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
)
) File No. EB-09-SE-189
In the Matter of
) NAL/Acct. No. 201132100004
IDT Telecom, Inc.
) FRN 0010522506
)
ORDER AND Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: October 25, 2010 Released: October 26, 2010
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that IDT Telecom, Inc. ("IDT Telecom"), a reseller of digital wireless
services, apparently willfully violated the wireless handset hearing
aid compatibility status report filing requirements set forth in
Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") and apparently
willfully and repeatedly violated the public web site posting
requirements set forth in Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. For these
apparent violations, we propose a total forfeiture in the amount of
twelve thousand dollars ($12,000). We also direct IDT Telecom to file
the required wireless handset hearing aid compatibility status report
within thirty (30) days of the release of this NAL.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted
several measures to enhance the ability of individuals with hearing
disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications. The
Commission established technical standards that digital wireless
handsets must meet to be considered compatible with hearing aids
operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil)
modes. The Commission further established, for each standard,
deadlines by which manufacturers and service providers were required
to offer specified numbers or percentages of digital wireless handsets
per air interface that are compliant with the relevant standard if
they did not come under the de minimis exception. In February 2008, as
part of a comprehensive reconsideration of the effectiveness of the
hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission released an order
that, among other things, adopted new compatible handset deployment
benchmarks beginning in 2008.
3. Of primary relevance, the Commission also adopted reporting
requirements to ensure that it could monitor the availability of these
handsets and to provide valuable information to the public concerning
the technical testing and commercial availability of hearing
aid-compatible handsets, including on the Internet. The Commission
initially required manufacturers and digital wireless service
providers to report every six months on efforts toward compliance with
the hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first three years
of implementation (May 17, 2004, November 17, 2004, May 17, 2005,
November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006 and November 17, 2006), and then
annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation (November
19, 2007 and November 17, 2008). In its 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility
First Report and Order, the Commission extended these reporting
requirements with certain modifications on an open ended basis,
beginning January 15, 2009. The Commission also made clear that these
reporting requirements apply to service providers that fit within the
de minimis exception. In addition, the Commission instituted a
requirement that manufacturers and service providers with
publicly-accessible web sites maintain a list of hearing
aid-compatible handset models and provide certain information
regarding those models on their websites. The web site postings, which
must be updated within 30 days of a change in a manufacturer's or
service provider's offerings, enable consumers to obtain up-to-date
hearing aid compatibility information from their service providers.
4. IDT Telecom, which provides prepaid cellular service under the TuYo
Mobile brand, failed to file the required hearing aid compatibility
status report for the period July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008
(due January 15, 2009). The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB")
referred IDT Telecom's apparent violation of the reporting requirement
to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action.
5. On November 23, 2009, the Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement
Division ("Division") issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to IDT
Corporation, to which IDT Telecom responded on December 29, 2009. In
its LOI Response, IDT Telecom admitted that it failed to submit the
status report by January 15, 2009. IDT Telecom also stated that it
would take necessary steps to come into compliance with the
requirements of Sections 20.19(h) and (i)(1) of the Rules.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to File Timely Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report
6. Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules requires service providers to submit
hearing aid compatibility status reports on January 15, 2009 (covering
the six month period ending December 31, 2008) and then annually
thereafter. These reports are necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its enforcement function and evaluate whether IDT Telecom is
in compliance with Commission mandates that were adopted to facilitate
the accessibility of hearing aid-compatible wireless handsets. These
reports also provide valuable information to the public concerning the
technical testing and commercial availability of hearing
aid-compatible handsets. IDT Telecom admitted that it did not file
the required hearing aid compatibility status report by January 15,
2009. Accordingly, we find that IDT Telecom failed to timely file the
hearing aid compatibility status report due on January 15, 2009 in
apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section
20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.
A. Failure to Post Required Information Concerning Hearing
Aid-Compatible Handset Models on its Public Web Site
7. Section 20.19(h) of the Rules requires that, beginning January 15,
2009, each manufacturer and service provider that operates a
publicly-accessible web site make available on its web site a list of
all hearing aid-compatible handset models currently offered, the
ratings of those models, and an explanation of the rating system.
