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-08-SE-143  
     In the Matter of                                                        
                                                 )   NAL/Acct. No.:          
     American Samoa Telecommunications               200932100005            
     Authority                                   )                           
                                                     FRN: 0001726488         
                                                 )                           
                                                                             
                                                 )                           


                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: October 19, 2012 Released: October 19, 2012

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Forfeiture Order, we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount
       of six thousand dollars ($6,000) to American Samoa Telecommunications
       Authority (ASTCA) for willfully and repeatedly violating the hearing
       aid compatibility status report filing requirements set forth in the
       Commission's 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order.

   II. background

   2. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted
   several measures to enhance the ability of individuals 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. Specifically, the Commission adopted
   a standard for radio frequency interference (formerly the U3 rating, now
   the M3 rating) to enable acoustic coupling between digital wireless phones
   and hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling mode,  and a separate
   standard (formerly the U3T rating, now the T3 rating) to enable inductive
   coupling with hearing aids operating in telecoil mode. The Commission
   further established, for each standard, deadlines by which handset
   manufacturers and digital wireless service providers were required to
   offer specified numbers of digital wireless handset models rated hearing
   aid-compatible. Specifically, by September 16, 2005, manufacturers and
   service providers were required to offer at least two handset models per
   air interface that met the M3 rating for radio frequency interference. In
   addition, by September 18, 2006, manufacturers and service providers were
   required to offer at least two handset models per air interface that met
   the T3 rating for inductive coupling. These handset deployment
   requirements applied to each air interface over which service providers
   offer service.

   3. In order to monitor the availability of hearing aid-compatible digital
   wireless handsets, the Commission 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).

   4. In March 2008, the Spectrum Enforcement Division (Division) of the
   Enforcement Bureau received a complaint alleging that ASTCA had failed to
   file the required hearing aid compatibility status reports and therefore
   might not be in compliance with the hearing aid compatibility
   requirements. On March 24, 2008, the Division issued ASTCA a letter of
   inquiry (LOI). ASTCA responded to the Division's LOI on May 9, 2008. In
   its LOI Response, ASTCA explained that it failed to file the required
   reports because it was not aware of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order or
   its subsequent amendments. ASTCA also provided a list of all digital
   wireless handset models it offered since September 2005. Based on this
   list, the Division determined that ASTCA apparently offered its first
   digital wireless handset model meeting the Commission's standards for
   radio frequency interference, the Motorola v265, on October 27, 2005, and
   its second, the Motorola v266, on April 10, 2006. The Division also
   determined that ASTCA apparently offered its first inductive
   coupling-compliant handset model, the Motorola v323i, on March 21, 2007,
   and its second, the Motorola Razr v3m, on May 3, 2007.

   5. On November 5, 2008, the Division released a Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) against ASTCA, concluding that ASTCA
   apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the hearing aid compatibility
   status report filing requirements set forth in the Commission's 2003
   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order by failing to file seven hearing aid
   compatibility status reports between May 2004 and November 2007. The
   Division held that the failure to file hearing aid compatibility status
   reports had a continuing negative impact on the implementation of the
   hearing aid compatibility rules, and thus, the statute of limitations
   under Section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act did not begin to run until the
   reports were filed. Nevertheless, the Division exercised its prosecutorial
   discretion and proposed a $6,000 forfeiture for ASTCA's failure to file a
   single hearing aid compatibility status report, which was due on November
   19, 2007. The proposed $6,000 forfeiture reflected an increase above the
   $3,000 base forfeiture for failure to file required forms or information
   set forth in the Forfeiture Policy Statement  and Section 1.80(b) of the
   Commission's rules (Rules) in recognition of the Commission's heightened
   interest in ensuring full access to the public safety benefits of digital
   wireless service, as well as the importance of these reports in providing
   consumers with information and enabling accurate administration and
   enforcement of the Rules. The Division also admonished ASTCA for violating
   former Section 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) of the Rules by failing to offer, by
   September 16, 2005, at least two handset models that met at least a M3
   rating for radio frequency interference, and former Section 20.19(d)(2) of
   the Rules by failing to offer by September 18, 2006, at least two handset
   models for each air interface that met at least a T3 rating for inductive
   coupling.

