Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
)
In the Matter of
)
Global QA Corp.
)
d/b/a Global QA
)
d/b/a Global QA, Inc.
)
d/b/a Global QU
) File No. EB-04-TC-132
d/b/a Quality Standards & Marketing
Corp. ) NAL/Acct. No.
200732170064
d/b/a Quality Standards & Marketing )
FRN: 0016631392
d/b/a Quality Standards )
d/b/a QualityStandards.com )
d/b/a ISO 9000 USA, Inc. )
d/b/a ISO 9000 USA Global QA )
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture )
)
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: July 23, 2007 Released: July 23, 2007
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that Global QA Corp. ("Global QA") apparently willfully or repeatedly
violated section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
("Act"), and the Commission's related rules and orders, by delivering
at least one unsolicited advertisement to the telephone facsimile
machine of at least one consumer. Based on the facts and circumstances
surrounding the apparent violation, we find that Global QA is
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act makes it "unlawful for any person
within the United States, or any person outside the United States if
the recipient is within the United States . . . to use any telephone
facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone
facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement." The term
"unsolicited advertisement" is defined in the Act and the Commission's
rules as "any material advertising the commercial availability or
quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to
any person without that person's prior express invitation or
permission in writing or otherwise." Under the Commission's Rules, an
"established business relationship" exception permits a party to
deliver a message to a consumer if the sender has an established
business relationship with the recipient and the sender obtained the
number of the facsimile machine through the voluntary communication by
the recipient, directly to the sender, within the context of the
established business relationship, or through a directory,
advertisement, or a site on the Internet to which the recipient
voluntarily agreed to make available its facsimile number for public
distribution.
3. On September 22, 2004, in response to one or more consumer complaints
alleging that Global QA had faxed unsolicited advertisements, the
Commission staff issued a citation to Global QA, pursuant to section
503(b)(5) of the Act. The staff cited Global QA for using a telephone
facsimile machine, computer, or other device, to send unsolicited
advertisements for quality standards training services and products
to a telephone facsimile machine, in violation of section 227 of the
Act and the Commission's related rules and orders. The citation, which
the staff served by certified mail, return receipt requested, warned
Global QA that subsequent violations could result in the imposition
of monetary forfeitures of up to $11,000 per violation, and included a
copy of the consumer complaints that formed the basis of the citation.
The citation informed Global QA that within 30 days of the date of
the citation, it could either request an interview with Commission
staff, or could provide a written statement responding to the
citation. Global QA did not request an interview or otherwise respond
to the citation.
4. Despite the citation's warning that subsequent violations could
result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures, we have received an
additional consumer complaint indicating that Global QA continued to
engage in such conduct after receiving the citation. We base our
action here specifically on the complaint filed by one consumer
establishing that Global QA continued to send an unsolicited
advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine after the date of the
citation.
5. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
forfeiture of up to $11,000 for each violation of the Act or of any
rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act by a
non-common carrier or other entity not specifically designated in
section 503 of the Act. In exercising such authority, we are 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."
III. DISCUSSION
A. Violations of the Commission's Rules Restricting Unsolicited Facsimile
Advertisements
6. We find that Global QA apparently violated section 227 of the Act and
the Commission's related rules and orders by using a telephone
facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least one
unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified herein. This NAL
is based on evidence that the consumer received an unsolicited fax
advertisement from Global QA after the Commission staff's citation.
The facsimile transmission advertises training services. Further,
according to the complaint, the consumer neither had an established
business relationship with Global QA nor gave Global QA permission to
send the facsimile transmission. The fax at issue here therefore
falls within the definition of an "unsolicited advertisement." Based
on the entire record, including the consumer complaint, we conclude
that Global QA apparently violated section 227 of the Act and the
Commission's related rules and orders by sending an unsolicited
advertisement to a consumer's facsimile machine.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
7. We find that Global QA is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
amount of $4,500. Although the Commission's Forfeiture Policy
Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating
the prohibition against using a telephone facsimile machine to send
unsolicited advertisements, the Commission has previously considered
$4,500 per unsolicited fax advertisement to be an appropriate base
amount. We apply that base amount to the apparent violation. Global QA
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.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
8. We have determined that Global QA Corp. apparently violated section
227 of the Act and the Commission's related rules and orders by using
a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at
least one unsolicited advertisement to the consumer identified herein.
We have further determined that Global QA Corp. is apparently liable
for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,500.
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, 47
U.S.C. S: 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80,
and under the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, that Global QA Corp.
is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the
amount of $4,500 for willful or repeated violations of section
227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C),
sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs
above.
