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-180
In the Matter of
) NAL/Acct. No. 201132100009
Lightyear Network Solutions, LLC
) FRN 0010045128
)
ORDER AND Notice OF apparent liability for forfeiture
Adopted: November 22, 2010 Released: November 22, 2010
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that Lightyear Network Solutions, LLC ("Lightyear"), 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). We also direct Lightyear 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 consumers with hearing loss
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. Lightyear failed to file the required hearing aid compatibility status
report for the period from July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 (due
January 15, 2009). It also appeared that Lightyear did not meet all
the information posting requirements for its publicly accessible web
site. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB") referred
Lightyear's apparent violation of the reporting requirements to the
Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action.
5. On November 23, 2009, the Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement
Division ("Division") issued Lightyear a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI").
Lightyear responded to the LOI on December 7, 2009. In its response,
Lightyear states that for its wireless services, it has a contract
with Zefcom LLC d.b.a. Telispire PCS ("Telispire"), and further states
that on January 15, 2009, Telispire filed a hearing aid compatibility
status report on Lightyear's behalf. Lightyear encloses a copy of the
Telispire January 15, 2009, hearing aid compatibility status report,
and a January 7, 2009, letter from Telispire stating that it would
file the hearing aid compatibility report on Lightyear's behalf,
provided Lightyear certifies in response to the letter that it carries
the requisite number of hearing aid-compatible handsets in accordance
with FCC Rules. Lightyear also states in its response that it has
always had a publicly accessible web site that provides a complete
list of hearing aid-compatible models offered and the ratings of those
models. It further states that it recently upgraded its web site to
include a rating system explanation for its rated hearing
aid-compatible handset models.
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 Lightyear 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. To date, Commission records show no January
15, 2009 status report on file for Lightyear. While Commission records
do confirm that Telispire filed a hearing aid compatibility status
report on January 15, 2009, Telispire's report fails to satisfy
Lightyear's filing requirements. The report makes no reference to
Lightyear and therefore does not provide a discernible way for the
Commission or consumers to determine the number, model, or technical
standards of the wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets that
Lightyear offered - thus frustrating the main objectives of the
filing requirement. Regardless of any contractual arrangement between
Telispire and Lightyear, the relevant Commission rules and orders make
it clear that the filing obligation ultimately rests with Lightyear.
Moreover, Lightyear is responsible for the acts or omissions of its
employees or third party contractors. Accordingly, we find that
Lightyear 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 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. Lightyear offers a number of wireless phones and plans which are
advertised on its publicly accessible website. Although Lightyear
included a list of hearing aid-compatible handsets and their ratings
on its website, it admitted that it did not include an explanation of
the hearing aid compatibility rating system on its web site. An
explanation of the rating system is essential to enable consumers to
fully understand the available choices and make informed decisions. In
light of Lightyear's admissions, we find that Lightyear failed to
timely meet the web site information posting requirements in apparent
willful and repeated violation of 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 Lightyear 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 timely 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 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 loss 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
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.
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.
Lightyear's failure to file the 2009 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.
Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $6,000 against Lightyear 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, Lightyear states that on its publicly accessible web
site, it provides a list of hearing aid-compatible models offered and
the ratings of those models; however, Lightyear admits that until
recently, it failed to provide an explanation of the rating system on
its web site - information that the Commission deemed important for
consumers with hearing loss. Lightyear presents 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 Lightyear 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.
1. Finally, it appears that Lightyear 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 Lightyear's compliance with the hearing aid compatibility
handset requirements during that period. We accordingly direct
Lightyear to submit the report within thirty (30) days of the
release of this NAL.
IV. ordering clauses
1. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Lightyear Network Solutions, LLC,
is NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount
of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) for its failure to file the
required hearing aid compatibility status report 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.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Lightyear SHALL PAY the full
amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
3. 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.
Lightyear also shall send electronic notification to JoAnn Lucanik at
JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov and to Jacqueline Johnson at
Jacqui.Johnson@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.
15. 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 e-mailed to JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov and to Jacqui.Johnson@fcc.gov.
16. 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.
1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of
the Act and Section 20.19(i) of the Rules, Lightyear SHALL SUBMIT
the report described in paragraph 15 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 JoAnn Lucanik at JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov, Jacqueline
Johnson at Jacqui.Johnson@fcc.gov and Winsel Black at
Winsel.Black@fcc.gov and James Swartz at James.Swartz@fcc.gov.
17. 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 John J. Greive, Esq., Vice President and
General Counsel, Lightyear Network Solutions, LLC, 1901 Eastpoint
Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky 40223.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
Lightyear Network Solutions, LLC also holds both 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:S: 20.19(c) and (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 to J. Sherman Henderson III, President & CEO, Lightyear
Network Solutions, LLC (November 23, 2009) ("LOI").
See Letter from John Grieve, Vice President and General Counsel, Lightyear
Network Solutions, LLC, to Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
Bureau (December 4, 2009) (received December 7, 2009) ("LOI Response").
Zefcom LLC doing business as Telispire PCS provides wireless service
solutions for independent and competitive local exchange companies.
See Telispire's Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report (filed January 15,
2009)("2009 Report") at http://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520193653.
See Letter from David Cook, Telispire, to Steve Ray, Lightyear (January 7,
2009)(January 7, 2009 letter). The January 7, 2009, letter includes a
countersignature by Steve Ray, on behalf of Lightyear Network Solutions,
LLC, certifying that Lightyear meets the hearing aid compatibility
requirements.
See LOI Response.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1).
The 2009 Report filed by Telispire via ECFS lists only Zefcom LLC d/b/a
Telispire under the Section I. Company Information. See 2009 Report. The
report lists handset models and the months in which the models were
offered, but provides no information or indicia that any company other
than Telispire offered the listed handsets during the months reported.
Furthermore, the cover letter accompanying the 2009 report states that
Zefcon LLC d/b/a/ Telispire PCS submits "its" Hearing Aid Compatibility
Status report for Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report. See Letter from
Kenneth C. Johnson, Esquire, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission (January 15, 2009).
See, e.g., Eure Family Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 (2002); MTD, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 6 FCC Rcd 34, 35 (1991); Wagenvoord Broadcasting Co., Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 35 FCC 2d 361 (1972).
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 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450
P: 112.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h).
Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that "[t]he term `repeated', ...
means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such
commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. S:
312(f)(2). As with the definition of "willful," the Commission has
interpreted the term to apply to forfeiture proceedings. See Southern
California, supra.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h).
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 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 P: 30
(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 P: 29 (2008)
(same); VCI Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940 P: 20 (2007) (determining that the failure
to file Lifeline and Linkup Worksheets was a continuing violation).
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.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h). 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2226
3
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2226