   6. On December 5, 2008, ASTCA filed a response to the NAL, requesting
   cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture amount. In its NAL Response,
   ASTCA states that it failed to file hearing aid compatibility status
   reports because it was unfamiliar with the hearing aid compatibility
   status report filing requirements, citing the physical distance between
   American Samoa and Washington D.C. to explain its unfamiliarity. ASTCA
   further states that upon becoming aware of its obligation to file hearing
   aid compatibility status reports on May 9, 2008, it filed the data
   required in the reports with respect to all digital wireless handset
   models that it had purchased for resale at ASTCA retail outlets since
   September 2005. ASTCA then claims that the forfeiture should be reduced
   because its failure to file did not "directly thwart" public access to
   information regarding hearing aid compatibility features of digital
   wireless handsets because such information was made available to the
   public via the hearing aid-compatible handset labels required by former
   Section 20.19(f) of the Rules. ASTCA also claims that the forfeiture
   should be reduced because of its history of compliance with the rules and
   regulations of the Commission. Finally, ASTCA argues that the forfeiture
   should be reduced because ASTCA will pass on the cost of the forfeiture to
   its customers, thereby further burdening the lower socioeconomic
   demographic it serves.

   III. DISCUSSION

   7. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance
   with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the
   Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In examining ASTCA's NAL
   Response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we 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. As discussed below, we are not persuaded by ASTCA's legal
   arguments and find that a forfeiture was validly proposed against ASTCA
   for its continuing violation of the hearing aid compatibility status
   report filing requirements set forth in the Commission's 2003 Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Order.

   8. As noted above, ASTCA raises a number of arguments to support its
   request for reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. We find
   these arguments unpersuasive. First, ASTCA states that it did not
   knowingly fail to file its hearing aid compatibility status reports,
   suggesting that the violations were inadvertent and therefore not willful.
   Specifically, ASTCA argues that because of the physical distance between
   American Samoa and Washington D.C., ASTCA was unfamiliar with the 2003
   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order and its subsequent amendments. Licensees,
   however, are expected to know and comply with the Rules, regardless of
   their geographic distance from the FCC's headquarters. As the Commission
   has repeatedly held, violations resulting from inadvertent error or
   failure to become familiar with the FCC's requirements can be and often
   are willful violations. In the context of a forfeiture action, "willful"
   does not require a finding that the rule violation was intentional.
   Rather, the term "willful" means that the violator knew it was taking (or
   in this case, not taking) the action in question, irrespective of any
   intent to violate the law. In any event, as noted in the NAL, ASTCA's
   violations were repeated, which provides an independent basis for imposing
   the proposed forfeiture. Accordingly, ASTCA's unfamiliarity with the
   hearing aid compatibility requirements is not a mitigating circumstance
   warranting cancellation or downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture
   amount.

   9. Second, ATSCA seeks reduction or cancellation of the proposed
   forfeiture based on its subsequent remedial efforts. While ASTCA states
   that it filed the information required in its November 19, 2007, report on
   May 9, 2008, it did so more than five months after the filing deadline and
   only in response to the initiation of our investigation. Although we have
   adjusted forfeitures downward when a licensee makes voluntary disclosures
   to Commission staff and takes corrective measures after discovering its
   violations and prior to any Commission inquiry or initiation of
   enforcement action, we have not reduced forfeitures based on a licensee's
   remedial conduct after the initiation of an investigation. As the
   Commission has long held, corrective action to come into compliance with
   the Rules is expected, and such corrective action does not nullify or
   mitigate prior violations or associated forfeiture liability.

   10. ASTCA also challenges our assessment of the egregiousness of its
   violation, stating that its failure to file its hearing aid compatibility
   status reports only minimally impacted consumer access to information
   concerning the hearing aid compatibility of digital wireless handset
   models because such information was available on hearing aid-compatible
   digital wireless handset labels. We disagree. While consumers may access
   information about the hearing aid compatibility of particular digital
   wireless handsets on the labels required by the Rules, these labels do not
   provide the comprehensive, consolidated information available in the
   hearing aid compatibility status reports. Moreover, we note that ASTCA's
   failure to file its November 19, 2007, report, and the six preceding
   reports, also interfered with the ability of the Commission to fully
   monitor the deployment of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handset
   models in American Samoa. We are therefore unpersuaded that ASTCA's
   violations had a minimal impact, and decline to either reduce or cancel
   the proposed forfeiture on this basis.