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Global QA Corp.
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.
11. Payment by check or money order, payable to the order of the "Federal
Communications Commission," may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection
Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
Mellon Client Service Center, 500 Ross Street, Room 670, Pittsburgh,
PA 15262-0001, Attn: FCC Module Supervisor. Payment by wire transfer
may be made to: ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and
account number 911-6229. The payment should note NAL/Acct. No.
200732170064.
12. The response, if any, must be mailed both to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Telecommunications
Consumers Division, and to Colleen Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, and must
include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
13. 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; 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.
14. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture under an installment plan should be sent to:
Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
Requested to Global QA Corp., Attention: Robert Rowe and Patrick Hall,
300 Esplanade Drive, #1460, Oxnard, CA 93036 and 567 W. Channel
Islands Boulevard, Port Hueneme, CA 93041
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kris Anne Monteith
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1). The Commission has the authority under this
section of the Act to assess a forfeiture against any person who has
"willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provisions of
this Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission
under this Act ...." See also 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5) (stating that the
Commission has the authority under this section of the Act to assess a
forfeiture penalty against any person who is not a common carrier so long
as such person (A) is first issued a citation of the violation charged;
(B) is given a reasonable opportunity for a personal interview with an
official of the Commission, at the field office of the Commission nearest
to the person's place of residence; and (C) subsequently engages in
conduct of the type described in the citation).
According to publicly available information, Global QA is also doing
business as Global QA, Inc., Global QU, Quality Standards and Marketing
Corp., Quality Standards and Marketing, Quality Standards,
QualityStandards.com, ISO 9000 USA, Inc., and ISO 9000 USA Global QA.
Therefore, all references in this NAL to Global QA encompass Global QA
Corp. as well as Global QA, Inc., Global QU, Quality Standards and
Marketing Corp, Quality Standards and Marketing, Quality Standards,
QualityStandards.com, ISO 9000 USA, Inc., and ISO 9000 USA Global QA.
Global QA has offices at 300 Esplanade Drive, #1460, Oxnard, CA 93036 and
at 567 W. Channel Islands Boulevard, Port Hueneme, CA 93041. Robert Rowe
and Patrick Hall are listed as contact persons for Global QA. Accordingly,
all references in this NAL to Global QA also encompass the foregoing
individuals and all other principals and officers of this entity, as well
as the corporate entity itself.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3); see also
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd
3787 (2006).
47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(a)(3).
47 U.S.C. S:227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S:64.1200 (f)(13).
An "established business relationship" is defined as a prior or existing
relationship formed by a voluntary two-way communication "with or without
an exchange of consideration, on the basis of an inquiry, application,
purchase or transaction by the business or residential subscriber
regarding products or services offered by such person or entity, which
relationship has not been previously terminated by either party." 47
C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(5).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 64 (a)(3)(i), (ii).
Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-04-TC-132 issued to
Global QA on September 22, 2004.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5) (authorizing the Commission to issue citations
to non-common carriers for violations of the Act or of the Commission's
rules and orders).
Commission staff mailed the citation to 300 Esplanade Drive, #1460,
Oxnard, CA 93030. See n.2, supra.
See the consumer complaint of Harold Hallikainen of Dove Systems,
requesting Commission action (violation date, August 3, 2006).
We note that evidence of additional instances of unlawful conduct by
Global QA may form the basis of subsequent enforcement action.
Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures up to $10,000 for each
violation in cases not covered by subparagraph (A) or (B), which address
forfeitures for violations by licensees and common carriers, among others.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). In accordance with the inflation adjustment
requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,
Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321, the Commission implemented an
increase of the maximum statutory forfeiture under section 503(b)(2)(C) to
$11,000. See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000); see also Amendment of Section 1.80(b)
of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (this recent amendment of section
1.80(b) to reflect inflation left the forfeiture maximum for this type of
violator at $11,000).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D); The 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, 17100-01 para. 27 (1997)
(Forfeiture Policy Statement), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
See complaint from Harold Hallikainen of Dove Systems (stating that he
received an unsolicited fax advertising training services).
See 47 U.S.C. S: 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. S: 64.1200(f)(13) (definition
previously at S: 64.1200(f)(10)).
See Get-Aways, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture, 15 FCC
Rcd 1805 (1999); Get-Aways, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4843
(2000); see also US Notary, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 15 Rcd 16999 (2000); US Notary, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC
Rcd 18398 (2001); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
For Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 11295 (2000); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc.,
Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23198 (2000).
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f)(3).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.
(...continued from previous page)
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2749
1
5
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2749