumers without their authorization.[^4] For
twenty-two of the complaints forming the basis of this NAL, the
violations are particularly egregious because Qwest relied on Letters of
Agency (LOAs) that appear to contain forged or falsified signatures of
the unsuspecting consumers. In another four complaints, Qwest provided
no evidence to rebut the complainants' allegations that although the
consumers never communicated with the company, Qwest changed the
consumers' preferred carriers without their authorization. In the
remaining four complaints, Qwest submitted preferred carrier change
requests based upon LOAs completed by individuals who were not
authorized to effect changes on the accounts that were switched. Based
upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
violations, we find that Qwest is apparently liable for a forfeiture in
the amount of eighty thousand dollars (\$80,000) for the twenty-two
violations involving forged or falsified signatures and forty thousand
dollars (\$40,000) for the eight remaining violations, resulting in a
total forfeiture amount of two million and eighty thousand dollars
(\$2,080,000).

2 In response to the Commission's service of these complaints, as well
as the many others served on Qwest in the past year, [^5] Qwest's form
reply asserts that it made the respective switches based upon
authorizations received from several third-party marketers of Qwest's
service. Accordingly, we take the opportunity at the outset of this
order to emphasize what we have stated on numerous occasions: that
reliance on actions of third-party marketers does not constitute a
defense to an allegation of slamming. Pursuant to the Act and Commission
rules, carriers are responsible for the actions of their sales agents,
whether they are employees or third-party contractors.

**II. THE CONSUMER COMPLAINTS**

3 The Common Carrier Bureau conducted an investigation into consumer
complaints filed with the Commission alleging that Qwest had switched
the complainants' long distance service without their authorization.
This action is based upon thirty of those complaints from consumers
throughout the nation. Each of these complainants contends that Qwest
changed their preferred interexchange carriers without their
authorization. The complainants are Anusha Srinivasan of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota; Alda J. Hodgson of Lake Matthews, California; Linda Carroll
of Fayetteville, Georgia; Sue Wu of Short Hills, New Jersey; Rosalie
Pinto of Jersey City, New Jersey; Elwood I. Kita of Hilo, Hawaii; Bobby
F. & Linda D. Lacy of McDonough, Georgia; Enrique G. Martinez of
Kalamazoo, Michigan; Dolores Pestana of Dracut, Massachusetts; Jeffrey
S. Protzel of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Siu-ki Tso of Edison, New
Jersey; Katherine F. Howell of Rolla, Missouri; George A. Robles of
Priest River, Idaho; Saul O. Paredes of Saint Louis, Missouri; Don P.
Romero of Welsh, Louisiana; Edward A. Herrera of Phoenix, Arizona;
Szuchien Yau of Hamden, Connecticut; Carolyn Booth, of East Concord, New
Hampshire; Jose A. Pabon of Las Vegas, Nevada; Diane C. Lares of Sarver,
Pennsylvania; Arturo Sobrino of Allentown, Pennsylvania; Edna Cruz of
Centreville, Virginia; Audrey R. Tien of East Lansing, Michigan; Laura
Petrou of Washington, D.C.; Janice and Jerry Yun of Annandale, Virginia;
Liem B. Lam of Plainsboro, New Jersey; Frank J. Ruiz of Chalmette,
Louisiana; James S. Angert of Honolulu, Hawaii; Pieh-Ling Shing of
Fremont, California and Enrique Vargas of Cave Creek, Arizona. The
pertinent facts underlying these complaints are set forth below.

**A. The Booth Complaint**

4 In their written complaint, Carolyn and Stephen Booth allege that
Qwest switched their preferred interexchange carrier from AT&T,
Incorporated (AT&T) to Qwest without authorization. The phone line at
issue serves a summer camp owned by the Booths. The account for this
line is in the name of Stephen Booth, but for privacy reasons, the
Booths listed the telephone in the name of the Booth's former dog,
Boris, that had died in 1987.[^6] The Booths state that they discovered
the switch when they noticed charges from Qwest on their Bell Atlantic
bill. When the Booths contacted Qwest, the customer service
representative credited the account, but did not offer an explanation
for the switch.

5 The Common Carrier Bureau\'s Consumer Protection Branch (the Branch)
forwarded the Booth's complaint to Qwest along with a Notice of Informal
Complaint (Notice).[^7] In response to the Notice, Qwest filed a letter
stating that it had received an LOA from Amnet Services, a third party
distributor (marketing agent) of Qwest's services. The letter indicates
that the Booth\'s account was credited \$33.04 for switching and usage
charges.[^8] Qwest\'s response goes on to indicate that it established
an account for Boris Booth on January 5, 1999. As noted previously, the
Booth's listed the name of their deceased dog Boris in the telephone
directory, even though the account was in the name of Stephen Booth.
Qwest also included a copy of a LOA allegedly signed by Boris Booth on
May 23, 1999, five months after Qwest admittedly established the Booth
account. The response fails to describe Qwest\'s efforts, if any, to
confirm the LOA\'s authenticity.

**B. The Hodgson Complaint**

6 In her written complaint, Alda J. Hodgson alleges that Qwest switched
her preferred interexchange carrier from AT&T to Qwest without her
authorization. Mrs. Hodgson states that she discovered the switch when
an AT&T telemarketer contacted her and asked her permission to reinstate
her AT&T service. On the same day, she received a letter from Qwest
addressed to her late husband, James Hodgson.[^9] The letter welcomed
Mr. Hodgson to Qwest's service. Mrs. Hodgson then contacted Qwest to
determine why her long distance service was changed without her
authorization. The Qwest customer service representative stated that
James Hodgson authorized the switch. Mrs. Hodgson states that her
husband could not have authorized the switch because he died over eight
years ago.[^10] When she pressed the Qwest customer service
representative for an explanation of how she was switched, the
representative hung up on her.[^11]

7 In response to the Branch's Notice, Qwest filed a letter stating that
it had received an LOA from American Communications Network,[^12] a
third party distributor (marketing agent) of Qwest's services. The
letter indicates that Mrs. Hodgson\'s account was credited \$14.08 for
switching and usage charges.[^13] The letter also included a copy of the
LOA allegedly signed by Mr. Hodgson on November 13, 1998. Qwest\'s
response does not rebut Mrs. Hodgson\'s allegation that her deceased
husband did not and indeed could not have authorized the switch. The
response also fails to provide any information regarding the
circumstances of how the LOA was obtained, nor does it describe Qwest\'s
efforts to confirm the LOA\'s authenticity.

