Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1268 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) File No. EB-09-SE-218
Verizon ) NAL/Acct No. 201032100034
) FRN 0010790335
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  July 8, 2010 Released:  July 9, 2010
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find that Verizon 
apparently willfully violated Section 4.11 of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”),1 by failing to file a true, 
complete and accurate Final Communications Outage Report regarding a significant disruption in its 
network services (“outage”).  Based on the facts and circumstances before us, we conclude that Verizon is 
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). 
II.  BACKGROUND
2. The Commission first imposed outage reporting requirements on wireline 
communications providers in 1992.2 Recognizing that these requirements address critical public interest 
concerns, the Commission later revised its rules to extend these mandatory reporting requirements to all 
communications providers.3 In addition, in an effort to facilitate rapid reporting and reduce 
administrative burdens on covered entities, the Commission adopted a common metric for determining 
the general outage-reporting threshold criteria and required that outage reports be timely filed 
electronically.4 The Commission explained that these requirements enable this agency to effectively 
monitor and oversee the reliability and security of the nation’s communications systems, and thus carry 
out its responsibilities under the Communications Act.5 Most important, the outage reporting 
requirements ensure that communication providers promptly, fully, and accurately report significant 
disruptions in their network services that could affect our Nation’s “homeland security, public health and 
  
1 47 C.F.R. § 4.11.
2 See Notification by Common Carriers of Service Disruptions, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2010 (1992); 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 8517 (1993); Second 
Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 3911 (1994); Order on Reconsideration of Second Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 
11764 (1995).
3 See 47 C.F.R. Part 4; see also New Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 16830, 16882-94 ¶¶ 97-126 (2004) 
(“2004 Network Outage Order”) (extending the network outage reporting requirements to paging and wireless, cable 
circuit-switch telephony, and satellite communications providers).  
4 Id. at 16869-72 ¶¶ 71-75.
5 Id. at 16837 ¶ 12.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1268
2
safety, as well as [our] economic well-being.”6 The Commission concluded that the outage reporting 
requirements, as strengthened and expanded, ensure that the public has “secure communications that they 
can rely upon for their daily needs, as well as during terrorist attacks, fires, natural disasters (such as 
hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes) and war;”7 and that the Commission has the information about 
“communications disruptions and their causes” to prevent similar future disruptions and to facilitate 
alternative communications sources.8
3. Under Section 4.9 of the Rules, all communications providers are required to 
electronically report to the Commission outages that meet certain threshold criteria.  The threshold criteria 
for wireline communications providers are set forth in Section 4.9(f) of the Rules.9 A wireline 
communications provider must notify the Commission of any outage that lasts at least 30 minutes and:  
(1) potentially affects at least 900,000 user telephony or paging minutes; (2) affects at least 1,350 DS3 
minutes; (3) potentially affects any special offices or facilities; or (4) potentially affects 911 facilities.  If a 
wireline communications provider experiences an outage that meets the threshold criteria, it is required to 
electronically submit to the Commission a Notification within 120 minutes, an Initial Communications 
Outage Report (“Initial Report”) within 72 hours, and a Final Communications Outage Report (“Final 
Report”) within 30 days of its discovery of the outage.10 The Notification serves to notify the 
Commission that a major event has occurred and assist the Commission in determining whether an 
immediate response is required (e.g., terrorist attack or systemic failure) and whether patterns of outages 
are emerging (e.g., phased terrorist attacks) that warrant further coordination or other action.11 The Initial 
and Final Reports provide the Commission with more detailed data necessary to analyze outages in order 
to improve network reliability and security.12  
4. Under Section 4.11 of the Rules, the Final Report must “contain all pertinent information 
on the outage, including any information that was not contained in the Initial Report.”13 Section 4.11 of 
the Rules requires that “the person submitting the Final report … be authorized by the provider to legally 
bind the provider to the truth, completeness, and accuracy of the information contained in the report.”14  
Section 4.11 further requires that the Final Report “be attested by the person submitting the report that 
  
