******************************************************** 
                      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.

*****************************************************************



Media Contact: 
Will Wiquist, (202) 418-0509
will.wiquist@fcc.gov
For Immediate Release
FCC REJECTS PETITION TO RECONSIDER $1.84 MILLION FINE
Parties Ignored Warnings, Bombarded Health Care Offices with Unsolicited Fax 
Advertisements, Ignored Complaints, & Responded Months After Deadline
  -- 
WASHINGTON, February 15, 2018—The Federal Communications Commission today 
rejected a petition to reconsider a $1.84 million fine for violations of FCC junk fax rules.  Scott 
Malcolm and his companies DSM Supply and Somaticare were found to have sent unsolicited 
fax advertisements about which the Commission received hundreds of consumer complaints.  
Mr. Malcolm’s violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act were numerous, 
egregious, and occurred after being warned that he was violating the law.
In response to the FCC’s 2016 fine, Mr. Malcolm petitioned the agency for reconsideration of 
the fine, claiming that it was excessive.  The Commission rejected the petition on procedural 
grounds, because Mr. Malcolm could have made that argument in earlier responses to 
Commission warnings but failed to do so.  Commission rules generally provide for 
reconsideration only when the petitioner presents new facts that were not available prior to the 
issuance of the fine.  The Commission also found that Mr. Malcolm had not presented evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate that the forfeiture was excessive in violation of the Eighth 
Amendment.
Following numerous consumer complaints, the Commission cited Mr. Malcolm for violations 
of the law.  Violations continued after this notice and formed the basis for the Commission’s 
fine.  Mr. Malcolm was asked to provide any evidence related to and arguments against the 
proposed fine.  His response arrived nearly seven months after the deadline.  Following review 
of this response, the agency issued its forfeiture order.  Mr. Malcolm then petitioned for 
reconsideration, which is denied.  
Enforcement of FCC rules promotes orderliness and finality in the administrative process and 
thereby serves the public interest and promotes the efficient use of Commission resources.  The 
law does not require the Commission to be administratively burdened by petitions for 
reconsideration that reargue issues that were already addressed or that rely on facts or 
arguments that the petitioner could have—but did not—present to the Commission at an earlier 
stage.  
The Order on Reconsideration is available at:  
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-18-14A1.pdf 
###
Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500
ASL Videophone: (844) 432-2275
TTY: (888) 835-5322
Twitter: @FCC
www.fcc.gov/office-media-relations
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action.  Release of the full text of a Commission order 
constitutes official action.  See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).