Section 20.19(h) also requires service providers to post on their web
sites the level of functionality of each model and an explanation of
the service provider's methodology for designating levels of
functionality. In addition, the Commission has stated that any changes
to a manufacturer's or service provider's offerings must be reflected
on its public web site listing within 30 days of the change. These web
site postings provide consumers up-to-date hearing aid compatibility
information.
8. IDT Telecom offers a number of prepaid wireless phones and plans under
the TuYo Mobile brand on its publicly accessible website. IDT Telecom
admitted that it failed to list on its web site all available hearing
aid-compatible handset models, the ratings for those models, and an
explanation of the rating system until after receipt of the Division's
LOI. IDT Telecom also failed to specify the level of functionality for
each model and provide an explanation of its methodology for
designating levels of functionality on its web site. Accordingly, we
find that IDT Corporation apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
the web site posting requirements set forth in Section 20.19(h) of the
Rules.
A. Proposed Forfeiture
9. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 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. 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. 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. Under this
standard, we conclude that IDT Telecom is apparently liable for
forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid
compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section
20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for its failure to post the required
information regarding its hearing aid-compatible handsets on its web
site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of
the Rules.
10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of
the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to
file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture
guidelines lend some predictability to the forfeiture process, the
Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and
issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general
forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act. In
exercising such discretion, we are required 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."
11. We have exercised our discretion to set a higher base forfeiture
amount for violations of the wireless hearing aid compatibility
reporting requirements. In the American Samoa Telecommunications
Authority NAL, we found that the status reports are essential to the
implementation and enforcement of the hearing aid compatibility rules.
The Commission relies on these reports to provide consumers with
information regarding the technical specifications and commercial
availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets and
to hold the digital wireless industry accountable to the increasing
number of hearing-impaired individuals. We noted that when setting an
$8,000 base forfeiture for violations of the hearing aid-compatible
handset labeling requirements, the Commission emphasized that
individuals with hearing impairments could only take advantage of
critically important public safety benefits of digital wireless
services if they had access to accurate information regarding hearing
aid compatibility features of handsets. We also noted that the
Commission has adjusted the base forfeiture upward when noncompliance
with filing requirements interferes with the accurate administration
and enforcement of Commission rules. Because the failure to file
hearing aid compatibility status reports implicates similar public
safety and enforcement concerns, we exercised our discretionary
authority and established a base forfeiture amount of $6,000 for
failure to file a hearing aid compatibility report. Consistent with
ASTCA, we believe the established $6,000 base forfeiture for violation
of the hearing aid compatibility reporting requirement should apply
here, for a proposed forfeiture of $6,000.
12. Failure to file these reports, as is the case here, can have an
adverse impact on the Commission's ability to ensure the commercial
availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets, to
the detriment of consumers. Furthermore, in ASTCA, we made clear that
failure to file a hearing aid compatibility status report constitutes
a continuing violation that continues until the violation is cured.
IDT Telecom's failure to file the report on time had an adverse impact
on the Commission's ability to monitor and ensure the commercial
availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets. We
do not believe that the circumstances presented warrant any downward
adjustment of the proposed forfeiture amount. It is well established
that a violator's lack of knowledge or erroneous beliefs are not a
mitigating factor warranting a forfeiture reduction. Accordingly, we
propose a forfeiture of $6,000 against IDT Telecom for apparently
willfully failing to timely file its January 15, 2009 hearing aid
compatibility status report in violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the
Rules.