**C. The Wu Complaint**

8 Sue Wu alleges in her complaint that Qwest switched her preferred
interexchange carrier from AT&T to Qwest twice without her
authorization.[^14] Ms. Wu noticed the December, 1998, switch when she
received an invoice from Qwest in January 1999.[^15] Ms. Wu states that
she repeatedly corresponded with Qwest to demand that the company cease
changing her long distance service without her authorization.[^16]

9 In response to the Branch\'s Notice,[^17] Qwest states that it
received a LOA authorizing Ms. Wu's switch from Everlasting
Telecomm,[^18] a third-party distributor of Qwest's services. Qwest adds
that the Wu's account was credited \$10 for switching charges.[^19] As
an attachment to its letter, Qwest included a copy of the LOA allegedly
signed by Ms. Wu's husband. In a supplemental letter submitted to the
Branch in April 1999,[^20] Ms. Wu states that the signature purportedly
authorizing the carrier change clearly is a forgery.[^21] In support of
her assertion, Ms. Wu provided the Commission with a copy of her
husband's signature and also explains that her husband's name on the
purported LOA is spelled incorrectly.[^22] Our own review of the LOA and
the Wu declaration reveals that the two signatures appear clearly to be
different and Mr. Wu's name is spelled incorrectly. The only explanation
offered by Qwest for its actions is that "the enclosed Letter of Agency
(LOA) that Qwest accepted in good faith from Everlasting Telecom
indicates that Wen-Hsien Wu authorized the change in long distance
service."[^23] Qwest's response does not, however, dispute Ms. Wu\'s
assertions that the LOA used to convert her long distance service
contains a forged signature.

**D. The Tso Complaint**

10 Ms. Siu-ki Tso\'s complaint details how she learned that her
preferred interexchange carrier had been converted from AT&T to Qwest
when she received her January, 1999 bill from Bell Atlantic. She
attempted to resolve the problem by calling Qwest numerous times, but
was unable to reach anyone at the number provided on the bill.[^24] Only
after the Branch served it with a Notice,[^25] did Qwest send Ms. Tso a
copy of the LOA it purportedly relied upon to switch her long distance
provider. Ms. Tso describes the signature on the LOA as a forgery and
states that the LOA contains an incorrect spelling of her name.[^26]

11 In response to the Branch's Notice of Ms. Tso's complaint, Qwest
filed a letter with the Commission providing a summary of charges it had
assessed Ms. Tso\'s account following the unauthorized preferred carrier
change, and the amount of money Qwest had credited to her account in an
apparent attempt to resolve the complaint.[^27] Qwest's letter included
a copy of the LOA allegedly signed by Ms. Tso. Qwest's response fails to
provide any information about how it attempted to confirm the LOA\'s
authenticity nor does it dispute Ms. Tso's assertion that she did not
authorize the switch.

**E. The Robles Complaint**

12 Mr. George Robles also alleges in his complaint that Qwest switched
his preferred interexchange carrier from AT&T to Qwest without his
authorization.[^28] Mr. Robles states that, he learned that that Qwest
had converted his long distance service when he received a welcome
letter from Qwest on December 18, 1998. He contacted Qwest to inquire
under what authority Qwest made the change.[^29] The LOA provided by
Qwest contained the name "Glen" Mickelson and an address different from
Mr. Robles', but Mr. Robles' telephone number.[^30] Mr. Robles' phone
bill is in his name, and he is the only individual authorized to make
changes to that account.

13 Qwest\'s response to the Branch's Notice[^31] of Mr. Robles'
complaint states that Qwest established an account "under the name of
George Robles on December 7, 1998." Incongruously, the LOA provided by
Qwest to evidence its authorization is signed by a "Glen Mickelson."
Qwest's response does not explain how an account was established in the
name of George Robles based upon an LOA signed by a "Glen Mickelson."
Nor does Qwest's response address the assertion that the LOA used to
convert Mr. Robles' long distance service was signed by an individual
unaffiliated with his telephone service account, and therefore, without
authority to approve such a change.

**F. The Yau Complaint**

14 Mr. Szuchien Yau also states that he became aware that he had been
switched to Qwest without his authorization when he received a monthly
bill. Mr. Yau made several telephone calls to Qwest in an effort to
determine how Qwest changed his preferred long distance carrier, and was
told that Qwest had been given approval by a third-party marketing
company. Even though Mr. Yau asserted that neither Qwest nor the
marketing company had ever contacted him, the customer service
representative he spoke with informed him he would still have to pay
Qwest for the charges incurred[^32]. Mr. Yau states that he then
attempted to speak with a customer service supervisor in order to
resolve his complaint. Although Mr. Yau left a message on the
supervisor's answering machine, his call was not returned.

15 As in the other complaints, Qwest states that an account was
established in Mr. Yau's name based upon authorization it received from
Advanced Direct Marketing, a third-party distributor.[^33] The LOA
provided by Qwest as evidence of this authorization appears to include
the signature of someone other than Mr. Yau. Moreover, handwriting on
the LOA says "Authorized By Phone," further suggesting that the
signature on the LOA is that of someone other than Mr. Yau. Qwest's
response does not explain how a signed LOA, as required by the
Commission's rules, could be obtained over the telephone.[^34] Nor does
Qwest challenge Mr. Yau's assertion that he had never given
authorization to have his preferred long distance carrier switched to
Qwest.