   11. We also reject ASTCA's contention that its history of compliance
   warrants reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture amount.
   ASTCA acknowledges that it failed to file seven different hearing aid
   compatibility status reports. As stated in the NAL, each failure to file
   constitutes a separate continuing violation. Moreover, the Division
   admonished ASTCA for violating former Section 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) of the
   Rules by failing to offer, by September 16, 2005, at least two handset
   models for each air interface that met at least a M3-rating for radio
   frequency interference, and former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules by
   failing to offer by September 18, 2006, at least two handset models for
   each air interface that met at least a T3 rating for inductive coupling.
   Because of these multiple violations of our hearing aid compatibility
   requirements, ASTCA's past performance does not warrant reduction of the
   proposed forfeiture amount.

   12. We also decline to reduce the forfeiture based on ASTCA's unsupported
   assertion that the cost of the forfeiture will be passed through to its
   customers, many of whom, ASTCA asserts, are in lower socioeconomic
   brackets. ASTCA's response fails to take into account, however, the cost
   to the hearing impaired community of its failure to comply. Moreover,
   ASTCA does not allege that it is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. In
   the absence of such a claim and the requisite supporting evidence,ASTCA
   has failed to justify a reduction of the forfeiture on this basis.

   13. As detailed above, we have examined ASTCA's NAL Response pursuant to
   the statutory factors prescribed by Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act and in
   conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement. We conclude that ASTCA
   willfully and repeatedly violated the hearing aid compatibility status
   report filing requirements set forth in the Commission's 2003 Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Order by failing to file seven hearing aid compatibility
   status reports between May 2004 and November 2007. In this regard, we
   analyze the failure to file hearing aid compatibility status reports as
   continuing violations for which the statute of limitations does not begin
   to run until the requisite reports have been filed, thus curing the
   violations.  As such, we have the authority to impose forfeiture liability
   for each such continuing violation. Here, we exercised our prosecutorial
   discretion and declined to pursue forfeitures for six of those violations,
   and we find no basis for further limiting ASTCA's liability through
   reduction of the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL. Accordingly, we
   hold ASTCA liable for a total forfeiture in the amount of six thousand
   dollars ($6,000).

   IV. ORDERING Clauses

   14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and
   1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules, American Samoa Telecommunications
   Authority IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of six
   thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating the
   hearing aid compatibility status report filing requirements set forth in
   the Commission's 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order by failing to file
   the hearing aid compatibility status report due November 19, 2007.

   15.  Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
   Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within fifteen (15) calendar
   days after the release date of this Forfeiture Order.  If the forfeiture
   is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the
   U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to
   Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  American
   Samoa Telecommunications Authority shall send electronic notification of
   payment to Nissa Laughner at Nissa.Laughner@fcc.gov, Pamera Hairston at
   Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, and to Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on
   the date said payment is made.

   16. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
   transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and FRN
   referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form
   159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form
   159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and
   enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code).  Below
   are additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment
   you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. 

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. 

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101. 

   17. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
   to:  Chief Financial Officer - Financial Operations, Federal
   Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
   D.C. 20554.  If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please
   contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201,
   or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be
   sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Aliki
   Sene, Executive Director, American Samoa Telecommunications Authority,
   P.O. Box M, Pago Pago, American Samoa 96788, and to Gwen
   Tauiliili-Langkilde, Esq., counsel for American Samoa Telecommunications
   Authority, American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, P.O. Box M, Pago
   Pago, American Samoa 96799.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   John D. Poutasse

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Telephones, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16787, paras. 89-91
   (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) (Hearing Aid Compatibility
   Reconsideration Order). The Commission adopted these requirements for
   digital wireless telephones under the authority of the Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-394, 102 Stat. 976 (codified at
   47 U.S.C. S:S: 609 note, 610, 610 note).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,  18 FCC Rcd at 16777, 16779, paras.
   56, 63; see also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1), (2) (2003). The Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Order described the acoustic coupling and the inductive
   coupling (telecoil) modes as follows:

   In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding sounds,
   desired and undesired, and converts them into electrical signals. The
   electrical signals are amplified as needed and then converted back into
   sound by the hearing aid speaker. In telecoil mode, with the microphone
   turned off, the telecoil picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field
   generated by the voice coil of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible
   telephones, audio loop systems, or powered neck loops. The hearing aid
   converts the magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies them as
   needed, and converts them back into sound via the speaker. Using a
   telecoil avoids the feedback that often results from putting a hearing aid
   up against a telephone earpiece, can help prevent exposure to over
   amplification, and eliminates background noise, providing improved access
   to the telephone.