13. We have also recently exercised our discretion to set a higher base
forfeiture amount for violation of the web posting requirements set
forth in Section 20.19(h) of the Rules. In determining the appropriate
forfeiture amount for violation of the web site information posting
requirements, we noted that these requirements are "essential to the
proper functioning of our hearing aid compatibility rules" and serve
to increase the availability of up-to-date hearing aid compatibility
information to consumers and service providers. In particular, we
found that the web site may be the primary means through which
consumers obtain information, and that the updated information between
status reports is likely to be critical to both consumers and service
providers. We further found that the web site postings, which must be
updated within 30 days of a change in a manufacturer's or service
provider's offerings, will enable consumers to obtain up-to-date
hearing aid compatibility information from their service providers and
will also enable service providers to readily obtain up-to-date
information from their manufacturer suppliers. Accordingly, we
concluded that the same considerations that led us to increase the
base forfeitures for hearing aid compatibility status reporting
violations also apply to the requirement for web posting. We therefore
established $6,000 as the base forfeiture for violation of Section
20.19(h).
14. As noted above, IDT Telecom acknowledged that in addition to its
failure to identify which of its handset offerings were hearing
aid-compatible, it also failed to provide information about the
ratings of its hearing aid-compatible handset models or an explanation
of the rating system on its web site, and did not specify the level of
functionality for each model and provide an explanation of its
methodology for designating levels of functionality on its web site.
IDT Telecom presented no mitigating factors in its LOI Response
justifying a downward adjustment to the $6,000 base forfeiture.
Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $6,000 against IDT Telecom for
apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to provide required
information concerning its hearing aid-compatible handset models on
its public web site in violation of Section 20.19(h) of the Rules.
15. Thus, we propose an aggregate forfeiture of $12,000 against IDT
Telecom for its apparent willful violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of
the Rules and its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section
20.19(h) of the Rules.
16. Finally, as noted above, it appears that IDT Telecom still has not
filed its hearing aid compatibility status report for the six-month
period ending December 31, 2008, which was due on January 15, 2009.
This report is necessary to enable the Commission to monitor the
commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets and to
assess IDT Telecom's compliance with the hearing aid compatibility
handset requirements during that period. We accordingly direct IDT
Telecom to submit the report within thirty (30) days of the release of
this NAL.
IV. ORDERING clauses
17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, IDT Telecom, Inc. IS NOTIFIED of
its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twelve
thousand dollars ($12,000) for failing to file its hearing aid
compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of Section
20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and for failing to post required information
concerning its hearing aid-compatible handset models on its public web
site in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(h) of
the Rules.
18. 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, IDT Telecom, Inc., SHALL PAY the full amount
of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
19. 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. IDT also shall send electronic
notification to Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov and Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov on the
date said payment is made.
20. 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 Ricardo Durham at Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov and Sam Peoples
at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov.
21. 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.
22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the
Act and Section 20.19(i) of the Rules, IDT Telecom SHALL SUBMIT the
report described in paragraph 16 within thirty (30) days of the
release of this NAL. The report 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. A copy of the report must also be emailed to Ricardo
Durham at Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov, Sam Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov,
and Weiren Wang at Weiren.Wang@fcc.gov.
23. 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 Carl Wolf Billek, Senior Regulatory
Counsel, IDT Telecom, Inc., 550 Broad Street, 17th floor, Newark, New
Jersey 07102.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
IDT Telecom, Inc. also holds domestic and international Section 214
authorizations.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1).
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h).
The Commission adopted these requirements for digital wireless telephones
under the authority of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, codified
at Section 710(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. S: 610(b)(2)(C). See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd
16753, 16787 P: 89 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) ("Hearing Aid
Compatibility Order"); Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11221 (2005).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777 P: 56; 47 C.F.R.
S: 20.19(b)(1), (2).
The term "air interface" refers to the technical protocol that ensures
compatibility between mobile radio service equipment, such as handsets,
and the service provider's base stations. Currently, the leading air
interfaces include Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for
Mobile Communications (GSM), Integrated Digital Enhanced Network (iDEN)
and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) a/k/a Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 P: 65; 47 C.F.R.
S: 20.19(c), (d). The de minimis exception provides that manufacturers or
mobile service providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset
models per air interface are exempt from the hearing aid compatibility
deployment requirements, and manufacturers or mobile service providers
that offer three digital wireless handset models per air interface must
offer at least one compliant model. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e).
See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406 (2008) ("Hearing
Aid Compatibility First Report and Order"), Order on Reconsideration and
Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008).
See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3443 P:
91.