**G. The Romero Complaint**

16 Mr. Don Romero states that he first learned that Qwest had converted
his long distance service without his authorization when he received a
bill from Qwest on April 30, 1999.[^35] In his complaint, Mr. Romero
states that he immediately contacted Qwest to explain that he did not
authorize a change and to request "that the charges be taken off or
credited to reflect a zero balance."[^36] In response, Qwest claimed it
would send to Mr. Romero a copy of a the LOA illustrating his agreement
to change his carrier. In a subsequent conversation with Qwest customer
service, Mr. Romero was informed that Qwest did not have a letter of
authorization, and no LOA was ever provided to him. Mr. Romero states in
his complaint and a supporting declaration that he never authorized
Qwest to order a change in his long distance carrier.[^37]

17 Qwest\'s response to the Branch's Notice[^38] of Mr. Romero's
complaint lists the amount of charges Qwest assessed Mr. Romero, and the
amount of money it had credited to Mr. Romero's account.[^39] Qwest
states further that it received authorization from the Dino Group, a
third party distributor of Qwest's services,[^40] although it had been
"unable to obtain the Letter of Authorization that established this
account."[^41] Qwest fails to provide the Commission with any evidence
to rebut Mr. Romero's allegations that Qwest changed his preferred
carrier service without authorization.

**H. The Cruz Complaint**

18 In her complaint, Edna Cruz similarly explains that she discovered
that her preferred long distance carrier had been switched to Qwest when
she received her bill. She asserts that she never authorized this
switch. Ms. Cruz declares that she does recall receiving a telemarketing
call from Qwest, "but emphatically declined their offer."[^42] She
states that when she contacted Qwest, a customer service representative
indicated that she was unable to discontinue future bills and service,
and refused to credit her account for the current bill of \$5.13. The
customer service representative also denied Ms. Cruz' request to speak
to a supervisor.

19 In response to the Branch's service of Ms. Cruz' complaint, Qwest
sent a letter[^43] addressed to the Branch Chief "apologizing for any
frustration this situation may have caused." There is no indication
whether a copy of this letter was also sent to the complainant, Ms.
Cruz. As with the other complaints, Qwest response states that Ms. Cruz'
service was switched based on an order received from LI Deer
International, an authorized marketer of Qwest's service. However
Qwest's response does not include a copy of an LOA, or any other
evidence demonstrating that they verified Ms. Cruz' purported carrier
change request in accordance with Commission rules.

20 In a manner similar to several other recent responses, Qwest goes on
to state that,

> Qwest is entitled to reimbursement for calls carried over its network.
> In those cases where a change in primary long distance carrier is
> disputed, the FCC has ruled that the customer is responsible for
> charges incurred on the current carrier.[^44]

Qwest does not explain the basis for its assertion concerning Commission
rulings that it is entitled to be paid in full for charges assessed upon
customers that it allegedly switched without authorization.

**I. The Remaining Consumer Complaints**

21 The remaining consumer complaints[^45] that are the basis of this NAL
are factually similar to the allegations in the complaints described
above, and appear to establish a pattern of conduct by Qwest to change
consumers\' preferred interexchange carriers through the use of forged
or otherwise unauthorized LOAs. In each case, the complainant discovered
that his or her long distance service had been changed to Qwest after
reviewing a telephone bill, receiving a welcome letter from Qwest or
receiving a phone solicitation from their previous long distance
company. Twenty-two of the complainants have provided statements and
evidence that the signature on the purported LOA supplied by Qwest as
its authority for submitting a preferred carrier change request on
behalf of the complainants is falsified or a forgery.[^46] Three other
complainants, in a manner similar to the Robles complaint, have provided
statements and evidence that the signature on the LOA provided by Qwest
is not the signature of a person with authority to make such a request.
In each instance, the complainants contend that the alleged signatory is
both unauthorized to approve preferred carrier changes for that
telephone line and unknown to the complainants.[^47] One additional
complainant, in fashion analogous to the Romero complaint, alleges that
his preferred carrier was changed without authorization, much less any
contact with the company.[^48] Qwest, in response to this complaint,
fails to provide any evidence to refute the consumer's allegations that
Qwest converted the consumer's long distance carrier without obtaining
his authorization. Although Qwest claims that these changes were made
pursuant to a signed LOA, Qwest concedes that it is unable to locate the
purported LOA's upon which it claims to rely. Finally, in one other case
similar to the Cruz complaint, Qwest has failed to provide the
Commission with any evidence rebutting the complainant's sworn
allegation that his preferred carrier was switched to Qwest without
authorization.

22 Qwest\'s responses to the Branch\'s Notices[^49] forwarding the
complaints are similar to those detailed above. In all of the remaining
cases Qwest responds that it directed the preferred carrier switches be
made based upon authorization received from various third-party
marketers of Qwest's service. In those cases where Qwest has produced
LOA's, Qwest does not contest the complainant\'s assertion that the
signature on the purported LOA is falsified or forged,[^50] or was in
the name of someone without authorization to approve the switch.[^51] In
four of the cases,[^52] Qwest has failed to produce any evidence to
rebut the allegation of slamming, or demonstrated that it had complied
with the Commission's rules requiring verification of carrier switch
requests.

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. Violations Evidenced in the Complaints**

23 Section 258 of the Act makes it unlawful for any telecommunications
carrier to \"submit or execute a change[^53] in a subscriber\'s
selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll
service except in accordance with such procedures as the Commission
shall prescribe.\"[^54] The goal of section 258 is to eliminate the
practice of \"slamming.\" Pursuant to section 258, carriers are barred
from changing a customer\'s preferred local or long distance carrier
without first complying with the Commission\'s verification procedures.

