Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


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

East Buchanan Telephone Cooperative








File No.: EB-SED-13-00008906

NAL/Acct. No.: 201132100011

FRN: 0002557627


Adopted: May 9, 2014 Released: May 9, 2014

By the Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

Based on our review of the record, including the information that East Buchanan Telephone Cooperative (East Buchanan) provided in response to the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in this proceeding, we find that no forfeiture penalty should be imposed on East Buchanan for potential noncompliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules. The Commission adopted these rules to enhance the ability of consumers with hearing loss to access digital wireless telecommunications.

On November 29, 2010, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) issued the NAL to East Buchanan and proposed a $45,000 forfeiture for its apparent failure to provide the requisite number of hearing aid compatible handsets in 2009 based on the hearing aid compatibility status report it filed on January 11, 2010. In the NAL, the Bureau provided East Buchanan an opportunity to show, in writing, why either no forfeiture or a lower forfeiture should be imposed. On December 29, 2010, East Buchanan filed a response to the NAL and explains that inadvertent errors in its hearing aid compatibility status report for the 2009 reporting period "gave the appearance" that the company had not complied with the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements. East Buchanan avers that a corrected status report (submitted with its NAL Response) demonstrates that it complied with the hearing aid compatible handset requirements in 2009. Based on the corrected status report, we agree that East Buchanan apparently complied with such requirements in 2009. Thus, we find that no forfeiture should be imposed.

* 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 504(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, the proposed forfeiture in the NAL issued to East Buchanan Telephone Cooperative on November 29, 2010, WILL NOT BE IMPOSED.

* 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to East Buchanan Telephone Cooperative and its counsel of record.


Travis LeBlanc

Acting Chief

Enforcement Bureau