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

   In the Matter of Northeast Telephone Services, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.:
   EB-SED-13-00006159 NAL/Acct. No.: 201332100019 FRN: 0003758588




                  Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture

   Adopted: September 24, 2013 Released: September 24, 2013

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we propose a
       forfeiture in the amount of five thousand four hundred dollars
       ($5,400) against Northeast Telephone Services, Inc. (Northeast).^ We
       find that Northeast apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the
       digital wireless handset hearing aid compatibility status report
       filing requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the
       Commission's rules (Rules).^

   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.^
       Specifically, the Commission adopted a standard for radio frequency
       interference (the M3 rating) to enable acoustic coupling between
       digital wireless phones and hearing aids operating in acoustic
       coupling mode, ^ and a separate standard (the T3 rating) to enable
       inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in telecoil mode.^ In
       the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the
       Commission established various deadlines by which manufacturers and
       service providers were required to offer specified numbers of digital
       wireless handset models rated hearing aid-compatible.^

    3. The Commission also adopted reporting requirements to ensure that it
       could monitor the availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets and
       to provide valuable information to the public concerning the technical
       testing and commercial availability of these handsets.^ 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, and then annually thereafter through the fifth year
       of implementation.^ In its 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report
       and Order, the Commission indefinitely extended these reporting
       requirements with certain modifications.^

    4. Northeast failed to timely file its hearing aid compatibility status
       report for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. The
       required report was due on January 17, 2012.^ On or about September
       20, 2012, Northeast, through its counsel, disclosed to the
       Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless Bureau) that
       Northeast had not met the January 17 deadline, and requested that the
       Wireless Bureau open a filing window to permit the late filing of that
       report. The Wireless Bureau opened a filing window on September 25,
       2012, at which time Northeast filed its status report for 2011.^ The
       Wireless Bureau subsequently referred Northeast's apparent violation
       of the hearing aid compatibility status report filing requirement to
       the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau).

    5. On May 1, 2013, the Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a
       letter of inquiry (LOI) to Northeast, directing the company to submit
       a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to
       Northeast's failure to timely file its hearing aid compatibility
       status report by the January 17, 2012 deadline.^ Northeast responded
       on May 20, 2013.^ In its LOI Response, Northeast contends that its
       failure to submit the report in a timely fashion was due to
       "inadvertent oversight," and that it immediately addressed the problem
       as soon as it was discovered.^

   III. DISCUSSION

          A. Failure to Timely File Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report

    6. Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules requires service providers to file
       hearing aid compatibility status reports.^ These reports are necessary
       to enable the Commission to perform its enforcement function and to
       evaluate whether Northeast 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.^ As the
       record in this case reflects, Northeast failed to timely file the
       hearing aid compatibility status report due on January 17, 2012, in
       apparent willful^ and repeated^ violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of
       the Rules.^

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

    7. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
       amended (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 first issue a notice of
       apparent liability for forfeiture 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 the Rules.^ We conclude that
       Northeast is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its failure to
       timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in
       apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the
       Rules.^

    8. 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
       requirements are guidelines lending 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 in Section 503 of the Act.^

    9. We have exercised our discretion to set a higher base forfeiture
       amount for violations of the wireless hearing aid compatibility
       reporting requirements. In ASTCA, we found that the status reports are
       essential to implement and enforce 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 ensure that the digital wireless industry meets the needs of the
       increasing number of consumers with hearing loss.^ In an analogous
       context, we noted that when setting an $8,000 base forfeiture for
       violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset labeling
       requirements, the Commission emphasized that consumers 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 a hearing aid
       compatibility report.^ Consistent with ASTCA, we believe the $6,000
       base forfeiture for violation of the hearing aid compatibility
       reporting requirement should apply here.

