[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22699-22703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10521]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[EB Docket No. 03-85; FCC 03-68]


Business Options, Inc. (``BOI'') Order to Show Cause and Notice 
of Opportunity for Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice; Order to show cause and opportunity for hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document is an order for BOI to show cause and give BOI 
the opportunity for a hearing before the Commission. The Commission has 
found that an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether the 
Commission should revoke the operating authority of BOI, BOI and its 
principal or principals should be ordered to cease and desist from any 
future provision of interstate common carrier services without the 
prior consent of the Commission, and a forfeiture against BOI is 
warranted and, if so, the amount of the forfeiture.

DATES: Effective April 29, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter G. Wolfe, Attorney Advisor for 
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau (202) 418-
2191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Order, EB Docket No. 03-85, released on April 7, 2002. The complete 
text of this document is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th 
Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and also may be purchased 
from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th 
SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 863-2893. It is also 
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2003/db0407/FCC-03-68A1.pdf.

Synopsis

A. Background

    1. BOI is a reseller of long distance telephone service, located in 
Merrillville, Indiana. BOI operates as a common carrier subject to 
Title II of the

[[Page 22700]]

Communications Act of 1934 (``the Act''). Under the regulatory scheme 
established by the Act and the Commission's rules, BOI is classified as 
a nondominant interexchange carrier. As such, it is considered to have 
``blanket'' authority to operate domestic common carrier facilities 
within the meaning of section 214 of the Act.
    2. After receiving a high number of consumer complaints against 
BOI, the Enforcement Bureau, in cooperation with the Maine Public 
Utilities Commission, launched an investigation into the consumers' 
allegations of slamming. On November 1, 2002, Enforcement Bureau staff 
sent a Letter of Inquiry to BOI seeking, among other things, BOI's 
response to specific consumer allegations.
    3. On September 12, 2002, BOI signed a stipulation with the Vermont 
Department of Public Service to settle a proceeding in which a Vermont 
Public Service Board Hearing Officer concluded that BOI had violated 
Vermont regulations by (1) Offering services without an approved 
tariff; (2) filing misleading corporate registration reports; (3) 
engaging in deceptive business practices; (4) failing to provide 
customers with a toll free number; (5) failing to file a discontinuance 
notice; (6) failing to provide consumers with an accurate written 
summary of their service order; and (7) changing consumers' 
telecommunications carrier without their authorization. Among other 
things, the stipulation required that BOI initiate the procedure 
outlined in section 63.71 of the Commission's rules for terminating 
service to Vermont customers who currently were being served by BOI. On 
December 20, 2002, BOI mailed an application to the Commission for 
authorization to discontinue its provision of resold interstate long 
distance service in Vermont on December 21, 2002 pursuant to section 
214(a) of the Act and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules. BOI 
simultaneously filed a request for waiver of the customer notification 
requirements set forth in section 63.71(a) of the Commission's rules.
    4. The Letter of Inquiry to BOI of November 1, 2002 asked a number 
of questions concerning (1) BOI's corporate structure, (2) its 
compliance with Commission registration requirements under section 
64.1195 of the Commission's regulations, (3) whether it or its 
affiliates, subsidiaries, or agents changed the preferred carriers of 
listed complainants after April 1, 2002, and (4) its telemarketing 
practices. Among other things, the Letter of Inquiry asked whether 
during the period from April 1, 2002 to the present, BOI or any of its 
subsidiaries, affiliates, or any other entity acting under BOI's 
control or as its agent, submitted or executed an order to change the 
preferred carrier as specified in the complaints listed in Attachment A 
to the Letter. If so, BOI was directed to state who authorized the 
change in service and the manner in which the authorization was made 
and provide all documents and information related to the authorization 
and to describe in detail all steps taken to verify the consumer's 
request to change his or her preferred carrier.
    5. In its response to the Letter of Inquiry, BOI asserted that 
``[d]uring this period no one representing BOI has changed the 
preferred carrier as specified in the complaints in Attachment A. * * 
*[hairsp]'' It therefore did not provide any documents, including 
verification tapes or other proof of authorization related to the 
