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-10-SE-101       
     In the Matter of                                         
                              )   NAL/Acct. No. 201032100041  
     OK-5 Licensee Co., LLC                                   
                              )   FRN # 0017697053            
                                                              
                              )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: August 30, 2010 Released: August 30, 2010

   By the Chief, 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
       OK-5 Licensee Co., LLC ("OK-5 Licensee"), a Global System for Mobile
       Communications-based ("GSM-based") Tier III carrier, serving parts of
       Oklahoma. As detailed herein, we find that OK-5 Licensee apparently
       willfully and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the
       Commission's rules ("Rules"), by failing to offer to consumers the
       required number or percentage of digital wireless handsets that met or
       exceeded the radio frequency interference standards for hearing aid
       compatibility set forth in Section 20.19(b)(1).

   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.

    3. In the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the
       Commission established several deadlines between 2008 and 2011 by
       which manufacturers and service providers are required to offer
       specified numbers or percentages of digital wireless handset models.
       The number or percentage of digital wireless handset models required
       by each deadline is based on several factors, including the applicable
       interference standard and air interface,  as well as the category of
       carrier. For example, between May 15, 2009 and May 14, 2010, non-Tier
       I service providers were required to ensure that at least nine handset
       models per digital air interface, or at least 50% of the models
       offered per digital air interface, met or exceeded the M3 rating, and
       that at least five handset models per digital air interface, or at
       least one-third of the models offered per digital air interface, met
       or exceeded the T3 rating. To ensure that the Commission can
       accurately monitor the availability of these handsets, and to provide
       valuable information to the public concerning the technical testing
       and commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets
       (including on the Internet) The FCC also requires annual reports from
       service providers and manufacturers on their efforts towards
       compliance.

    4. On January 15, 2010, OK-5 Licensee submitted its hearing aid
       compatibility status report for the 2009 reporting period. OK-5
       Licensee's 2009 Report reveals that between May 15, 2009 and May 30,
       2009, only eight of the 24 handset models it offered to consumers met
       or exceeded the M3 rating; between June 1, 2009 and July 31, 2009,
       only eight of the 25 handset models it offered to consumers met or
       exceeded the M3 rating; and between August 1, 2009 and August 31,
       2009, only eight of the 26 handset models it offered to consumers met
       or exceeded the M3 rating  .

    5. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau subsequently referred OK-5
       Licensee's apparent violation of the hearing aid compatibility handset
       requirements to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement
       action.

   III. DISCUSSION

    A. Failure to Comply with Hearing Aid Compatibility Handset Deployment
       Requirements.

    6. According to its 2009 Report, OK-5 Licensee failed to offer the
       required number or percentage of compliant handsets. Specifically,
       OK-5 Licensee offered for sale only eight M3-compliant handset models,
       which did not constitute at least 50% of the total number of handset
       models that OK-5 Licensee offered to consumers during the 2009
       reporting period. Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules requires
       non-Tier I digital wireless service providers like OK-5 Licensee to
       ensure that between May 15, 2009 and May 14, 2010 and for each air
       interface for which they offered handsets to consumers, at least 50%
       of the handset models they offered, or at least nine handset models,
       met or exceeded the M3 rating for radio frequency interference.
       Accordingly, we conclude that OK-5 Licensee apparently willfully and
       repeatedly violated Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules.

   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 OK-5 Licensee is apparently liable for
       forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section
       20.19(c)(3)(ii) 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 deployment requirements, we take
       into account that these requirements serve to ensure that consumers
       with hearing loss 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 loss 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. We have previously determined that violations of the hearing aid
       compatibility handset deployment requirements are serious in nature
       because failure to make compliant handsets available actually prevents
       hearing aid users from accessing digital wireless communications. As
       such, we generally apply a base forfeiture amount of $15,000 to
       reflect the gravity of these violations. We have also applied the
       $15,000 base forfeiture on a per handset basis (i.e., for each handset
       below the minimum number of hearing aid-compliant handsets required by
       the rules).

   12. The record establishes that OK-5 Licensee was out of compliance with
       the handset deployment requirements for three and a half months
       (between May 15, 2009 and August 31, 2009) during the 2009 reporting
       period. Thus, OK-5 Licensee did not satisfy the requirement that
       non-Tier I service providers offer at least nine handset models that
       meet or exceed the M3 rating, nor did it ensure that at least 50% of
       the handset models that it offers met or exceeded the M3 rating.
       Accordingly, OK-5 Licensee is apparently liable for a base forfeiture
       of $15,000 for failing to offer to consumers the required number or
       percentage of handset models in willful and repeated violation of
       Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules.

