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-170
In the Matter of
) NAL/Acct. No. 201132100007
Cbeyond Communications, LLC
) FRN 0003759602
)
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: October 26, 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 Cbeyond Communications, LLC ("Cbeyond") d/b/a Beyond Mobile, a
reseller of mobile 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 forfeiture in
the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000).
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 manufacturers and 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 web sites. 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. Cbeyond failed to timely file the required report for the period from
July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 (due January 15, 2009). The
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB") referred Cbeyond's
apparent violation of the hearing aid compatibility reporting
requirements to the Enforcement Bureau for action.
5. On October 14, 2009, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the
Enforcement Bureau sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Cbeyond.
Cbeyond responded to the LOI on December 4, 2009. On December 4,
2009, Cbeyond also filed its hearing aid compatibility status report
for the July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 reporting period. In
its report, Cbeyond stated that it is a relatively new service
provider and was unaware of the requirement to file a hearing aid
compatibility status report for the calendar year 2008. Cbeyond also
admitted in its report that it failed to post all of the required
information concerning its handsets on its publicly-accessible web
site during the reporting period. Specifically, Cbeyond stated in its
report that "[d]uring the reporting period, Cbeyond posted on its
website information describing its hearing aid-compatible models and
the capabilities of each. The information posted did not include
ratings, which were developed after the reporting period."
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 file
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
Cbeyond 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. Cbeyond admitted that it did not
file the required hearing aid compatibility status report on the
January 15, 2009 due date. Accordingly, we find Cbeyond in apparent
willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section
20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.
B. Failure to Post Required Information Concerning Hearing Aid-Compatible
Handset Models on its 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. 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. Cbeyond admitted that it failed to provide ratings
information for its hearing aid-compatible handset models on its web
site during the reporting period. Accordingly, we find that Cbeyond
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the web site posting
requirements set forth in Section 20.19(h) of the Rules.
C. Proposed Forfeiture
8. 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 Cbeyond 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.
9. 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."
10. 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 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 upward the base forfeiture
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 hearing aid
compatibility reports. Consistent with ASTCA, we believe the
established $6,000 base forfeiture for each hearing aid compatibility
reporting violation should apply here.
11. 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.
Cbeyond'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 Cbeyond 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.
12. 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).
13. As noted above, while Cbeyond did provide some limited information,
Cbeyond admitted in its Report that it failed to provide information
about the ratings of its hearing aid-compatible handset models on its
web site-information that the Commission deemed important for
consumers with hearing disabilities. Accordingly, we propose a
forfeiture of $6,000 against Cbeyond 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.
IV. ORDERING clauses
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Cbeyond IS NOTIFIED of its
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twelve thousand
dollars ($12,000) for its failure to timely file its hearing aid
compatibility status reports in apparent willful violation of the
requirements set forth in 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.
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, Cbeyond 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.
Cbeyond also shall send electronic notification to JoAnn Lucanik at
JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov and Karen Mercer at Karen.Mercer@fcc.gov on the
date said payment is made.
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 Karen Mercer at Karen.Mercer@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-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 Richard J. Batelaan, Chief
Operating Officer, Cbeyond Communications, LLC, 320 Interstate North
Parkway, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30339, and to John J. Heitmann,
Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren, 3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 400,
Washington, D.C. 20007.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
Cbeyond also holds Section 214 authority from the Commission to operate as
a facilities-based carrier.
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 Aid 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 Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at
3445-46 P:P: 97-99.
Id. at 3446 P: 99.
Id. at 3450 P: 112.
Id.
See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Mr. Richard J.
Batelaan, Chief Operations Officer, Cbeyond, Inc. d/b/a/ Beyond Mobile
(November 3, 2009) ("LOI").
See Letter from John J. Heitmann, Counsel to Cbeyond Communications, LLC
to Ms. Karen Mercer, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Federal Communications
Commission (December 4, 2009) ("LOI Response"). Cbeyond was granted an
extension until December 4, 2009, to respond to the LOI. Cbeyond requested
that its entire response be accorded confidential treatment because it
contained company-specific and competitively-sensitive information
concerning its business operations and customers. Id. This kind of blanket
confidentiality request is overbroad, especially with regard to
information that is otherwise in the public domain. However, we will defer
action on the confidentiality request, as we need not disclose potentially
sensitive information in this NAL. See 47 C.F.R. S: 0.459(d)(3).
See Cbeyond Communications, LLC Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report
(filed December 4, 2009) ("Report") at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020351164.
Id. at Cover Letter.
Id. at 7-8.
Id. at 8. It also appears from the information before us that Cbeyond
failed to provide an explanation of the rating system on its web site.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1).
Report at Cover Letter.
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 Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 P:
112.
Report at 8. Subsequent to receipt of the LOI, CBeyond posted the required
information for its hearing aid-compatible handset models on its web site
at
www.cbeyond.net/small-business-solutions/core-packages/beyondvoice-mobile-edition/hearing-aid-compatible-(hac)-devices.
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, 17113, 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 NAL").
See ASTCA NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436-47 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., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 P: 5 (1993), cancelled on other grounds,
12 FCC Rcd 14999 (1997) (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, 15 FCC Rcd
12933, 12935 P: 7 (Enf. Bur. 2000), forfeiture ordered, 15 FCC Rcd 23991
(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 10-2049
3
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2049