   10. The $6,000 base forfeiture, however, is subject to adjustment. In
       assessing forfeitures, 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."^ In its LOI Response, Northeast
       suggests that we consider its contention that its failure to timely
       file was "inadvertent." We decline to do so. It is well established
       that administrative oversight or inadvertence is not a mitigating
       factor warranting a downward adjustment of a forfeiture.^ Similarly, a
       violator's lack of knowledge or erroneous belief does not warrant a
       forfeiture's downward adjustment.^ The severity of Northeast's
       apparent violation, however, is slightly mitigated by its prompt
       voluntary disclosure to Commission staff of the failure to timely file
       and its remedial efforts, both of which preceded the Bureau's
       investigation and the initiation of enforcement action.^ As such, we
       find that, based on the particular circumstances of this case, some
       reduction of the forfeiture is appropriate.^ In view of all the
       factual circumstances presented, and having considered the statutory
       factors enumerated above, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of
       $5,400 against Northeast for failing to timely file its hearing aid
       compatibility status report for the period ending December 31, 2011,
       by the January 17, 2012 deadline, in apparent willful and repeated
       violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.^

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   11. 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 of the Commission's rules,^ Northeast Telephone Services, Inc. is
       NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
       five thousand four hundred dollars ($5,400) for willful and repeated
       violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Commission's rules.^

   12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, within thirty (30) calendar days after the release
       date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Northeast
       Telephone Services, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed
       forfeiture, or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or
       cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with paragraph 15,
       below.

   13. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
       wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number
       and FRN referenced above. Northeast Telephone Services, Inc. shall
       send electronic notification of payment to Pamera Hairston at
       Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov and to Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov
       on the date said payment is made. 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.

   14. 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, DC 20554. If you have questions regarding payment
       procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
       phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by email, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   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 Commission's rules.^ The written
       statement must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC
       20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division, and
       must include the NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption. The
       statement must also be emailed to Pamera Hairston at
       Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov and to Samantha Peoples at
       Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov. 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.

   16. 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 W. Michael George, Chief Executive
       Officer, Northeast Telephone Service, Inc., P.O. Box 219, 6402 Howell
       Avenue, Collinston, LA 71229, and to Harold Mordkofsky, Esq.,
       Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Pendergast, LLP, Counsel to
       Northeast Telephone Services, Inc., 2121 L Street, N.W., Suite 300,
       Washington, D.C. 20037.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   John D. Poutasse

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   ^ Northeast Telephone Services, Inc. (formerly Northeast Telecom, Inc.) is
   a Tier III mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) that resells wireless
   telecommunications services for Telispire PCS (Telispire). Telispire, in
   turn, is an MVNO for, and is wholly-owned by, the National Rural
   Telecommunications Cooperative. Tier III carriers are non-nationwide
   wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer subscribers as of
   the end of 2001. See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
   Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II
   Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers, Order to Stay, 17
   FCC Rcd 14841, 14847-48, paras. 22-24 (2002). Northeast also holds a
   Section 214 authorization for the resale of international long distance
   service. See File No. ITC-214-19991029-00671 (granted Nov. 26, 1999).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(i)(1).

   ^ See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
   Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753 (2003),
   Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003), Order on Reconsideration and Further
   Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11221 (2005) (Hearing Aid
   Compatibility 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. SS 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). The Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Order described the acoustic coupling and 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.

   18 FCC Rcd at 16763, para. 22.

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(b). As subsequently amended, Section 20.19(b)(1)
   of the Rules provided that, for the period beginning January 1, 2010, a
   wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-compatible for radio frequency
   interference if, at a minimum, it meets the M3 rating associated with the
   technical standard set forth in the standard document, "American National
   Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless
   Communication Devices and Hearing Aids," ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007)
   (ANSI C63.19-2007), except that grants of certification issued before
   January 1, 2010, under earlier versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for
   hearing aid compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(b)(1). Section
   20.19(b)(2) provided that, for the period beginning January 1, 2010, a
   wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-compatible for inductive coupling
   if, at minimum, it meets the T3 rating associated with the technical
   standard set forth in ANSI C63.19-2007, except that grants of
   certification issued before January 1, 2010, under earlier versions of
   ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R.
   S 20.19(b)(2). Effective August 16, 2012, a further amendment to Section
   20.19(b) permits manufacturers to test handsets for hearing aid
   compatibility using the 2011 version of the ANSI standard, ANSI
   C63.19-2011, as an alternative to ANSI C63.19-2007.  See Amendment of the
   Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Third
   Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 3732 (WTB/OET 2012).