complaints. Further, BOI did not answer several of the inquiries, 
including (1) an inquiry that BOI provide evidence that it had complied 
with the registration requirements pursuant to section 64.1195 of the 
Commission's rules, and (2) an inquiry whether BOI or its agents found 
any instances since April 1, 2002, in which BOI telemarketing employees 
had changed a consumer's preferred carrier without asking the consumer 
whether he or she wanted to change the preferred carrier and without 
mentioning the name of Business Options. BOI did state that all of its 
telemarketers were BOI employees. In addition, in response to the 
inquiry requesting ``BOI's corporate structure, including a description 
of each affiliate of each subsidiary or affiliate and a list of the 
officers and directors of each affiliated entity,'' BOI did not list 
any affiliates or their officers or directors.
    6. Enforcement Bureau staff sent Letters of Inquiry to the local 
exchange carriers (LECs) that serve the eight complainants listed in 
Appendix A of the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for 
Hearing, requesting information about whether there had been any 
preferred carrier changes since April 1, 2002 for these complainants. 
The responses to the LEC Letters of Inquiry indicate that preferred 
carrier changes were submitted for all of these complainants by Qwest 
Corporation after April 1, 2002, and that subsequently the complainants 
received bills on behalf of BOI. These responses indicate that while 
preferred carrier changes to BOI may have been submitted before April 
1, 2002 for several of the complainants, they were subsequently changed 
back to their prior carrier, but then changed again to BOI after April 
1. In response to a separate inquiry from the Enforcement Bureau staff, 
Qwest Corporation confirmed that all of these preferred carrier changes 
were made on behalf of BOI.
    7. In its Discontinuance Application, BOI stated that it provides 
resold service to approximately 200 business customers in Vermont, and 
that it has ``reevaluated its long distance business plan and has 
concluded that it is in the Company's best interest, at this time, to 
streamline its service in Vermont.'' It attached a Notice to Customers, 
which, it stated, its customers received on December 10, 2002, and has 
all the information requested by the State of Vermont. BOI states that 
it ``did not know of FCC requirements to send the letter out pursuant 
to 63.71.'' It also stated that it gave customers ``15 days from the 
day they received our notification letter to choose another long 
distance provider and protest our request for discontinuance.'' In 
fact, the letter does not provide any notice to customers of their 
right to protest the discontinuance, or any of the other requirements 
contained in section 63.71 of the Commission's rules. Rather, BOI asked 
for a waiver of those requirements.
    8. The Vermont Department of Public Service filed a letter in 
response to the BOI filings. In the letter, Vermont attached the 
Stipulation referred to above, which requires BOI to ``initiate the 
procedure outlined in 47 CFR 63.71 for terminating service to Vermont 
customers who currently are being served by BOI.'' Vermont stated that 
BOI's application was inaccurate. First, Vermont contended that ``[i]t 
is stretching credibility to assert that being told that you can no 
longer do business in a state is a strategic business decision.'' 
Second, it stated that BOI did know of the requirements of Sec.  63.71 
of the Commission's rules because the Stipulation that BOI signed 
required that BOI initiate the procedure outlined in Sec.  63.71. 
Third, Vermont contended that BOI's Notice did not comply with the 
information required by Vermont because the Stipulation required BOI to 
follow the requirements of Sec.  63.71 of the Commission's rules and to 
send a notice that differed from the notice that BOI sent to its 
customers. Finally, Vermont pointed out that BOI stated its notice was 
received by its customers on December 10, providing a notice period of 
11 days before termination on December 21, not 15 days. Vermont 
subsequently provided a letter from BOI stating, among other things, 
that all customers were disconnected on December 21, 2002.

[[Page 22701]]

    9. All of the consumers who filed the complaints discussed in the 
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing maintained 
that they never authorized BOI to change their preferred carriers. 
Several of them stated that the telemarketer represented telephone 
companies other than BOI.
    10. The Maine Public Utilities Commission sent the Commission third 
party verification tapes that had been sent to that agency by BOI. In 
these recordings, the verifier identified himself or herself, said 
``you are authorized and give permission to Business Options to change 
the long distance phone service, is that correct?'', asked the consumer 
if he or she understood that the rates would be $4.90 per month and 7 
cents per minute, and asked the consumer to verify the name and 
address, and to provide the consumer's date of birth. Some of the 
tapes, but not all, specify the telephone number to be changed, and 
some state that BOI is not the local phone company.