   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,  18 FCC Rcd at 16763, para. 22.

   Former Section 20.19(b)(1) of the Rules provided that a digital wireless
   handset model is deemed hearing aid-compatible for radio frequency
   interference if, at minimum, it receives a U3 rating as set forth in
   "American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility
   between Wireless Communications Device and Hearing Aids, ANSI
   C63.19-2001." 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1) (2007). Former Section 20.19(b)(2)
   of the Rules provided that a digital wireless handset model is deemed
   hearing aid-compatible for inductive coupling if, at minimum, it receives
   a U3T rating as set forth in ANSI C63.19-2001. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(2)
   (2007). On April 25, 2005, the Commission's Office of Engineering and
   Technology (OET) announced it would also certify digital wireless handsets
   as hearing aid-compatible based on the revised version of the standard,
   ANSI C63.19-2005. See OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing
   Aid Compatibility Standard Measurement Procedures and Rating Nomenclature,
   Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005); see also 47 C.F.R. S:
   20.19(b)(2) (2007). On June 6, 2006, the Commission's Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and OET announced the Commission would
   also certify digital wireless handset models as hearing aid-compatible
   based on the revised version of the standard, ANSI C63.19-2006. See
   Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and
   Technology Clarify Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility
   Standard, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6384 (WTB/OET 2006); see also 47
   C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(2) (2007). Thus, during the time period relevant here,
   applicants for certification could rely on either the 2001 version, the
   2005 version, or the 2006 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard. In
   addition, because the 2001 and 2005 versions of the ANSI C63.19 technical
   standard used the same technical criteria to determine the hearing aid
   compatibility and the inductive coupling capability of a wireless handset
   model, to avoid confusion, the "M" and "T" labeling system associated with
   the 2005 and 2006 versions of the standard may be used for compatibility
   testing performed under any of these versions. See Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11238, n.118.

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780, para. 65; see
   also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c), (d) (2006). These requirements did not apply
   to service providers and manufacturers that met the de minimis exception.
   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16775-76, para. 53.

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780, para. 65; see
   also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780, para. 65; see
   also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780, para. 65. The
   term "air interface" refers to the technical protocol that ensures
   compatibility between mobile radio service equipment, such as digital
   wireless handsets, and the service provider's base stations. When the
   Commission released the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the leading air
   interfaces included Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Time Digital
   Multiple Access (TDMA), Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), and
   Integrated Dispatch Enhanced Network (iDEN). See id. at 16771 n.127.

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787, para. 89; see
   also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and Handset
   Manufacturers, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (WTB 2004) (announcing the
   reporting dates set forth in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order). 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. See Amendment of the
   Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First
   Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3445-46, paras. 97-99 (2008); Order on
   Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249, 7250, para. 4 (2008)
   (Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order). The Commission also
   made clear that these reporting requirements applied to carriers
   qualifying for the de minimis exception. See id. at 3446, para. 99.

   Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC
   Enforcement Bureau, to Aliki Sene, Executive Director, American Samoa
   Telecommunications Authority (Mar. 24, 2008) (on file in EB-08-SE-143).

   Letter from Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde, Esq., Legal Counsel, American Samoa
   Telecommunications Authority, to Nissa Laughner, Attorney Advisor,
   Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (May 9, 2008) (on
   file in EB-08-SE-143) (LOI Response).

   See id. at 1-2.

   See id. at Attachment A.

   See id.

   See id.

   See American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 16432 (Enf. Bur. 2008).