6 Id. at 16910 ¶ 160.  
7 2004 Network Outage Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 16837 ¶ 11.  Noting that there are many examples of the critical need 
for, and our dependence upon, reliable communications service, the Commission offered the example of our 
financial infrastructure, which largely consists of computers, databases, and communications links.  The 
Commission stated that:
If the communications links were severed, or severely degraded, ATM machines would not be 
able to supply cash, credit card transactions would not ‘go through,’ banks would not be able to 
process financial transactions (including checks), and the financial markets would become 
dysfunctional.  In a short time, economic activity would ground to a halt and consumers’ ability to 
purchase food, fuel or clothing would be severely limited if not destroyed.  
Id. at 16836-37 ¶ 11.
8 Id. 
9 47 C.F.R. § 4.9(f)(1)-(4).  A wireline communications provider is defined as a provider that “offer[s] terrestrial 
communications through direct connectivity, predominantly by wire, coaxial cable, or optical fiber, between the 
serving central office … and end user location(s).” See 47 C.F.R. § 4.3(g).  
10 See 47 C.F.R. § 4.9(f)(4).
11 See 2004 Network Outage Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 16870-72 ¶¶ 73-75.
12 See id. 
13 47 C.F.R. § 4.11.
14 Id. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1268
3
he/she has read the report prior to submitting it and on oath deposes and states that the information 
contained therein is true, correct, and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and that the 
communications provider on oath deposes and states that this information is true, complete, and 
accurate.”15  
5. Verizon, a wireline communications provider, has been subject to the outage reporting 
requirements described above since the requirements were first imposed in 1992.  Commission records 
reflect that Verizon experienced a significant outage, for which it submitted timely reports, but for which 
its Final Report was incomplete and inaccurate in several important respects.  On January 4, 2010, the 
Enforcement Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division issued Verizon a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) and 
initiated an investigation into the company’s compliance with Section 4.11 of the Rules.16 In its response 
to the LOI,17 Verizon maintains that its Final Report was accurate and thus complied with Section 4.11.  
We disagree.  Having reviewed Verizon’s LOI Response and Final Report, we find that Verizon’s 
submission did not completely and accurately describe the outage in several important respects, and thus 
that it did not comply with the requirements of Section 4.11 of the Rules.  
III.   DISCUSSION
A.  Verizon Apparently Failed to File a Complete and Accurate Final Outage Report
6. Section 4.9 of the Rules requires Verizon to timely file reports for outages that meet the 
threshold criteria.  Section 4.11 of the Rules requires Verizon to submit, and attest that it has submitted, a 
true, complete and accurate Final Report that contains all pertinent information, including any 
information that was not contained in its Initial Report.  The completeness and accuracy of the Final 
Report is critical in enabling the Commission to assess the full impact of significant communications 
disruptions and to effectively respond to future incidents.  
7. Verizon experienced a reportable network outage, as described in the Confidential 
Appendix.  Commission records reflect that Verizon timely filed its Reports, including its Final Report, 
regarding that outage.  The issue presented here is not the timeliness of Verizon’s filings but rather the 
completeness and accuracy of its Final Report.  As detailed more fully in the Confidential Appendix, we 
find that Verizon’s Final Report was incomplete and inaccurate in several important respects.  We 
  
15 Id.  
16 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau to Kathleen 
Grillo, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, Verizon (January 4, 2010).
17 See Letter from Mark J. Montano, Assistant General Counsel, Verizon to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (February 3, 2010).  Verizon requested its Response and associated 
documents be accorded confidential treatment.  Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 0.457(d)(vi), Verizon’s outage report is not 
routinely available for public inspection.  Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(d)(3), we will accord the other materials 
confidential treatment until any request for inspection is made, and will rule on Verizon’s request at that time.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1268
4
therefore find that Verizon apparently willfully18 violated Section 4.11 of the Rules by filing a Final 
Report that was not true, complete and accurate. 
B.  Proposed Forfeiture
8. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person 
who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision 
of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States 
for a forfeiture penalty.19 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of 
apparent liability and the person against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to 
show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.20 The Commission will then issue a 
forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a 
Commission rule.21 We conclude under this standard that Verizon is apparently liable for forfeiture for its 
apparent willful violation of Section 4.11 of the Rules.
9. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we may assess a common carrier a maximum 
forfeiture of $150,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory 
maximum of $1,500,000 for any single continuing violation.22 In determining the appropriate forfeiture 
amount, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act directs the Commission to consider factors, such as “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.”23  
10. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement24 and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not 
establish a base forfeiture amount for failing to submit a true, complete and accurate Final Report as 
  
18 “Willful” is defined as the “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any 
intent to violate” the law.  47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  The legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that 
this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d 
Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.  See Southern 
California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 ¶5 (1991), recon. denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (“Southern California”); see also San Jose Navigation, 
Inc., Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040, 1042 ¶ 9 (2007), consent decree ordered, 25 FCC Rcd 1494 (2010); Lotus 
Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC 2d 227 ¶¶ 5-6 (1967); Bureau D’Electronique 
Appliquee, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17893 (Spectrum Enf. Div., Enf. Bur. 2005).  By consciously and 
deliberately submitting a Final Report that was incomplete and inaccurate in several respects, Verizon’s apparently 
willfully violated Section 4.11 of the Rules.
19 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  
20 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
21 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002).  
22 47 U.S.C § 503(b)(2)(B).  The Commission thrice amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
1.80(b)(3), to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements 
contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2461.  See Amendment of Section 1.80 of 
the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008); 
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of 
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c). 
23 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment 
Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures. 
24 See 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 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) 
(“Forfeiture Policy Statement”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1268
5
required under Section 4.11 of the Rules.  This does not, of course, mean that no forfeiture should be 
imposed.  The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that “... any omission of a specific rule violation from 
the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ... should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as 
nonexistent or unimportant.25 The Commission retains the discretion to issue forfeitures on a case-by-
case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.26  
11. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the reporting 
requirements under Section 4.11, we start by taking into account the importance of filing a true, complete 
and accurate Final Report, such that the Commission can rely fully on the accuracy of that report.  In 
other analogous circumstances, the Commission has emphasized that it relies “heavily on the truthfulness 
and accuracy of the information provided to us.  If information submitted to us is incorrect, we cannot 
properly carry out our statutory responsibilities.”27 It is because of this need to be able to rely on the 
information submitted to us that the Commission requires that the Final Report of a reportable outage 
must be “attested by the person submitting the report that he/she has read the report prior to submitting it 
and on oath deposes and states that the information contained therein is true, correct and accurate to the 
best of his/her knowledge and belief and that the communications provider on oath deposes and states that 
this information is true, complete and accurate.”28
12. We have considered the nature of Verizon’s apparent violation, the submission of an 
attested Final Report that, although timely filed, was incomplete and inaccurate in several important 
respects.  As the Commission has found in other reporting violation cases involving the lack of accuracy 
and completeness, we believe a significant forfeiture is appropriate here.29  If communications providers 
ignore our rules and submit unreliable information, the purpose of the network outage reporting 
requirements is undermined.  Consistent with similar precedent,30 we find that a forfeiture in the amount 
of $25,000 is appropriate under the circumstances presented in this case.  
13. Specifically, we take into account that the Commission’s outage reporting requirements, 
generally, and the completeness and accuracy of the Final Report, specifically, are critical in enabling the 
  