B. Discussion

    11. It appears that BOI intentionally provided incorrect or 
misleading information to the Commission when it stated in its response 
to the most central inquiry in the Letter of Inquiry that, since April 
1, 2002, ``no one representing BOI * * * changed the preferred carrier 
as specified in the complaints in Attachment A.'' The responses from 
the local exchange carriers of the consumers in question appear to show 
that Qwest Corporation did change the preferred carrier of these 
consumers after April 1, 2002, and that these consumers were 
subsequently billed for BOI charges. The fact that the changes were 
electronically submitted by Qwest, rather than directly by BOI, is of 
no consequence here; the consumer was billed for BOI service, and 
Qwest, the carrier whose services BOI was reselling, was apparently 
acting as BOI's agent in transmitting the preferred carrier change to 
the local exchange carrier. Indeed, Qwest has confirmed that it made 
these changes on behalf of BOI. Based on this evidence, it appears that 
BOI gave incorrect information when it stated that neither it nor its 
representative made these carrier changes after April 1, 2002. Further, 
it appears that BOI further lacked candor by not providing a response 
to Enforcement Bureau inquiries as to whether BOI had complied with the 
common carrier registration requirements pursuant to section 64.1195 of 
the Commission's rules, whether BOI or its agents found any instances 
since April 1, 2002 in which BOI telemarketing employees changed a 
consumer's preferred carrier without asking the consumer whether he or 
she wanted to change the preferred carrier and without mentioning the 
name of BOI, and whether BOI had any affiliates or subsidiaries.
    12. BOI's Application for Discontinuance also appears to contain 
other misrepresentations or instances of lack of candor. First, its 
statement that it was requesting authority to discontinue because it 
had reevaluated its business plan appears flatly inconsistent with its 
Stipulation that it was obligated to seek discontinuance authorization 
to settle the proceeding that had been brought against BOI by the 
Vermont Department of Public Service. Second, its statement that it did 
not know of the requirements of section 63.71 of the Commission's rules 
appears inconsistent with its agreement to a Stipulation that expressly 
required it to initiate the procedure under section 63.71. Third, its 
statement that its Notice provided all the information that was 
required by Vermont also appears inconsistent with the Stipulation that 
specifically required BOI to comply with section 63.71 procedures and 
to send the Notice that was attached to the Stipulation. Fourth, its 
statement that it had given ``its customers 15 days from the day they 
received our notification letter to choose another long distance 
provider and protest our request for discontinuance'' appears 
inconsistent with its assertions that the customers received the Notice 
on December 10 and that BOI would terminate service on December 21. 
That statement also appears inconsistent with the Notice, which did not 
inform customers of their right to protest, as is required by the 
notice provisions of section 63.71.
    13. It appears that these statements and omissions constitute 
misrepresentations or lack of candor, aimed at deceiving the Commission 
into believing BOI did not violate the Act and/or Commission rules. 
With regard to the apparent misrepresentation or lack of candor in the 
response to the Letter of Inquiry, the evidence provided by the LECs 
and Qwest (as well as complainants) appears to show that a truthful 
answer by BOI would have contained an admission that it changed the 
consumers' preferred carriers, and BOI would have had to prove that 
such changes were authorized, which presumably it could not do. By 
instead stating that ``no one representing BOI * * * changed the 
preferred carrier as specified in the complaints in Attachment A'' 
after April 1, 2002, BOI apparently intended to convey that it was in 
compliance with section 258 and our related rules, in an apparent 
attempt to lead the staff to terminate the investigation without 
enforcement action. With regard to the omissions of required 
information in BOI's response to the Letter of Inquiry, it appears that 
they too were designed to deceive the staff by hiding inculpatory 
evidence regarding slamming, failure to file the required registration 
statement, and hiding any illegal acts performed in the names of other 
companies in which BOI's principals were officers. With respect to the 
apparent misrepresentations in the Application for Discontinuance, 
motives to deceive also appear to exist. First, BOI's statement in the 
Application for Discontinuance that it was seeking discontinuance for 
business reasons appears to be an attempt to hide the fact that it had 
been charged with serious violations by the Vermont Department of 
Public Service, some of which, such as slamming, were under 
investigation by the Commission. The other misstatements in the 
application appear to have been aimed at attempting to excuse BOI's 
late filing of the Application and its failure to comply with the 
notice requirements of the Commission's rules.
    14. Section 258 of the Act makes it unlawful for any 
telecommunications carrier to ``submit or execute a change in a 
subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or 
telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification 
procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'' Section 64.1120(a)(1) 
of the Commission's rules prescribes that no submitting carrier ``shall 
submit a change on the behalf of a subscriber * * * prior to obtaining: 
(i) Authorization from the subscriber, and (ii) verification of that 
authorization in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this 
section.'' The Commission's rules thus expressly bar telecommunications 
carriers from changing a consumer's preferred carrier without first 
obtaining the consumer's consent, and then verifying that consent.
    15. The Commission's rules provide some latitude in the methods 
carriers can use to verify carrier change requests. The carrier can 
elect to verify that authorization through one of three options: 
obtaining the consumer's written or electronically signed 
authorization; setting up a toll free number for the consumer to call 
for verification; or obtaining verification through an independent 
third party. There is no latitude, however, in the requirement that 
carriers obtain both authorization and verification prior to