24 Commission rules and orders related to slamming require that when
using LOA's IXCs obtain a signature from an individual authorized to
approve a change in the presubscribed carrier for the consumer\'s
telephone line.[^55] The Commission\'s rules establish that the LOA must
be signed by, the \"subscriber to the telephone line(s) requesting the
primary interexchange carrier change.\" [^56]

25\. The thirty consumer complaints forming the basis for this action
appear to establish a pattern of willful or repeated violations of the
requirements of the Act and the Commission\'s rules and orders
pertaining to preferred carrier changes.[^57] The facts in the
complaints, and Qwest\'s own responses, illustrate clearly that Qwest
was or should have been on notice as early as October 1998, that
consumers had problems with Qwest\'s submission of LOAs.[^58] In April
and May of 1999, however, Qwest apparently was continuing to submit
forged or falsified LOAs and change orders without authorizations in the
same manner which had resulted in complaints being filed with Qwest over
seven months earlier.[^59] Regarding the forgery complaints, our own
review of signatures that have been supplied by the complainants
demonstrates that there is little similarity between the purported
signatures on the LOAs and the exemplars provided by the complainants,
thus rendering it more likely than not that the signatures are, as the
complainants allege, forged. In several of the complaints, this finding
is supported by evidence that other information on the purported LOA is
incorrect or clearly fabricated.[^60] In each of the twenty-two cases,
we find that the complainants have provided credible and compelling
evidence that the respective LOAs proffered by Qwest were either
falsified or contain forgeries of the complainants' signatures.
Therefore, we conclude that Qwest has apparently willfully or repeatedly
violated section 258 of the Act and the Commission\'s rules and orders
by changing these consumers preferred carriers without authorization
through the submission of forged letters of authorization.[^61]

26 In four of the remaining complaints, an individual authorized to make
such a preferred carrier change request on behalf of the complainants
apparently did not sign the LOAs. Qwest offers no explanation for how
individuals without any association to the complainants\' telephone
service were allowed to authorize a change in that service, nor does
Qwest explain the measures it employed to ensure that such a violation
of our rules did not occur. Indeed, in each of these cases, it appears
that a simple comparison between the LOA and the listing information
would have revealed the inconsistency. In each of the cases, we find
that the complainants have provided credible and compelling evidence
that an individual unaffiliated with the complainant's telephone service
account signed the respective LOAs proffered by Qwest. Therefore, we
conclude that Qwest has apparently willfully or repeatedly violated
section 258 of the Act and the Commission\'s rules and orders in
connection with the unauthorized preferred carrier changes alleged by
these complainants.[^62]

27 Regarding the four additional complaints, we find that the
complainants have provided credible and compelling evidence that Qwest
converted their long distance carriers without proper authorization. Our
review of the record demonstrates that Qwest fails to rebut the
complainants' allegations that their long distance service was changed,
and alternatively states it is unable to locate the LOAs used to change
the consumers' carriers.[^63] In fact, with respect to these consumers,
Qwest fails to provide the Commission with any evidence that Qwest
utilized *any* verification method prior to submitting the carrier
change orders.[^64] Therefore, we conclude, in the absence of an
argument or rebuttal evidence to the contrary, that Qwest has apparently
willfully or repeatedly violated section 258 of the Act and the
Commission\'s rules and orders in connection with the unauthorized
preferred carrier changes alleged by these complainants.[^65]

**28** We note that each of Qwest's responses to these complaints state
that Qwest made the switch based upon purported authorizations received
from various third-party marketers of Qwest services. Qwest's responses
typically add that such distributors "are required to act within the
guidelines of federal and state laws, in addition to following Qwest's
policies regarding" carrier switches. To the extent Qwest is seeking to
absolve itself of fault in these complaints by laying blame on its
third-party marketers, we emphasize that the Commission on many
occasions has made clear that carriers are responsible for the acts of
their marketing agents.[^66] Moreover, despite Qwest's assertions that
its distributors are required to act in accordance with applicable law,
we find it particularly troubling that the complaints encompassed by
this NAL were admittedly originated by *no less than twelve different
independent marketing companies authorized by Qwest*. Thus apparent
slamming violations undertaken by Qwest's agents were widespread rather
than limited to a single marketer or marketing company.

B.  **Forfeiture Amount**

29 Qwest\'s actions, including: (1) the apparent use of forged or
falsified LOAs[^67] to effect changes in long distance service; (2) the
use of LOAs signed by someone without authority to effectuate a change;
and (3) the unauthorized submission of carrier change orders for the
long distance service, persuades us that a significant forfeiture action
is warranted against Qwest for willful or repeated violations of section
258 of the Act and the Commission\'s rules and orders.[^68] Section
503(b) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
forfeiture of up to one hundred ten thousand dollars (\$110,000) for
each violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by
the Commission under the Act.[^69] In exercising such authority, we are
required to take into account \"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.\"[^70] The Commission\'s
forfeiture guidelines currently establish a standard forfeiture amount
of \$40,000 for violations of our rules and orders regarding
unauthorized changes of preferred interexchange carriers. [^71] These
policies and guidelines, however, include upward adjustment criteria
that warrant a higher forfeiture amount based on our evaluation of the
particular actions and circumstances of the violator.[^72] These include
the egregiousness of the misconduct, ability or inability to pay,
whether the violation was intentional, whether substantial harm resulted
from the violations, history of compliance with Commission requirements,
whether the violator realized substantial economic gain from the
misconduct, and whether the violation is repeated or continuous.[^73]