   ^ See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3418-20, paras.
   35-36 (2008), Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008)
   (Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order).

   ^ See id.  at 3443, para. 91; see also 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(i).

   ^ 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 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 2004).

   ^ See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3444-46,
   paras. 97-99, 101. The extensions of these reporting requirements became
   effective on December 13, 2011. See 76 Fed. Reg. 77,415 (Dec. 13, 2011).

   ^ Service providers are required to file their hearing aid compatibility
   status reports on January 15th of each year. See 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(i)(1).
   However, because January 15, 2012 fell on a Sunday and January 16, 2012
   was a federal holiday, the report was due the next business day, January
   17, 2012. See id. S 1.4(e)(1) (defining "holiday" to include Sunday and
   federal holidays); Id. S 1.4(j) (when a deadline falls on a holiday, the
   deadline is extended until the next business day); see also Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Status Reporting, http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac.

   ^ See Northeast Telephone Services, Inc.,  Hearing Aid Compatibility
   Report (Sept. 25, 2012),
   http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/120307/5416263_NorthEastTele.PDF.

   ^ See Letter from John D. Poutasse, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Michael George, Chief Executive Officer,
   Northeast Telephone Services, Inc. (May 1, 2013) (on file in
   EB-SED-13-00006159).

   ^ See Letter from Harold Mordkofsky, Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy
   & Prendergast, LLP, Counsel to Northeast Telephone Services, Inc., to
   Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (May 20,
   2013) (on file in EB-SED-13-00006159) (LOI Response).

   ^ Id., Attachment at 1-2. Northeast also includes in its LOI response a
   request--pursuant to Sections 1.3 and 1.925(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. SS
   1.3, 1.925(b)(3)--for waiver of the requirements of Section 20.19(i)(1) so
   that we may treat its hearing aid compatibility status report as timely
   filed. See LOI Response, Attachment at 3-4. The Bureau referred
   Northeast's request for rule waiver to the Wireless Bureau. On September
   20, 2013, the Spectrum and Competition Policy Division of the Wireless
   Bureau denied Northeast's request for waiver of Section 20.19(i)(1). See
   Northeast Telephone Services, Inc., Order, DA 13-1927 (Wireless Tel. Bur.
   rel. Sept. 20, 2013) (finding that "Northeast's failure to familiarize
   itself with the Commission's reporting requirements does not constitute a
   unique or unusual circumstance that would justify waiving the January 17,
   2012 filing deadline").

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(i)(1).

   ^ See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3446,
   para. 98 (stating that a handset model's hearing aid compatibility rating,
   among other relevant information, "should be readily available to service
   providers either from the manufacturer's previous reports to the
   Commission, from the manufacturer's own website, or from the manufacturer
   directly"). We note, however, that the Commission's Equipment
   Authorization System is the most reliable source for information on a
   handset's hearing aid compatibility rating. The Equipment Authorization
   System is an electronic database of all equipment certified under
   Commission authority. The database identifies the hearing aid
   compatibility rating of each handset by FCC ID, as reported by the handset
   manufacturer in test reports submitted to the Commission at the time of an
   equipment authorization or of any modification to such authorization. See
   http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/.

   ^ 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 clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Sections
   312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765 (1982) (Conf. Rep.), and the
   Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. See
   So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
   4387-88, para. 5 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern
   California).

   ^ Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
   pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, defines "repeated" as "the
   commission or omission of [any] 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);
   see also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5. Failure to file
   these reports 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. As we have previously
   stated, the failure to file a hearing aid compatibility status report
   constitutes a continuing violation that persists until the violation is
   cured. See ASTCA, supra note 26.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(i)(1).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a).