25 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 ¶ 22.  
26 See id.
27 Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 3296, 3297 (2002).  See also Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission’s 
Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016, 4021 (2003), recon. 
denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5790, further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250 (2004).
28 47 C.F.R. § 4.11.
29 Serious reporting violations by carriers have resulted in assessments of significant forfeitures.  See e.g., VCI 
Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940 ¶ 18 (2007) (Commission 
established $20,000 as the base forfeiture amount for a carrier’s failure to file accurate revenue on FCC Form 497, 
proposing a $320,000 forfeiture for VCI’s sixteen apparent violations); Global NAPs California, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 13545, 13554-56 ¶¶ 24-27 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (assessing $25,000 
proposed forfeiture against a carrier for apparently violating Section 52.15(f) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(f), 
finding that filing of inaccurate reports undermines the Commission’s ability to monitor and ensure the efficient 
allocation of telephone numbering resources) (“Global NAPs California, Inc.”); Cardinal Broadband LLC, aka 
Sovereign Telecommunications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 12233, 12235-37 ¶¶ 6-11 
(Enf. Bur. 2008) (assessing a $25,000 forfeiture against an interconnected VoIP service provider for apparently 
violating Section 1.17 of the Rules, finding that the submission of misleading or inaccurate information regarding its 
status reflects a lack of due diligence and impedes the Commission’s ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities) 
(“Cardinal Broadband LLC”).
30 See Global NAPs California, Inc., 24 FCC Rcd at 13554-56 ¶¶ 24-27; Cardinal Broadband LLC, 23 FCC Rcd at 
12235-37 ¶¶ 6-11. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1268
6
Commission to assess the full impact of significant communications disruptions and to effectively 
respond to future incidents.  The submission of a less than complete and accurate Final Report 
undermines the Commission’s understanding of and ability to address outages that have the potential of 
jeopardizing our nation’s homeland security, safety and economic well-being.31 A communications 
provider that submits incomplete and inaccurate information shows a lack of due diligence in meeting its 
reporting obligations under Section 4.11 of the Rules.  An inaccurate and incomplete Final Report does 
not meet the requirements of Section 4.11.  Finally, such a Final Report impedes the Commission’s 
thorough analysis and understanding of the effects of an outage, and compromises the Commission’s 
long-term interests of ensuring network reliability and security.  Accordingly, for the reasons discussed 
above and in the Confidential Appendix, we conclude that Verizon is apparently liable for a $25,000 
forfeiture for its apparent willful violation of Section 4.11 of the Rules.  
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and 
Section 1.80 of the Rules, Verizon is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A 
FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) for its apparent willful violation of 
Section 4.11 of the Rules.  
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty 
days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Verizon SHALL PAY the full 
amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation 
of the proposed forfeiture.
16. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the 
order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must include the NAL/Account 
Number and FRN Number referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be mailed to 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.  Payment by 
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  For payment by credit card, 
an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter 
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in 
block number 24A (payment type code).  Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be 
sent to:  Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, 
Washington, D.C.  20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.  Verizon will also 
send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Jennifer.Burton@fcc.gov and 
JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov. 
17. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any,
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules.  The written statement must be mailed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, 
ATTN:  Enforcement Bureau – Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 
referenced in the caption.  The statement should also be emailed to JoAnn Lucanik at 
JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov and Jennifer Burton at Jennifer.Burton@fcc.gov.
18. 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-
  
31 See supra notes 9 - 12 and accompanying text.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1268
7
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.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Mark J. Montano, 
Assistant General Counsel, Verizon, 1320 North Courthouse Road, 9th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22201.   
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison 
Chief, Enforcement Bureau