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (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 47 C.F.R. S:S: 312, 503(b); Southern California Broadcasting
   Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991)
   (Southern California), recon. denied,  Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC
   Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern California Reconsideration Order); see also
   Telrite Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd
   7231, 7237, para. 12 (2008) (Telrite), consent decree ordered, Order and
   Consent Decree, 27 FCC Rcd 4110 (2012); Regent USA, Inc., Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523, para. 9 (2007)
   (forfeiture paid); San Jose Navigation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd
   1040, 1042, para. 9 (2007), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent
   Decree, 25 FCC Rcd 1494 (2010).

   Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
   pursuant to Section 503(b) 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:S: 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362, para. 9 (2001),
   forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626 (2002); Southern
   California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5.

   See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16435, para. 6.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6)(B).

   See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16437, para. 11.

   See id.

   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 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recon.
   denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b).

   See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436, para. 10.

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) (2007).

   Id. S: 20.19(d)(2) (2007).

   See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16437-38, paras. 12-13.

   See Letter from Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde, Esq., Legal Counsel, American
   Samoa Telecommunications Authority, to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum
   Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 5, 2008) (on file in
   EB-08-SE-143) (NAL Response).

   See id. at 1-2.

   See id. at 2.

   See id. Under former Section 20.19(f) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(f)
   (2007), the Commission required wireless handset manufacturers to label
   the exterior packaging of each of their handsets with the handset's
   technical rating, and to include more detailed information on the ANSI
   standard either in a product insert or in the handset's manual. See also
   Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order,  20 FCC Rcd at 11238,
   para. 33 ("We continue to believe that the two-pronged approach --
   placement of a prominent exterior label indicating the handset's technical
   rating, combined with more detailed information located inside the package
   -- will provide consumers with a quick synopsis of the information
   necessary to make an informed decision without impairing the ability of
   digital wireless handset manufacturers and service providers to engage in
   myriad marketing efforts."); Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd
   at 16785, paras. 83, 85-86 (adopting Section 20.19(f) of the Rules). The
   Commission also imposed similar labeling requirements on service
   providers. See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(f) (2007); see also Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785, para. 83 (requiring "service
   providers to ensure that the label is made visible to individuals with
   hearing disabilities so they may determine which wireless telephone best
   meets their individual needs"). As revised by the Hearing Aid
   Compatibility First Report and Order, Section 20.19(f)(1) of the Rules
   requires manufacturers and service providers to ensure that each hearing
   aid-compatible digital wireless handset is labeled with the appropriate
   rating, and clarifies that such rating is the lowest rating assigned to
   that handset for any air interface or frequency band. See 47 C.F.R. S:
   20.19(f)(1); see also Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23
   FCC Rcd at 3451, para. 116 (finding that "the most useful information for
   consumers is a single `worst case' rating constituting the handset's
   lowest rating for any air interface or frequency band").

   See NAL Response at 2.

   See id.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); see also id. S: 503(b)(2)(B) (setting forth the
   statutory maximum forfeiture for common carriers). The Commission has
   amended Section 1.80(b)(2) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2), three
   times to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the
   inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Federal Civil Penalties
   Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (codified
   at 28 U.S.C. S: 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement
   Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (codified at 31 U.S.C. S:
   3720B-3720E)). The most recent inflation adjustment took effect September
   2, 2008, and applies to violations occurring after that date. See
   Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of
   Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008)
   (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from
   $130,000/$1,300,000 to $150,000/$1,500,000); 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5. The
   violation in this case occurred before September 2, 2008, and thus, the
   forfeiture imposed against ASTCA for this violation may not exceed the
   lesser statutory amounts. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2) (2007).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   See supra note 22.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   See NAL Response at 1-2.

   See id.

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099, para. 22 ("[t]he
   Commission expects [each licensee], and it is each licensee's obligation,
   to know and comply with all of the Commission's rules"); see also, e.g.,
   Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of
   Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 7433, 7437, para. 12 (2004) (Discussion
   Radio) (by issuing forfeitures for violations that may have been
   inadvertent, the bureau "impel[s] . . . licensees to become familiar with
   the terms of their licenses and the applicable rules, and to adopt
   procedures, including periodic review operations, which will ensure that
   stations will be operated in substantial compliance with their licenses
   and the Commission's rules") (quoting Crowell-Collier Broadcasting Corp.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 44 FCC 2d 2444, 2449-50 (1961)), forfeiture
   ordered, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2206 (Med. Bur. 2009)).