30 We note that on several occasions, the Commission has sternly
admonished carriers that it would take swift and decisive enforcement
action, including the imposition of substantial monetary forfeitures,
against any carrier found to have engaged in slamming, particularly
through the practice of forged LOAs.[^74] More recently, the Commission
has issued several NALs assessing forfeitures at \$80,000 per violation
for the use of forged LOAs.[^75] In those Orders, the Commission found
that the higher forfeiture amount was warranted by the egregiousness of
misconduct.[^76]

31 In the instant case, the evidence before us indicates that Qwest,
despite our previous warnings to the long distance industry about the
use of forged LOAs, has willfully or repeatedly engaged in this conduct
as part of a pattern to slam consumers. Moreover, as we have explained
in earlier NALs, we find forgery to be a particularly egregious form of
slamming.[^77] We thus find that the upward adjustment criteria in our
forfeiture guidelines that involve egregiousness of misconduct and the
repeated nature of violations are applicable in this case. Applying
those criteria to the facts of this case, we conclude that it is
appropriate to impose a forfeiture amount that is double the base amount
contained in our forfeiture guidelines for those preferred carrier
change requests based on forged LOAs.[^78] This determination is
consistent with the most recent NALs, which involved conduct comparable
to that alleged herein.[^79] In this regard, the unauthorized
conversions of twenty-two of the complainants' presubscribed carriers
through the use of forged or falsified LOAs constitute twenty-two
separate violations. We propose to assess a forfeiture of eighty
thousand dollars (\$80,000) per violation. We will apply the forty
thousand dollar (\$40,000) base slamming forfeiture amount for each of
the remaining eight violations. Thus, we find that Qwest is apparently
liable for a forfeiture of two million and eighty thousand dollars
(\$2,080,000) for the unauthorized conversion of the thirty
complainants\' long distance service. Qwest will have the opportunity to
submit evidence and arguments in response to this NAL to show that no
forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be
assessed.[^80]

32 Finally, our review of Qwest's responses indicates a need for the
Commission to continue to monitor Qwest\'s preferred carrier change
practices. As is evident by its submissions in response to other
consumer complaints, Qwest has illustrated a lack of responsiveness to
its customers and to the Commission's inquiries and Consumer Protection
Branch policies. Among other things, the widespread nature of Qwest's
slamming complaints among numerous third party marketers indicates that
Qwest has failed to exercise appropriate oversight of such agents or to
take reasonable steps to verify the legitimacy of authorizations
received from them. Qwest's failure in several instances to provide an
LOA or any other evidence of verification required by the Commission's
rules also suggests that Qwest has failed to implement reasonable
precautions to ensure it has received proper authorization before
directing a switch in a consumers preferred carrier. We also note that
most of the complainants referenced in the NAL express frustration
resulting from an inability to reach Qwest or lack of responsiveness to
their complaints from Qwest customer service representatives.
Additionally, we are concerned about recent letters from Qwest that
state the Commission requires consumers to pay Qwest's charges even if
Qwest has slammed the consumer. This letter, which is an apparent
attempt to intimidate consumers into paying slamming charges, does not
accurately reflect the Commission's rules in this regard.[^81] We,
therefore, require Qwest to file with this Commission within 30 days of
the release of this order a compliance plan which shall include
procedures designed to promptly identify and address consumer inquiries
and concerns about Qwest\'s preferred carrier change practices.[^82] The
compliance plan shall also detail actions Qwest will take and procedures
it will establish to comply with the Act, and the Commission\'s rules
and orders. The Commission will continue to closely monitor the level
and content of consumer complaints to determine whether the
establishment of Qwest\'s proposed management practices leads to a
decrease in unauthorized preferred carrier changes.

**IV. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERING CLAUSES**

33 We have determined that Qwest Communications International
Corporation apparently violated section 258 of the Act and the
Commission\'s preferred carrier change rules and orders[^83] by
converting the preferred carriers of the thirty consumers identified
above, on the dates and in the manner described herein. We have further
determined that Qwest Communications International Corporation is
apparently liable for forfeitures in the amount of eighty thousand
dollars (\$80,000) for each of the twenty-two violations involving
forgeries or falsifications and forty thousand dollars (\$40,000) for
each of the eight violations that did not involve forgeries or
falsifications, resulting in a total forfeiture amount of two million
and eighty thousand dollars (\$2,080,000).

34 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), section 1.80
of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that Qwest Communications
International Corporation IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture in the amount of two million and eighty thousand dollars
(\$2,080,000) for willful or repeated violations of section 258 of the
Act[^84] and the Commission\'s preferred carrier change rules and orders
as described in the paragraphs above.[^85]

35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission\'s
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release of
this Notice, Qwest Communications International Corporation SHALL PAY
the full amount of the proposed forfeiture[^86] OR SHALL FILE a response
showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be
reduced.

36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 218 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 218, that
Qwest Communications International Corporation SHALL FILE with the
Commission, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, a
compliance plan detailing the actions it will take and the procedures it
will establish, to ensure compliance with section 258 of the Act and the
Commission\'s rules and orders relating to preferred carrier changes.
The compliance plan shall set forth procedures designed to enable Qwest
Communications International Corporation to promptly identify and
address consumer inquiries and concerns about its preferred carrier
change practices.

37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to Joseph
Nacchio, Qwest Communications International Corporation, 555 17^th^
Street, #700, Denver, Colorado 80202 and to Cheryl A. Tritt, Esq.,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 5500,
Washington, D.C. 20006, Qwest's registered agent.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)A). The Commission has authority under
    this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty against a
    common carrier if the Commission determines that the carrier has
    \"willfully or repeatedly\" failed to comply with the provisions of
    the Act or with any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
    Commission under the Act. The section provides that the Commission
    must assess such penalties through the use of a written notice of
    apparent liability.