[[Page 22702]]

submitting a carrier change request. For those carriers who use an 
independent third party for verification, the Commission's rules 
require that the verification method confirm at least six things: The 
identity of the subscriber; confirmation that the person on the call is 
authorized to make the carrier change; confirmation that the person on 
the call wants to make the change; the names of the carriers affected 
by the change; the telephone numbers to be switched; and the types of 
service involved. The rules also require that carriers keep audio 
records of the verification for a minimum of two years after obtaining 
such verification. Finally, the Commission's rules require that where a 
carrier ``is selling more than one type of telecommunications service * 
* * that carrier must obtain separate authorization from the subscriber 
for each service sold * * *. Each authorization must be verified 
separately from any other authorizations obtained in the same 
solicitation.''
    16. BOI did not submit any evidence of authorization or 
verification regarding the consumer complaints cited in the Enforcement 
Bureau's Letter of Inquiry. It appears that BOI has therefore 
apparently failed to meet its burden to rebut complainants' assertions 
that BOI changed their preferred carriers in violation of the Act and 
the Commission's rules. In this record, BOI appears to have provided no 
evidence to justify the preferred carrier changes it apparently made. 
There is no need to refer to the tapes BOI provided to the Maine Public 
Utilities Commission, since BOI did not provide these tapes to the 
Commission's staff as justification for their changes of the consumers' 
preferred carriers. Even if the Commission were to consider the five 
tapes BOI submitted to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, however, 
these tapes show that BOI does not gather the critical information that 
our rules require. For example, the tapes do not confirm in an 
acceptable manner that the person is authorized to make the change and, 
most significantly, do not confirm the switch of the authorized 
carrier. First, the tapes do not verify the names of the consumers' 
prior carriers which were affected by the change, as required under the 
Commission's rules, nor do the tapes of Paul Brackett, Beatrice 
Violette, and Laura Crowley verify the telephone number to be switched. 
Second, the statement in the tapes by the third party verifier that 
``You are authorized and giving permission to Business Options to 
change the long distance phone service, correct?'' confusingly combines 
questions as to whether the person is the authorized decision maker and 
whether the person is choosing BOI as his or her preferred carrier. 
Finally, in two instances, Paul Brackett and Laura Crowley, it appears 
that the consumer did not understand what the verifier was saying. Paul 
Brackett only responded ``Uh-huh'' to all of the verifier's questions. 
It appears that such an answer was not sufficient to permit the 
verifier to know whether Mr. Brackett agreed to change service 
providers. Laura Crowley asked the verifier whether there would be a 
change to her phone bill, and the verifier only replied that she was 
just verifying what the telemarketer had told the consumer. It appears 
from this colloquy that Ms. Crowley believed that her service was not 
going to change. It appears that in neither case were the consumer's 
answers clear enough to verify that they indeed wanted BOI's service.
    17. The above examples appear to show a pattern of verification 
that falls egregiously short of the requirements in the Commission's 
rules, either because they omit certain requirements or because they 
pose questions in such a way that the consumer is confused and the 
consumer's intent cannot be verified. Accordingly, the tapes that BOI 
submitted to the Maine Public Utilities Commission do not appear to be 
sufficient to rebut the allegations in the complaints that BOI changed 
the preferred carriers of the five consumers without proper 
authorization.
    18. For the remaining three complaints that were filed with the 
Commission, BOI failed to provide a tape or any other evidence, beyond 