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 P: 89; see also
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Hearing Aid Compatibility
Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, Public
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 2004).
See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3445-46
P:P: 97-99.
Id. at P: 99.
Id. at 3450 P: 112.
Id.
See Letter from Kathy S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Howard S. Jonas,
CEO, IDT Corporation (November 23, 2009) ("LOI"). IDT Corporation is IDT
Telecom's parent company.
See Letter from Carl Wolf Billek, Senior Regulatory Counsel, IDT Telecom,
Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
(December 29, 2009) ("LOI Response").
Id. at 1.
Id. at 2. Following receipt of the Division's LOI, IDT Telecom posted the
required information for its hearing aid-compatible handset models on its
web site at www.tuyo.com. In addition, IDT Telecom submitted a hearing aid
compatibility status report for the period January 1, 2009 through
December 31, 2009 on December 16, 2009. See IDT Telecom, Inc. Hearing Aid
Compatibility Status Report (filed December 16, 2009) at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/100317/IDT%20Telecom,%20Inc._7.PDF.
To date, however, it does not appear that IDT Telecom has submitted its
January 15, 2009 report.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1).
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S: 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 P: 5 (1991),
recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern California"); see also
Telrite Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC
Rcd 7231, 7237 P: 12 (2008)("Telrite"); Regent USA, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523 P: 9 (2007); San Jose
Navigation, Inc., Forfeiture Order 22 FCC Rcd 1040, 1042 P: 9 (2007).
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450
P: 112.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f).
See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
7591 P: 4 (2002).
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, 17114, recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
Policy Statement"); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b), Note to paragraph (b)(4):
Section I. Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures.
See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P: 22, 17101 P: 29.
See also 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(4) ("The Commission and its staff may use
these guidelines in particular cases [and] retain the discretion to issue
a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to issue no
forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or additional sanctions as
permitted by the statute.") (emphasis added).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note to
paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
Forfeitures.
See American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 16432 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
2008), response pending ("ASTCA").
See ASTCA, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436-7 P: 10.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 16437 P: 11. See also Telrite, 23 FCC Rcd at 7244-45 (determining
that the failure to file Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets was a
continuing violation); Compass Global, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6138 (2008) (same); VCI Company, Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940
(2007) (determining that the failure to file Lifeline and Linkup
Worksheets was a continuing violation).
See, e.g., Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 P: 5 (1993)
(denying the mitigation claim of a manufacturer/distributor who thought
that the equipment certification and marketing requirements were
inapplicable, stating that its "prior knowledge or understanding of the
law is unnecessary to a determination of whether a violation existed ...
ignorance of the law is [not] a mitigating factor"); Lakewood Broadcasting
Service, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 2d 437, 438 P: 6
(1972) (denying a mitigation claim of a broadcast licensee who asserted an
unfamiliarity with the station identification requirements, stating that
licensees are expected "to know and conform their conduct to the
requirements of our rules"); Kenneth Paul Harris, Sr., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, forfeiture ordered, 15 FCC Rcd 23991 (Enf. Bur.
2000), 15 FCC Rcd 12933, 12935 P: 7 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (denying a mitigation
claim of a broadcast licensee, stating that its ignorance of the law did
not excuse the unauthorized transfer of the station); Maxwell Broadcasting
Group, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 784, 784 P: 2 (MMB
1993), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4322 (MMB
1993) (denying a mitigation claim of a noncommercial broadcast licensee,
stating that the excuse of "inadverten[ce], due to inexperience and
ignorance of the rules ... are not reasons to mitigate a forfeiture" for
violation of the advertisement restrictions).
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1).
See e.g., Locus Telecommunications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 330, 335 P: 13 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010)
("Locus") (quoting Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23
FCC Rcd at 3450 P: 112).
Locus, 25 FCC Rcd at 335 P: 14.
Id.
Id.
Id.
In this regard, we note that each manufacturer and service provider is
required to continuously maintain the required information concerning its
hearing aid-compatible handset models on its web site and to update the
web sites within 30 days of a change in its handset offerings.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h).
(Continued from previous page ...)
(continued ...)
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2041
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2041