   See, e.g., Emery Telephone, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
   23854, 23859, para. 12 (1998) (Emery Telephone) (by issuing forfeitures
   for inadvertent violations corrected after the fact, "the Bureau impels
   licensees to be more familiar with the applicable rules in structuring
   future conduct"), recon. dismissed in part and denied in part, Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999);  Profit Enterprises, Inc.,
   Forfeiture Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846, para. 5 (1993) (in denying a
   mitigation claim based on the mistaken belief that certain Rules were
   inapplicable, the Commission explained that "prior knowledge or
   understanding of the law is unnecessary to a determination of whether a
   violation existed . . . . [I]gnorance of the law is [not] a mitigating
   factor."), cancelled on other grounds, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14999 (1997); PJB
   Communications of Virginia, Inc.,  Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd
   2088, 2088, para. 5 (1992) (stating that inadvertent violations are
   "willful" violations as "[a]ll that is necessary is that the licensee knew
   it was doing the act in question"); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at
   4387, para. 3 ("`inadvertence,' . . . is at best, ignorance of the law,
   which the Commission does not consider a mitigating circumstance");
   Lakewood Broadcasting Service, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC
   2d 437, 438, para. 6 (1972) ("If ignorance of [the Rules] were accepted as
   an excuse, we would be encouraging licensees to know as little as
   possible.").

   See, e.g., Tidewater Communications, LLC, Order on Review, 25 FCC Rcd
   1675, 1676, para. 5 (2010) ("To be willful, the violator must consciously
   commit or omit certain actions and need not be aware that such actions
   violate the Rules."); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5
   (holding that, consistent with the Congressional record accompanying the
   1982 amendments to the Act, a "willful" violation need not be
   intentional); Princess K Fishing Corp., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2606,
   2608-09, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (stating that a licensee need not have
   the mens rea to commit a violation in order for a violation to be
   "willful"), recon. dismissed, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd
   4707 (Enf. Bur. 2012).

   See supra note 16; see also H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51
   (1982) ("`willful' means that the licensee knew that he was doing the act
   in question, regardless of whether there was an intent to violate the
   law").

   See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16437, para. 11.

   See NAL Response at 2.

   See id. at 2. In response to the LOI, ASTCA not only provided the
   information required, but it provided additional information as well. With
   respect to the information ASTCA was required to provide, ASTCA was under
   the obligation to be completely candid in its response to a Commission
   inquiry. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(a), (b) (prohibiting in any investigatory
   or adjudicatory matter, the provision of incorrect material factual
   information or the omission of material factual information when necessary
   to prevent information from being false or misleading, whether done
   intentionally or "without a reasonable basis for believing that any such
   material factual statement is correct and not misleading"); see also
   Southern California Reconsideration Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 3455, para. 7
   (finding that a licensee's "frank" response to a letter of inquiry did not
   warrant a downward adjustment as "complete candor" is required).

   See, e.g., Sutro Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
   15274, 15277, para. 10 (2004) ("In forfeiture proceedings, [the
   Commission] ha[s] generally provided reductions based on the good faith
   corrective efforts of a violator when those corrective efforts were taken
   prior to Commission notification of the violation."); Emery Telephone, 13
   FCC Rcd at 23856, 23858, paras. 5, 10 (affirming the bureau's decision to
   reduce an aggregate forfeiture from $12,000 to $6,000 for failing to file
   certain required notifications because the carrier voluntarily disclosed
   the violations and promptly filed the required forms); Victoria Cellular
   Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 7853, 7854, paras. 9-11
   (1992) (reducing a proposed forfeiture from $15,000 to $6,000 for failing
   to file certain required notifications because the carrier made a
   voluntary disclosure); see also  47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(6), Note to
   paragraph (b)(6): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
   Forfeitures ("The Commission and its staff 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.").