[^2]: Qwest, a publicly traded company headquartered in Denver,
    Colorado, was incorporated in 1991 and completed a merger with LCI
    International Telecom Corp. (LCI) on October 17, 1998. The
    complaints, which form the basis for this NAL, involve unauthorized
    conversions by both Qwest and LCI.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 258.

[^4]: The practice of changing a customer\'s preferred carrier without
    the customer\'s authorization is commonly referred to as
    \"slamming.\"

[^5]: During a period between September 1, 1998 and August 31, 1999, the
    Commission\'s National Call Center received 1,142 consumer calls
    regarding unauthorized preferred carrier changes by Qwest and 218
    consumer calls regarding unauthorized preferred carrier changes by
    LCI. During the same period, the Consumer Protection Branch
    processed 637 written consumer complaints alleging slamming by Qwest
    and 551 written consumer complaints alleging slamming by LCI.

[^6]: *See* Declaration of Carolyn and Steven Booth.

[^7]: *See* Appendix A. *Also see* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.711-1.718 (regarding
    the Commission\'s procedures for processing informal complaints
    filed against carriers).

[^8]: Qwest Response to Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC-99-20305
    (filed September 20, 1999).

[^9]: Alda J. Hodgson, Informal Complaint No. IC-99-02489 (December 8,
    1998) (Hodgson Complaint).

[^10]: *Id.* In further support of her complaint, Mrs. Hodgson submitted
    to the Common Carrier Bureau a declaration dated May 25, 1999.
    Declaration of Alda J. Hodgson, IC-99-02489 (May 25, 1998).

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: American Communications Network is also the Qwest distributor in
    the Carroll and Lacey complaints.

[^13]: Qwest Response to Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC-99-02489
    (filed March 17, 1999).

[^14]: Sue Wu, Informal Complaint No. IC-99-03274 (January 26, 1998) (Wu
    Complaint). The wrongful switch considered as the basis of this
    complaint occurred on December 3, 1998. Ms. Wu also alleges that
    Qwest previously slammed her in February of 1998. *See* Wu Complaint
    at 2-3.

[^15]: *See* Wu Complaint.

[^16]: *See* Wu Complaint at 2-3.

[^17]: *See* Appendix A.

[^18]: Ms. Wu, echoing the concerns of other complainants, expresses
    their suspicion that they were specifically targeted as members of
    the Chinese speaking community that could be more susceptible to
    victimization due to a lack of fluency in English. *See* Wu
    Supplemental Letter at 1.

[^19]: Qwest Response to Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC-99-03274
    (filed April 14, 1999).

[^20]: *See* Supplemental Letter from Ms. Su Wu to Sharon Lee, Chief,
    Consumer Protection Branch, April 19, 1999, IC No. IC-99-03274. (Wu
    Supplemental Letter).

[^21]: *Id.*

[^22]: *See* Declaration of Sue and Wen-hsien Wu, IC 99-03274 (May 16,
    1999).

[^23]: *Id.*

[^24]: We note this practice might constitute a violation of the
    Commission's recently adopted Truth-In-Billing rules. See In the
    Matter of Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, 14 FCC Rcd. 7492
    (1999), at paras. 65-67. Although TIB does not adopt any standards
    for customer service personnel, the Order states that the we expect
    that customer service reps will be well trained and that there will
    be enough of them to handle call volumes.

[^25]: *See* April 25, 1999 letter from Siu-Ki Tso to the Commission
    responding to Qwest's April 15, 1999 letter regarding, Informal
    Complaint No. IC-99-03438 (January 21, 1999).

[^26]: *Id*.

[^27]: Qwest Response to Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC-99-03438
    (filed April 15, 1999).

[^28]: George Robles, Informal Complaint No. IC-99-02911 (December 30,
    1998) (Robles Complaint).

[^29]: *Id.*

[^30]: *Id.* In support of his complaint, Mr. Robles submitted to the
    Common Carrier Bureau a declaration dated May 21, 1999. *See*
    Declaration of George Robles, IC-99-02911 (May 21, 1999).

[^31]: *See* Appendix A.

[^32]: *See* Yau Complaint at 1; *also see* Declaration of Szuchien Yau,
    IC-99-19325 (September 13, 1999).

[^33]: Qwest Response to Informal Complaint No. IC-99-19325 (filed
    September 20, 1999).

[^34]: *Id.*

[^35]: Don P. Romero, Informal Complaint No. IC-99-19477 (June 4, 1999)
    (Romero Complaint).

[^36]: *Id.*

[^37]: *See* Romero Complaint at 1; *also see* Declaration of Don P.
    Romero, IC-99-19477 (September 10, 1999).

[^38]: *See* Appendix A.

[^39]: Qwest Response to Informal Complaint No. IC-99-19477 (filed July
    13, 1999).

[^40]: *Id.*

[^41]: *Id.*

[^42]: See Declaration of Edna Cruz, IC Number 99-16094, (September 30,
    1999)

[^43]: Qwest Response to Informal Complaint No. IC-99-16094 (filed
    September 7, 1999).

[^44]: *Id.*

[^45]: *See* Appendix A for details concerning the remaining consumer
    complaints.

[^46]: *See* Appendix A for a list of complainants' declarations.

[^47]: *See* Katherine F. Howell Complaint, IC 99-03536. The LOA
    provided by Qwest in response to the Howell complaints is in the
    name of Hong Li and is written solely in Chinese. *Also see*
    Pieh-Ling Shing Complaint, IC 99-19341, and James S. Angert
    Complaint, IC 99-19328.

[^48]: *See* Enrique Vargas Complaint, IC 99-19128.

[^49]: *See* Appendix A for a list of Qwest responses.