   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 under these particular circumstances. We therefore propose a
       $15,000 forfeiture against OK-5 Licensee for apparently willfully and
       repeatedly failing to comply with the hearing aid compatibility
       handset deployment requirements set forth in Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii)
       of the Rules.

   IV. ORDERING clauses

   14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, OK-5 Licensee Co., LLC 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)(ii) 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, OK-5 Licensee  Co., LLC 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.  OK-5 Licensee Co., LLC will also send
       electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Jackie
       Ellington at Jackie.Ellington@fcc.gov and Kathy Berthot at
       Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov.

   17. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
       proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
       supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
       Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules. The written statement must
       be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
       Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN:
       Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include
       the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. The statement should also
       be emailed to Jackie Ellington at Jackie.Ellington@fcc.gov and Kathy
       Berthot at Kathy.Berthot@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 OK-5 Licensee Co., LLC, 170 S. Warner Rd.,
       Suite 104, Wayne, PA 19087, and to its counsel, Todd Slamowitz, Esq.,
       Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, 1650 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500, McLean,
       VA 22102.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, 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).

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)( ii).

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1).

   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). 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).

   This requirement does not apply to service providers and manufacturers
   that meet the de minimis exception. 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). We note that the Commission recently limited the de
   minimis exception to exclude service providers that are not small entities
   after an initial two-year period. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules
   Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Policy Statement and
   Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
   10-145 P:P: 35-59 (rel. Aug. 5, 2010).

   The term "air interface" refers to the technical protocol that ensures
   compatibility between mobile radio service equipment, such as handsets,
   and the service provider's base stations. Currently, the leading air
   interfaces include Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for
   Mobile Communications (GSM), Integrated Digital Enhanced Network (iDEN),
   and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) a/k/a Universal Mobile
   Telecommunications System (UMTS).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419
   P: 35; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419
   P: 36; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order,  23 FCC Rcd at 3443
   P: 91. The Commission initially required manufacturers and digital
   wireless service providers to report every six months on efforts toward
   compliance with the hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first
   three years of implementation (May 17, 2004, November 17, 2004, May 17,
   2005, November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006 and November 17, 2006), and then
   annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation (November 19,
   2007 and November 17, 2008). Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd
   at 16787 P: 89; see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces
   Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and
   Handset Manufacturers, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (Wireless Tel. Bur.
   2004). 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
   Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order,  23 FCC Rcd at 3410 P:
   13. In addition, the Commission made clear that these reporting
   requirements apply to manufacturers and service providers that fit within
   the de minimis exception. Id. at 3446 P: 99.

   See  OK-5 Licensee Co., LLC Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report (filed
   January 15, 2010) ("2009 Report") at
   http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/100317/OK-5,%20LLC_34.PDF.

   See id. OK-5 Licensee's 2009 Report indicates that it offered the required
   number or percentage of handset models that met or exceeded the M3 rating
   between January 1, 2009 and May 15, 2009, and between September 1, 2009
   and December 31, 2009. OK-5 Licensee's 2009 Report also indicates that it
   offered the required number or percentage of handset models that met or
   exceeded the T3 rating during the 2009 reporting period. Id.

   All of OK-5's handsets for the 2009 reporting period operated over the GSM
   air interface.

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
   deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
   to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful
   applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
   97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the
   term in the Section 503(b) context. See Southern California Broadcasting
   Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 P: 5 (1991),
   recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern California"); see also
   Telrite Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC
   Rcd 7231, 7237 P: 12 (2008); Regent USA, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523 P: 9 (2007); San Jose Navigation,
   Inc., Forfeiture Order 22 FCC Rcd 1040, 1042 P: 9 (2007) , 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: 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 applies to
   violations that occur after that date. See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.

   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").

   Compare, 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
   and Consent Decree, 23 FCC Rcd 4485 (Enf. Bur. 2008). In contrast to
   handset deployment requirement violations, we have found that a violation
   of the labeling requirements (while serious because it prevents hearing
   aid users from making informed choices) is less egregious than a violation
   of the deployment requirements. In the past, a base forfeiture amount of
   $8,000 has applied to violations of the labeling requirements for wireless
   hearing aid-compatible handsets.

   See, e.g., SLO Cellular, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 3990, 3996-97 P: 14 (Enf. Bur. 2008), response
   pending; NEP Cellcorp, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   24 FCC Rcd 8, 13 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009); Corr Wireless
   Communications, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC
   Rcd 11567, 11571 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response
   pending; Blanca Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9398, 9403 P: 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
   2008), response pending; Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9290, 9295 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
   Enf. Div. 2008); 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 pending.

   See id.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1659

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1659