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 ) File No. EB-09-SE-161
Smith Bagley, Inc. ) NAL/Acct. No. 201032100006
d/b/a Cellular One of NE Arizona ) FRN # 0013706106
)
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: November 23, 2009 Released: November 25, 2009
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we
propose a forfeiture of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) against
Smith Bagley, Inc., d/b/a Cellular One of NE Arizona ("SBI"), a Global
System for Mobile Communications-based ("GSM-based") Tier III carrier,
serving parts of Arizona and New Mexico. As detailed herein, we find
that SBI apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
20.19(c)(3) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), by failing to timely
provide in its digital wireless handset offerings to consumers at
least eight handset models that meet the radio frequency interference
standards for hearing aid compatibility set forth in Section
20.19(b)(1), or in the alternative, ensure that at least 50% percent
of the handset models that it offered to consumers complied with the
radio frequency interference standards.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted
several measures to enhance the ability of individuals with hearing
disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications. The
Commission established technical standards that digital wireless
handsets must meet to be considered compatible with hearing aids
operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil)
modes. 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.
3. In the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the
Commission established, for each standard, deadlines from 2008 through
2011 by which service providers are required to offer specified
numbers or percentages of digital wireless handset models per air
interface that are compliant with the relevant standard if they do not
come under the de minimis exception. Specifically, the Commission
required that, prior to September 7, 2008, non-Tier I service
providers include in their commercial handset offerings at least two
models that met or exceeded the M3 rating for radio frequency
interference. Between September 7, 2008 and May 15, 2009, non-Tier I
service providers were required to make commercially available at
least eight handset models per digital air interface that met or
exceeded the M3 rating for radio frequency interference, or in the
alternative, ensure that at least 50% of the handset models they
offered per air interface met or exceeded the M3 standard. Prior to
September 7, 2008, non-Tier I service providers were also required to
offer at least two handset models that met or exceeded the T3 rating
for inductive coupling. Between September 7, 2008 and May 15, 2009,
non-Tier I service providers were required to offer at least three
handset models per air interface that met or exceeded the T3 rating,
or in the alternative, ensure that at least one-third of their
commercially available handset models per air interface met or
exceeded the T3 rating. In connection with the offer of hearing
aid-compatible handset models, the Commission further required
entities to label the handsets with the appropriate technical rating,
and to explain the technical rating system in the owner's manual or as
part of the packaging material for the handset. In order to monitor
the availability of these handsets, the Commission required digital
wireless service providers to submit annual status reports, beginning
January 15, 2009, on efforts toward compliance with the hearing aid
compatibility requirements.
4. As required by the Commission, SBI submitted its annual status report
on January 15, 2009. In its January 2009 Hearing Aid Compatibility
Status Report ("January Status Report"), SBI reported that during each
month for the period between July 2008 and December 2008, it offered
eight handset models to consumers that met or exceeded the M3 rating,
and that in January 2009, it offered nine such models, and thus was in
compliance with the requirements of Section 20.19(c)(3). However, in a
filing submitted on August 6, 2009 in response to an inquiry from the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB"), SBI amended its January
Status Report, and acknowledged that during the period between
September 7, 2008 and December 31, 2008, SBI had only offered seven
handset models to consumers that met or exceeded the M3 standard, and
that these seven handsets did not constitute a minimum of 50% of the
total number of handsets that SBI offered to consumers in that period.
5. On September 16, 2009, WTB referred SBI's apparent violation of the
hearing aid compatibility handset requirements to the Enforcement
Bureau for possible enforcement action.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Offer For Sale Sufficient Hearing Aid Compatible Handset
Models
6. Section 20.19(c)(3) of the Rules provides that prior to September 7,
2008, non-Tier I digital wireless service providers were required to
offer at least two handset models per air interface that met or
exceeded the M3 rating for radio frequency interference, and between
September 7, 2008 and May 15, 2009, these service providers were
required either to offer for sale at least eight handset models for
each air interface that met or exceeded a M3 rating for radio
frequency interference, or in the alternative, to ensure that at least
50% of the handset models per air interface offered to consumers met
or exceeded the M3 rating. According to its January Status Report,
although SBI satisfied the requirement that it offer at least two
M3-compliant handset models for the months of July and August 2008,
for the period from September 7, 2008 through December 31, 2008, SBI
offered for sale only seven M3-compliant handset models, which did not
constitute at least 50% of the total number of handset models that SBI
offered to consumers. Accordingly, we conclude that SBI apparently
willfully and repeatedly failed to comply with Section 20.19(c)(3) of
the Rules, by failing to offer at least eight radio frequency
interference-compliant handset models, or in the alternative, ensure
that at least 50% of its handset models were radio frequency
interference-compliant, for the period from September 7, 2008 through
December 31, 2008.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
7. 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. We conclude
under this standard that SBI is apparently liable for forfeiture for
its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(c)(3) of
the Rules.
8. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes a forfeiture assessment
against a common carrier up to $150,000 for each violation, or for
each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $1,500,000 for
a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, 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."
9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the
hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19
of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not
specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be
imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission
of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ...
should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation
as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission retains the discretion,
moreover, to depart from the Forfeiture Policy Statement and issue
forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture
authority contained in Section 503 of the Act.
10. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the
hearing aid compatibility handset requirements, we take into account
that these requirements serve to ensure that individuals with hearing
disabilities have access to digital wireless telecommunications
services. In adopting the hearing aid compatibility rules, the
Commission underscored the strong and immediate need for such access,
stressing that individuals with hearing impairments should not be
denied the public safety and convenience benefits of digital wireless
telephony. Moreover, as the Commission has noted, the demand for
hearing aid-compatible handsets is likely to increase with the growing
reliance on wireless technology and with the increasing median age of
our population.
11. Our recent decisions established a base forfeiture amount of $15,000
per handset for violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset
requirements. In establishing this base forfeiture amount, we
determined that violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset
requirements warranted a significantly higher forfeiture than for
violations of the labeling requirements for wireless hearing
aid-compatible handsets. We found that a violation of the labeling
requirements, while serious because it deprives hearing aid users from
making informed choices, is less egregious than a violation of the
handset requirements because failure to make compliant handsets
available actually deprives hearing aid users from accessing digital
wireless communications. We also found that the Rules required that,
prior to September 7, 2008, service providers were required to offer
at least two handset models that met at least a M3 rating for radio
frequency interference, and thus determined that a proposed forfeiture
for violation of these requirements should be applied on a per handset
basis. We see no reason to alter this logic for violations that took
place between September 7, 2008 and May 15, 2009, when the number of
compliant handsets that service providers were required to offer
increased from two to eight, or in the alternative, to 50% of the
total number of handsets available to consumers from the service
provider.
12. The record establishes that from September 7, 2008 through December
31, 2008, SBI offered only seven handset models that met or exceeded
the M3 standard, and thus did not satisfy the requirement that
non-Tier I service providers either offer at least eight handset
models, or ensure that at least 50% of the handset models that they
offer, meet or exceed the M3 standard. SBI did not come into
compliance with Section 20.19(c)(3) until January 2009. Accordingly,
SBI is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $15,000 for failing
to comply with the radio frequency interference requirements in
willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(c)(3).
13. Based on the record before us, and having considered the statutory
factors set forth above, we conclude that no upward or downward
adjustment of the forfeiture from the base amount of $15,000 is
warranted. We therefore propose a $15,000 forfeiture against SBI for
failing to comply with the acoustic coupling compatibility
requirements in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section
20.19(c)(3).
IV. ORDERING clauses
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Smith Bagley, Inc. IS NOTIFIED of
its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000) for willful and repeated violation of
Section 20.19(c)(3) of the Rules.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, Smith Bagley, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount
of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
16. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer --
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: arinquiries@fcc.gov with any questions
regarding payment procedures. SBI will also send electronic
notification on the date said payment is made to Kathy Berthot at
Kathy.B erthot@fcc.gov and Deborah Broderson at
Deborah.Broderson@fcc.gov.
17. The response, if any, 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
response should also be emailed to Kathy Berthot at
kathy.berthot@fcc.gov and Deborah Broderson at
deborah.broderson@fcc.gov.
18. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
documentation submitted.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
return receipt requested to Richard Watkins, COO, Smith Bagley, Inc.,
1500 South White Mountain Road, Suite 103, Show Low, AZ 85901, and to
counsel for Smith Bagley, Inc., Thomas Gutierrez, Esq., Lukas, Nace,
Gutierrez & Sachs, 1650 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500, McLean, VA 22102.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
Tier III carriers are non-Nationwide wireless radio service providers with
500,000 or fewer subscribers as of the end of September 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
P:P: 22-24 (2002) ("Non-Nationwide Carrier Order").
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3).
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) ("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, 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 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777 P: 56; 47 C.F.R.
S: 20.19(b)(1), (2). The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order described the
acoustic coupling and the inductive (telecoil) coupling 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
electrical signals. 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.
Id. at 16763 P: 22.