[^50]: See complaints of Anusha Srinivasan, IC 99-02727; Alda J.
    Hodgson, 99-02489; Linda Carroll, IC 99-03505; Sue Wu, IC 99-03274;
    Rosalie Pinto, IC 99-19015; Elwood I. Kita, IC 99-02578; Bobby F. &
    Linda D. Lacy, IC 98-41593; Enrique G. Martinez, IC 99-03279;
    Dolores Pestana, IC 99-02730; Jeffrey S. Protzel, IC 99-02689;
    Siu-ki Tso, IC 99-03438; Saul O. Paredes, IC 99-09942; Szuchien Yau,
    IC 99-19325; Carolyn Booth, IC 99-20305; Jose A. Pabon, IC 99-19314;
    Diane C. Lares, IC 99-19322; Audrey R. Tien, IC 99-19495; Laura
    Petrou, IC 99-08045; Janice and Jerry Yun, IC 99-19448; Edward A.
    Herrera, IC 99-19139; Frank Ruiz, IC 99-19144 and Liem B. Lam, IC
    99-19478.

[^51]: See complaints of Katherine F. Howell, IC 99-03536; Pieh-Ling
    Sheng, IC 99-19341; James S. Angert,

    IC 99-19328 and George A. Robles, IC 99-02911.

[^52]: See complaints of Don P. Romero, IC 99-19477; Arturo Sobrino, IC
    99-16192; Edna Cruz, IC 99-16094 and Enrique Vargas, IC 99-19128.

[^53]: The Commission\'s rules and orders prescribe that interexchange
    carriers (IXCs) must submit preferred carrier change orders to local
    exchange carriers (LECs), who are then obligated to make the change
    absent some indication that the request is not legitimate. *See
    Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers'
    Long Distance Carriers,* 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995) (*LOA Order*);
    *Preferred Carrier Change Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992);
    *Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs*, 101 FCC
    2d 911 (1985) (*Allocation Order); Investigation of Access and
    Divestiture Related Tariffs;* 101 FCC 2d 935 (Com. Car. Bur. 1985)
    (*Waiver Order*).

[^54]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 258.

[^55]: Under the Commission\'s rules, \"the letter of agency must be
    signed and dated by the subscriber to the telephone line(s)
    requesting the primary interexchange carrier change.\" 47 C.F.R.§
    64.1150(b).

[^56]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(b).

[^57]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150; *Preferred Carrier Change Order*, 7
    FCC Rcd at 1045.

[^58]: Mr. And Mrs. Lacy's complaint contends that they initially
    contacted Qwest on October 23, 1998. Lacy Complaint, Informal
    Complaint No. IC-98-41593 (November 2, 1998). Qwest confirms this
    contact in its response to the Commission\'s Notice. *See* Qwest
    Response to Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC-98-41953 (filed
    March 1, 1999).

[^59]: US WEST reported that on May 4, 1999, they processed a Qwest
    order to execute a preferred carrier change for Enrique Vargas'
    telephone number. US WEST Response to Vargas Complaint, Notice of
    Informal Complaint No. IC-99-19128 (filed August 13, 1999).

[^60]: *See e.g.*, Wu complaint, IC 99-03274 or Carroll complaint IC
    99-03505.

[^61]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 258; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150; *1997 FNPRM & Order
    on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd 10674 (1997); *LOA Order*, 10 FCC
    Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, *In‑bound Stay Order*, 11 FCC Rcd
    856 (1995); (*Preferred Carrier Change Order*), 7 FCC Rcd 1038
    (1992), *recon. denied*, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); *Allocation Order*,
    101 FCC 2d 911 (1985), *Waiver Order*, 101 FCC 2d 935 (Com. Car.
    Bur. 1985), *recon*. (of both *Allocation Order* and *Waiver Order*)
    *denied*, 102 FCC 2d 503 (1985) (*Reconsideration Order*).

[^62]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 258; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150; *1997 FNPRM & Order
    on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd 10674 (1997); *LOA Order*, 10 FCC
    Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, *In‑bound Stay Order*, 11 FCC Rcd
    856 (1995); (*Preferred Carrier Change Order*), 7 FCC Rcd 1038
    (1992), *recon. denied*, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); *Allocation Order*,
    101 FCC 2d 911 (1985), *Waiver Order*, 101 FCC 2d 935 (Bur. 1985).

[^63]: *See* Romero, Sobrino, Cruz and Vargas complaints; *also see,
    e.g.*, Qwest Response to Informal Complaint No. IC-99-19477 (filed
    July 13, 1999).

[^64]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150 (detailing the different
    procedures by which carriers may verify a preferred carrier change);
    *see also* *Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection
    Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and
    Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers'
    Long Distance Carriers*, CC Docket No. 94-129, Second Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 1508
    (1998) (*1998 Second Order and FNPRM*) at ¶ 78.

[^65]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 258; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150; *1997 FNPRM & Order
    on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd 10674 (1997); *LOA Order*, 10 FCC
    Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, *In‑bound Stay Order*, 11 FCC Rcd
    856 (1995); (*Preferred Carrier Change Order*), 7 FCC Rcd 1038
    (1992), *recon. denied*, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); *Allocation Order*,
    101 FCC 2d 911 (1985), *Waiver Order*, 101 FCC 2d 935 (Bur. 1985).

[^66]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 217; *also see Excel Telecommunications
    Incorporated*, 11 FCC Rcd 19765 (1997) and Long Distance Direct,
    Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 314 (1999).