   See, e.g., International Broadcasting Corp.,  Order on Review, 25 FCC Rcd
   1538, 1540, para. 5 (2010) ("[T]he forfeiture provisions of section 503 of
   the Communications Act are intended to encourage broadcast station
   licensees to take appropriate action to prevent violations. Basing
   mitigation or cancellation of a forfeiture upon corrective action taken
   subsequent to the misconduct upon which liability is based would tend to
   encourage remedial, rather than preventive, action.") (quoting
   International Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC 2d
   793, 793, para. 5 (1969)); Cumulus Licensing Corp.,  Memorandum Opinion
   and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5286, 5290-91, para. 12 (2008) (finding that
   post-notification remedial efforts do not warrant mitigation of a
   forfeiture); CB Radio, Inc.,  Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd
   8836, 8839-40, para. 9 (2007) ("It is well established that
   post-investigational efforts to correct a violation do not mitigate the
   forfeiture or warrant a reduction in the assessed forfeiture amount.");
   Seawest Yacht Brokers, Forfeiture Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099, para. 7
   (1994) ("[C]orrective action taken to come into compliance with Commission
   rules or policy is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior
   forfeitures or violations.").

   See NAL Response at 2.

   See supra note 31.

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787, para. 91
   (stating that hearing aid compatibility status reports "should provide as
   much specific information as possible concerning the cost of implementing
   hearing aid compatibility into the remaining digital wireless phones
   manufactured, as well as a comprehensive list of all such phones offered
   at that time"); see also Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order,
   23 FCC Rcd at 3444, para. 96 (revised hearing aid compatibility status
   report filing requirements require each service provider to "include an
   explanation of its methodology for dividing its hearing aid-compatible
   phones into different levels of functionality, which will help the
   Commission as well as the public know the range of compatible handsets
   that are being made available"); Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration
   Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11241, para. 43 (identifying the "Commission's
   interest in having timely, consolidated information" in the form of
   hearing aid compatibility status reports).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787, para. 89
   (stating that one of the purposes of the hearing aid compatibility status
   report filing requirements is to allow the Commission to monitor progress
   in the implementation of the hearing aid compatibility rules).

   See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436, para. 6.

   See id. at 16437.

   See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16437-38, paras. 12-13.

   Section 504(c) of the Act, 47 C.F.R. S: 504(c), prohibits the use of a
   non-final, non-adjudicated forfeiture proceeding in any other proceeding
   before the Commission. The Commission, however, may consider the
   underlying facts associated with non-final, non-adjudicated forfeiture
   proceedings. See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17102-03,
   paras. 32-35. Such facts may be used to demonstrate "a pattern of
   non-complaint behavior against a licensee in a subsequent renewal,
   forfeiture, transfer, or other proceeding." Id. at 17103, para. 34; see
   also Paulino Bernal Evangelism,  Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd
   9532, 9535, para. 11 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (in considering whether a history of
   compliance exists, the Commission may consider violations occurring in
   cases where there has been no final determination), modified on other
   grounds,  Order on Review, 23 FCC Rcd 15959 (Enf. Bur. 2006).

   See NAL Response at 2.

   As stated in the NAL, the Commission requires federal tax returns for the
   most recent three-year period, financial statements prepared according to
   generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP), or some other reliable and
   objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
   financial status. See NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 16439, para. 19. Any claim of
   inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by
   reference to the financial documentation submitted. See, e.g., Discussion
   Radio,  19 FCC Rcd at 7441, para. 28.

   See, e.g., Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   26 FCC Rcd 12845, 12847, para. 6 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (finding that, in the
   absence of adequate supporting documentation, the bureau will not consider
   a request for downward adjustment of a forfeiture based on an inability to
   pay); Casey Network LLC,  Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19
   FCC Rcd 14800, 14800, para. 3 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (finding that, in the
   absence of adequate supporting documentation, the licensee is not entitled
   to a downward adjustment for an inability to pay based on service to "a
   shrinking Alabama town whose only industry has mostly shifted to Mexico,"
   and claims of "severe economic depression"); Forrester et al., Forfeiture
   Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11030, 11031-32, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2004) (finding that,
   in the absence of supporting documentation, the licensee is not entitled
   to a downward adjustment for an inability to pay based on service to "a
   very small and economically depressed area" and claims of "serious
   financial difficulties").

   See, e.g., Compass Global, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6138, para. 29 (2008) (finding that failures
   to file are continuing violations that toll the statute of limitations for
   forfeiture until the violations are cured); Telrite,  23 FCC Rcd at 7244,
   para. 30 (same); VCI Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
   Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940, para. 20 (2007) (same).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

   Id. S: 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).

   An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page . . . )

   (continued . . . )

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1681

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1681