its denial that ``no one representing BOI has changed the preferred 
carrier as specified in the complaints'' after April 1, to rebut the 
allegations in the complaints. Based on this failure, it appears that 
BOI is liable for changing the preferred carriers of those consumers 
without authorization. As we discussed above, our rules require 
carriers to keep audio records of third-party verification for a 
minimum of two years after obtaining the verification. BOI has not 
produced evidence to show that it used third-party verification or any 
of the other verification methods that the Commission's rules allow. 
Furthermore, based on the evidence of its practices shown by the 
several ``verification'' tapes discussed above, it is reasonable to 
assume that any verification BOI might have obtained would likely fall 
egregiously short of the requirements in our rules. Therefore, even if 
BOI used a third-party verifier, BOI still would not likely have 
sufficient evidence to rebut the allegations in the complaints that it 
changed the preferred carriers of the remaining three consumers without 
prior authorization.
    19. Section 64.1195 of the Commission's rules requires that any 
telecommunications carrier providing interstate telecommunications 
service on or after the effective date of the rule (March 1, 2001) 
shall submit an FCC Form 499-A. BOI was a telecommunications carrier on 
or after the effective date of the rule. BOI failed to respond to a 
request to provide evidence that it had submitted this report. Nor do 
the Commission's files contain any evidence that BOI has filed this 
report. The Commission therefore finds that BOI has apparently failed 
to file FCC Form 499-A, in violation of section 64.1195. Section 
64.1195 specifically provides for revocation of operating authority for 
failure to comply with its provisions.
    20. BOI's application for authorization appears to show that BOI 
did not meet its obligations as a common carrier to adequately notify 
its customers of the discontinuance or seek Commission approval before 
it discontinued service, in apparent violation of section 214(a) of the 
Act and sections 63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules.
    21. Under the Act and our rules, it is clear that a 
telecommunications carrier must receive Commission authorization and 
provide the required notice to its customers before it may discontinue 
service to those customers. The service of approximately 200 BOI 
customers in Vermont was apparently terminated by December 21, 2002. It 
appears that BOI did not file any application until the day before its 
discontinuance, and never gave customers notice of their right to 
protest. Further, as stated above, it appears that the reasons that BOI 
gave for its failure to comply with Commission rules, i.e., its 
ignorance of such rules and its compliance with requirements of the 
State of Vermont, were not true. The Stipulation BOI signed with 
Vermont was executed in September 2002. Therefore, it appears that at 
that time BOI knew or should have known that in the near future, it 
would have to file an application for discontinuance and provide notice 
to its customers. In view of the foregoing facts, it appears that BOI 
willfully or repeatedly discontinued service without Commission 
authorization in violation of section 214(a) of the Act and sections 
63.71 and 63.505 of the Commission's rules.
    22. The Administrative Law Judge is directed to determine whether 
BOI willfully or repeatedly has made

[[Page 22703]]

misrepresentations or engaged in lack of candor; whether BOI willfully 
or repeatedly violated section 258 of the Act and the related 
Commission rules by changing consumer's preferred carriers without 
their authorization; whether BOI willfully or repeatedly failed to file 
a Registration Statement in violation of section 64.1195 of the 
Commission's rules; whether BOI willfully or repeatedly discontinued 
service without Commission authorization; whether the BOI's blanket 
section 214 authorization should be revoked; and whether specific 
Commission authorization should be required for BOI, or the principal 
or principals of BOI, to provide any interstate common carrier services 
in the future.