[^67]: The Commission previously issued NALs finding carriers apparently
    liable for relying upon forged LOAs and sternly admonished carriers
    that it would take swift and decisive enforcement action against any
    carrier found to have engaged in the practice. *Brittan
    Communications International Corp.,* Notice of Apparent Liability,
    FCC No. 98-291, rel. Oct. 29, 1998 *(Brittan NAL), Amer-I-Net
    Services Corp.,* Notice of Apparent Liability, FCC No. 285, rel.
    Oct. 30, 1998 *(Amer-I-Net NAL); AT&T Corporation*, 11 FCC Rcd 1885
    (1996) (*AT&T Corp. NAL*); *Home Owners Long Distance,
    Incorporated*, 11 FCC Rcd 1808 (1996) (*Home Owners Long Distance,
    Inc. NAL*); *MCI Telecommunications Corporation*, 11 FCC Rcd 1821
    (1996) (*MCI NAL*); *Nationwide Long Distance, Incorporated*, 11 FCC
    Rcd 3087, (1996) (*Nationwide Long Distance, Inc. NAL*); *Target
    Telecom, Incorporated*, 11 FCC Rcd 1811, (1996*) (Target Telecom,
    Inc. NAL*).

[^68]: *See Commission\'s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
    Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines*,
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (petitions for
    reconsideration pending).

[^69]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80. The Commission
    recently amended its rules by adding a new subsection to its
    monetary forfeiture provisions that incorporates the inflation
    adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement
    Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321), enacted
    on April 26, 1996. *Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission\'s
    Rules*, 12 FCC Rcd 1038 (1997).

[^70]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^71]: Section 503(b)(2)(B) provides for forfeitures up to \$100,000 for
    each violation or a maximum of \$1,000,000 for each continuing
    violation by common carriers or an applicant for any common carrier
    license, permit, certificate or similar instrument. 47 U.S.C. §
    503(b)(2)(B). The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA),
    Pub L. No. 104-134, § 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), requires,
    however, that civil monetary penalties assessed by the federal
    government be adjusted for inflation based on the formula outlined
    in the DCIA. Thus, the statutory maxima pursuant to Section
    503(b)(2)(B) increased from \$100,000 and \$1,000,000 to \$110,000
    and \$1,100,000 respectively. *Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
    Commission\'s Rules*, 12 FCC Rcd 1038 (1997).

[^72]: *Id.*

[^73]: *Id.* *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

[^74]: *See, e.g.,* *Nationwide Long Distance, Inc. NAL*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    3089. The Commission has also emphasized on numerous occasions that
    the actions of a carrier\'s marketing agents do not relieve a
    carrier of its independent obligation to ensure compliance with the
    rules. Rather, under the Communications Act, the acts or omissions
    of an agent or other person acting for a common carrier are deemed
    to be the acts or omissions of the carrier itself. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    217; *see also Heartline Communications, Inc*. 11 FCC Rcd 18487,
    18494 (1996).

[^75]: *All American Telephone Company, Inc.*, 13 FCC Rcd 15040 (1998)
    (*All American NAL*); *Brittan Communications International Corp.*,
    Notice of Apparent Liability, FCC No. 98-291, rel. Oct. 29, 1998
    (*Brittan NAL*); Amer-I-Net Services Corp., Notice of Apparent
    Liability, FCC No. 285, rel. Oct. 30, 1998 (*Amer-I-Net NAL*).

[^76]: *See, e.g., Brittan NAL*, FCC No 98-291, ¶¶ 22-27, (1998).

[^77]: *See Amer-I-Net NAL,* FCC No. 98-285, ¶ 21 (1998*); See also
    Excel Telecommunications Incorporated*, 11 FCC Rcd 19765, 19767
    (1997).

[^78]: *Cf. All American NAL,* 13 FCC Rcd 15040, 15049*;* *Brittan NAL,*
    FCC No 98-291, ¶ 24 (1998).; *Amer-I-Net NAL,* FCC No. 98-285, ¶ 21
    (1998).

[^79]: *See All American NAL,* 13 FCC Rcd 15040, 15049; *Brittan NAL,*
    FCC No 98-291, ¶¶ 24-25 (1998).

[^80]: *See* § 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).

[^81]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 258; *Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier
    Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    and Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of
    Consumers\' Long Distance Carriers*, CC Docket. No. 94‑129, Second
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC
    Rcd 1508 (1998) (*1998 Second Order & FNPRM*).

[^82]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 218.

[^83]: *See*, *e.g*., 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150; *Implementation of the
    Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and Rules Concerning
    Unauthorized Changes of Consumers\' Long Distance Carriers*, CC
    Docket. No. 94‑129, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (*1998 Second Order &
    FNPRM*); *EqualNet Corporation Proposed Request for Waiver*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 3975 (1999) (*EqualNet Waiver Order*); Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making and Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 10674 (1997) (*1997 FNPRM & Order on
    Reconsideration.*); *Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized
    Changes of Consumers\' Long Distance Carriers*, 10 FCC Rcd 9560
    (1995) (*LOA Order*), stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995)
    (*In‑bound Stay Order*); *Policies and Rules Concerning Changing
    Long Distance Carriers*, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992) (*Preferred Carrier
    Change Order*), recon. denied, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); *Investigation
    of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs*, 101 FCC 2d 911 (1985)
    (*Allocation Order*), *Investigation of Access and Divestiture
    Related Tariffs*, 101 FCC 2d 935 (Com. Car. Bur. 1985) (*Waiver
    Order*), recon. (of both *Allocation Order* and *Waiver Order*)
    denied, 102 FCC 2d 503 (1985) (*Reconsideration Order*).

[^84]: 47 U.S.C. § 258.

[^85]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150; *1997 FNPRM & Order on Recon*., 12 FCC
    Rcd 10674; *LOA Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 9560; *Preferred Carrier Change
    Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 1038*; Allocation Order*, 101 FCC 2d 911; *Waiver
    Order*, 101 FCC 2d 935.

[^86]: The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
    drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
    Reference should be made on Qwest Communications International
    Corporation\'s check or money order to \"NAL/Acct. No. 916EF0008.\"
    Such remittances must be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section,
    Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box. 73482,
    Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.