Legal Standard for Finding a Rule 1 Violation

Our objective in adopting the registration process was to allow applicants that have no history of questionable behavior and that present noncontroversial applications to rely on an expedited and inexpensive means of securing telecommunications operating authority. If applicants do not meet these standards, they need to use the more extensive application process. (Rulemaking to Establish a Simplified Registration Process for Non-Dominant Telecommunications Firms, D.97-06-017, 73 CPUC2d, 288, 293.)

Here, the issue is whether Respondents misled us by failing to disclose that ACI had filed for bankruptcy, was under investigation for or had been found liable for or guilty of consumer fraud, or had been sanctioned by a regulatory agency when Respondents answered Questions 7 and 8 of the CPCN application. If Bucci had actual or constructive (implied) notice of judgments or verdicts finding consumer misrepresentation, pending investigations alleging similar violations, or regulatory sanctions, Respondents were required to respond "not true" to Questions 7 and 8. Bucci had constructive knowledge of any action of which ACI was aware; similarly Titan had constructive knowledge of any action of which Bucci was aware. Where the record does not substantiate that Bucci or ACI had actual knowledge of any court or regulatory action, we cannot conclude Respondents had actual or constructive knowledge of the proceedings subject to disclosure on Titan's application.

A finding that Respondents have misled us does not require a finding of intent. (Rulemaking into Competition for Local Exchange Service, D.01-08-019, 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 653 *14.) Respondents' intent is one factor in assessing a penalty if a violation is found.

Respondents and CSD agree that the regulatory consultant who signed Titan's application was Titan's agent. The act of an agent of a public utility is imputed to the public utility. (Pub. Util. Code § 2109.)