As subsequently amended, Section 20.19(b)(1) provides that, for the period
beginning June 6, 2008 and ending January 1, 2010, a wireless handset is
deemed hearing aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, at
minimum, it meets the M3 rating associated with the technical standard set
forth in either the standard document "American National Standard Methods
of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices and
Hearing Aids," ANSI C63.19-2006 (June 12, 2006) or ANSI 63.19-2007 (June
8, 2007). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1). Section 20.19(b)(2) provides that, for
the period beginning June 6, 2008 and ending 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 as
set forth in either the standard document "American National Standard
Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communication
Devices and Hearing Aids," ANSI C63.19-2006 (June 12, 2006) or ANSI
63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007). 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(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 Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3418-24 P:P:
34-46 (2008) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order"), Order
on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008); 47 C.F.R. S:S:
20.19(c), (d). The de minimis exception provides that manufacturers or
mobile service providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset
models per air interface are exempt from the hearing aid compatibility
requirements and manufacturers or 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 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3418
P: 34 and Appendix C; see also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(i).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3418
P: 34 and Appendix C; see also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii). Beginning May
15, 2009, the minimum number of commercially available radio frequency
interference-compliant handset models per air interface that must be
provided by non-Tier I service providers if they do not meet the 50
percent threshold increased to nine. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii)(B)(2).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3418
P: 34 and Appendix C; see also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d). Beginning May 15,
2009, the minimum number of commercially available inductive
coupling-compliant handset models per air interface that must be provided
by non-Tier I service providers if they do not meet the one-third
threshold increased to five. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii)(B)(2).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785; see also 47
C.F.R. S: 20.19(f).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3410
P: 13; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1).
See, Smith Bagley, Inc., Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report, Docket
No. 07-250 (January 15, 2009) ("January Status Report").
In the status report that was due on January 15, 2009, service providers
were only required to provide information on hearing aid compliant
handsets for the period between July 1 and December 31, 2008. 47 C.F.R. S:
20.19(i)(3).
See January Status Report at Exhibit A.
See Smith Bagley, Inc., Amended Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report,
Docket No. 07-250 (August 6, 2009) ("Amended Status Report") at Exhibit A.
Specifically, in its Amended Status Report, SBI acknowledged that it
previously had erroneously classified the Motorola K1 handset (FCC ID
IHDT56GT1) as a M3-rated handset, when in fact it is a non-M3 compliant
handset. Id. SBI indicated in its January Status Report that it offered a
total of 18-20 handset models to consumers during this period. See January
Status Report at Exhibit A.
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 (1991), recon.
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, 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). See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); Southern
California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.
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 (2002).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission has amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3), three times to increase the maximum
forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment
requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28
U.S.C. S: 2461. 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); Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to
Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945, 10947 (2004) (adjusting the
maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from $120,000/$1,200,000 to
$130,000/$1,300,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules
and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC
Rcd 18221, 18223 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for
common carriers from $100,000/$1,000,000 to $120,000/$1,200,000). The most
recent inflation adjustment took effect September 2, 2008 and only applies
to violations that occur after that date. See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5. As
SBI's apparent violations occurred after September 2, 2008, they are
therefore subject to the new forfeiture limits.
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 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd
17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy
Statement").
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.
Id.
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755 P: 4.
Id. at 16756 P: 5 (noting that approximately one in ten Americans, 28
million, have some level of hearing loss, that the proportion increases
with age, and that the number of those affected will likely grow as the
median age increases). See also Report on the Status of Implementation of
the Commission's Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements, Report, 22 FCC
Rcd 17709, 17719 P: 20 (2007) (noting, just four years later, that the
number of individuals with hearing loss in the United States was "at an
all time high of 31 million - with that number expected to reach
approximately 40 million at the end of this decade").
See, e.g., SLO Cellular, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 3990, 3996-97 P: 14 (Enf. Bur. 2008), response
received; NEP Cellcorp, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
24 FCC Rcd 8, 13 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009), forfeiture
paid; Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 11567, 11571 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
2008), response received; Blanca Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9398, 9403 P: 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
Enf. Div. 2008), response received; Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9290, 9295 P: 11 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), forfeiture paid; Iowa Wireless Services, LLC
d/b/a i Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd
4735, 4739 P: 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008); South Slope
Cooperative Telephone Company d/b/a South Slope Wireless, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 4706, 4711-12 P: 12 (Enf.
Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response received.
The Enforcement Bureau has established a base forfeiture amount of $8,000
for violation of the labeling requirements for wireless hearing
aid-compatible handsets. See, e.g., South Central Utah Telephone
Association, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd
19251, 19255-56 P: 10 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response
pending; Pine Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9205, 9210 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
2007), consent decree ordered, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 4485 (Enf. Bur. 2008).
See supra note 29.
See Amended Status Report at Exhibit A (reporting that SBI offered eight
handset models meeting at least an M3 standard in January 2009).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2473
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-2473