C. Conclusion

    23. In light of the totality of the information now before us, an 
evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine whether the continued 
operation of BOI as a common carrier would serve the public convenience 
and necessity within the meaning of section 214 of the Act. Further, 
due to the egregious nature of BOI's apparently unlawful activities, 
BOI will be required to show cause why an order to cease and desist 
from the provision of any interstate common carrier services without 
the prior consent of the Commission should not be issued. In addition, 
consistent with our practice in revocation proceedings, the hearing 
will also address whether a forfeiture should be levied against BOI.

Ordering Clauses

    24. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 214 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  154(i) and 214, the principal or 
principals of Business Options, Inc. are directed to show cause why the 
operating authority bestowed on Business Options, Inc. pursuant to 
section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, should not 
be revoked.
    25. Pursuant to section 312(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 312(b), the principal or principals of Business 
Options, Inc. are directed to show cause why an order directing them to 
cease and desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier 
services without the prior consent of the Commission should not be 
issued.
    26. The hearing shall be held at a time and location to be 
specified by the Chief Administrative Law Judge in a subsequent order. 
The ALJ shall apply the conclusions of law set forth in this Order to 
the findings that he makes in that hearing, upon the following issues:
    (a) to determine whether Business Options, Inc. made 
misrepresentations or engaged in lack of candor;
    (b) to determine whether Business Options, Inc. changed consumers' 
preferred carrier without their authorization in willful or repeated 
violation of section 258 of the Act and sections 64.1100-1190 of the 
Commission's rules;
    (c) to determine whether Business Options, Inc. failed to file Form 
FCC 499-A in willful or repeated violation of section 64.1195 of the 
Commission's rules;
    (d) to determine whether Business Options, Inc. discontinued 
service without Commission authorization in willful or repeated 
violation of section 214 of the Act and sections 63.71 and 63.505 of 
the Commission's rules;
    (e) to determine, in light of all the foregoing, whether Business 
Options, Inc.'s authorization pursuant to section 214 of the Act to 
operate as a common carrier should be revoked;
    (f) to determine whether, in light of all the foregoing, Business 
Options, Inc., and/or its principals should be ordered to cease and 
desist from the provision of any interstate common carrier services 
without the prior consent of the Commission;
    27. The Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall be a party to the 
designated hearing. Both the burden of proceeding and the burden of 
proof shall be upon the Enforcement Bureau as to issues (a) through (f) 
inclusive.
    28. To avail themselves of the opportunity to be heard, the 
principal or principals of Business Options, Inc., pursuant to section 
1.91(c) of the Commission's rules, shall file with the Commission 
within 30 days of the mailing of this Order to Show Cause and Notice of 
Opportunity for Hearing a written appearance stating that a principal 
or other legal representative from Business Options, Inc. will appear 
at the hearing and present evidence on the matters specified in the 
Show Cause Order. If Business Options, Inc. fail to file a written 
appearance within the time specified, Business Options, Inc.'s right to 
a hearing shall be deemed to be waived. In the event that the right to 
a hearing is waived, the Presiding Judge, or the Chief, Administrative 
Law Judge if no Presiding Judge has been designated, shall terminate 
the hearing proceeding as to that entity and certify this case to the 
Commission in the regular course of business, and an appropriate order 
shall be entered.
    29. If it is determined that BOI has willfully or repeatedly 
violated any provision of the Act or the Commission's rules cited in 
the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, it shall 
be further determined whether an Order for Forfeiture shall be issued 
pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, in the amount of no more than: (a) $80,000 for each 
unauthorized conversion of complainants' long distance service in 
violation of 47 U.S.C. 258 and 47 CFR 64.1120; (b) $3,000 for the 
failure to file a sworn statement or a Registration Statement in 
violation of a Commission directive and 47 CFR 64.1195; and (c) 
$120,000 for the unauthorized discontinuance of service to a community 
in violation of 47 U.S.C. 214 and 47 CFR 63.71 and 63.505.
    30. This document constitutes a notice of opportunity for hearing 
pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec.  503(b)(3)(A), for the potential forfeiture 
liability outlined above.
    31. It is further ordered that a copy of this order to show cause 
and notice of opportunity for hearing shall be sent by certified mail, 
return receipt requested, to Kurtis Kintzel, President and Chairman of 
the Board of Business Options, Inc., 8380 Louisiana Street, 
Merrillville, Indiana 46410-6312.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-10521 Filed 4-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P