   ^ 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, para. 4 (2002).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(i)(1).

   ^ See 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, Appendix A, Section I, recons. denied,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order,  15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy
   Statement); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd  at 17099, 17101, paras. 22,
   29; see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ See American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 16432, 16436-37, para. 10 (Enf. Bur.
   2008), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd 13174 (Enf. Bur.
   2012) (forfeiture paid) (ASTCA).

   ^ See id.

   ^ See id.

   ^ See id.

   ^ See id.

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

   ^ See Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387 (stating that "inadvertence
   ... is at best, ignorance of the law, which the Commission does not
   consider a mitigating circumstance").

   ^ See, e.g., Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846, para. 5
   (1993) (denying the mitigation claim of a manufacturer/distributor who
   thought that the equipment certification and marketing requirements were
   inapplicable, stating that its "prior knowledge or understanding of the
   law is unnecessary to a determination of whether a violation existed ...
   ignorance of the law is [not] a mitigating factor"); Lakewood Broadcasting
   Service, Inc., 37 FCC 2d 437, 438, para. 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., 15 FCC Rcd 12933, 12935, para. 7 (Enf. Bur.
   2000) (denying a mitigation claim of a broadcast licensee, stating that
   its ignorance of the law did not excuse the unauthorized transfer of the
   station); Maxwell Broadcasting Group, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 784, 784, para. 2
   (Mass Med. Bur. 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).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8), Note to Paragraph (b)(8): Adjustment
   Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures (establishing "good faith or
   voluntary disclosure" as a downward adjustment factor). The Forfeiture
   Policy Statement  affords us discretion to adjust forfeitures downward in
   cases of voluntary disclosure. See  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, 17100-01, para.
   27 (1997), recons. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order,  15 FCC Rcd 303
   (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80. But the Forfeiture
   Policy Statement neither explains what constitutes voluntary disclosure
   nor establishes a particular downward adjustment percentage.  Forfeiture
   Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100, para. 26 (expressly declining to
   prescribe the amount of the voluntary disclosure adjustment and explaining
   instead that the adjustment must reflect "the unique facts of each
   case").  We emphasize the public interest benefits of express,
   non-dilatory, and factually detailed noncompliance disclosures provided to
   the Enforcement Bureau and coupled with immediate corrective action. In
   this case, Northeast discovered the violation on September 14, 2012 and
   notified the Commission on or about September 20, 2012. This type of
   voluntary disclosure can timely reveal violations that the Commission
   would otherwise be unlikely to discover, expedite resolution of the
   resulting enforcement proceeding, and yield tangible benefits to the
   disclosing party in terms of the forfeiture penalty applied. Of course,
   the forfeiture we adopt in any particular case will always entail our
   exercise of discretion based on the particular circumstances before us.

   ^ Even though Northeast notified the Wireless Bureau of the violation and
   requested permission for the late filing of its report prior to the
   Enforcement Bureau's investigation, Northeast filed the required report
   approximately eight months after the filing deadline. Although we can
   upwardly adjust a forfeiture based on the violation's duration (see 47
   C.F.R. 1.80(b)), we refrain from doing so here. Prior enforcement actions
   concerning the same type of violation (and, in some instances, for a
   longer duration than here), have not always resulted in the upward
   adjustment of the $6,000 base forfeiture amount. See, e.g., STi Prepaid,
   LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 17836,
   17839-45, paras. 6, 8, 18-20 (proposing $6,000 forfeiture for failing to
   timely file hearing aid compatibility status report; reseller of wireless
   services was 11 months late in filing report). We have previously warned
   companies subject to the filing requirements that they must timely file
   the reports or, if late, come into compliance immediately. We now further
   warn Northeast and other parties subject to the digital wireless handset
   hearing aid compatibility status report filing requirements of Section
   20.19(i) that future violations of the requirement may be subject to an
   upward adjustment of the $6,000 base forfeiture based on the duration of
   the violation

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(i)(1).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 20.19(i)(1).

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

   ^ 47 C.F.R. SS 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1936

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1936