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-09-SE-186       
     In the matter of   )                               
                            NAL/Acct. No. 201132100019  
     STi Prepaid, LLC   )                               
                            FRN 0016004731              
                        )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: December 30, 2010 Released: December 30, 2010

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that STi Prepaid, LLC, a reseller of wireless services through its
       operating division, STi Mobile (collectively, "STi Prepaid"),
       apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 20.19(e)(2) of
       the Commission's rules ("Rules") by failing for 18 months to include
       in its digital wireless handset offerings at least one handset model
       that meets the inductive coupling standard for hearing aid
       compatibility set forth in section 20.19(b)(2) of the Rules. Further,
       we find that STi Prepaid apparently willfully violated the hearing aid
       compatibility status report filing requirements set forth in section
       20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, and apparently willfully and repeatedly
       violated the public web site posting requirements set forth in section
       20.19(h) of the Rules. For these apparent violations, we propose a
       total forfeiture of thirty-four thousand five hundred dollars
       ($34,500).

   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 "M" rating) to enable acoustic coupling between
       digital wireless phones and hearing aids operating in acoustic
       coupling mode  and a separate standard (the "T" 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 number of
       handsets offered. In this regard, the Commission created the de
       minimis exception set forth in section 20.19(e) of the Rules, which
       establishes different handset deployment benchmarks for manufacturers
       and service providers that offer three or fewer handset models. Under
       the de minimis exception, service providers that offer two or fewer
       digital wireless handset models per air interface are exempt from the
       hearing aid compatibility requirements. Service providers that offer
       three digital wireless handset models per air interface, however, must
       offer at least one model that is compliant with the acoustic coupling
       standard and at least one model that is compliant with the inductive
       coupling standard.

    4. 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 (including on
       the Internet). 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). 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. The
       Commission also made clear that these reporting requirements apply to
       manufacturers and service providers that fit within the de minimis
       exception. In addition, the Commission required manufacturers and
       service providers with publicly-accessible web sites to maintain a
       list of hearing aid-compatible handset models and provide certain
       information regarding those models on their web sites. The web site
       postings, which must be updated within 30 days of a change in a
       manufacturer's or service provider's offerings, enable consumers to
       obtain up-to-date hearing aid compatibility information.

    5. STi Prepaid, a reseller of wireless services, failed to file the
       required hearing aid compatibility status report for the period July
       1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 (originally due on January 15,
       2009), and failed to post on its web site all of the required
       information concerning the ratings and levels of functionality of its
       hearing aid-compatible handset models. The Wireless Telecommunications
       Bureau referred STi Prepaid's apparent violation of the reporting and
       web site requirements to the Enforcement Bureau for possible
       enforcement action.

    6. On November 23, 2009, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the
       Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") issued STi Prepaid a letter of inquiry
       ("LOI"). STi Prepaid responded to the LOI on December 8, 2009, noting
       that "STi Mobile is an operating division of STi Prepaid, which
       provides interstate and international prepaid telecommunications
       services." STi Prepaid states that it is a mobile virtual network
       operator ("MVNO"), and that it relies on Sprint Nextel for all of its
       underlying network services and handsets. STi Prepaid admits that it
       failed to file the service provider report due January 15, 2009, but
       claims that such failure was "[d]ue to an administrative oversight."
       Given that it obtains all of its underlying network services and
       handsets via its contractual relationship with Sprint Nextel, STi
       Prepaid also asserts that it "was not aware that it had an independent
       obligation to file the report." STi Prepaid further claims that
       because it currently offers only three handsets all within the same
       air interface (CDMA), it falls within the de minimis exception and is
       only required to offer one handset model that meets the "hearing aid
       and [sic] acoustic coupling standards." In addition, STi Prepaid
       argues that it is in "substantial" compliance with the web posting
       requirements in section 20.19(h) of the Rules, noting that it posted
       the user guide for the M3-rated LG LX-225 handset model on its website
       and that the user guide explains the difference between the M3 and M4
       ratings. STi Prepaid acknowledged, however, that the user guide "does
       not contain information on the inductive coupling rating for that
       handset."  As to the reporting requirements, STi Prepaid also stated
       that it would file the report originally due January 15, 2009 as soon
       as electronically possible, and that it will timely file all future
       reports. The record reflects that STi Prepaid filed its 2008 report
       eleven months late, and that it timely filed its 2009 report.

   III. DISCUSSION

     A. A. Failure to Comply with Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment
        Requirements

    7. We find that STi Prepaid failed to offer the required number of
       hearing aid-compatible handsets that met or exceeded the T3 rating for
       18 months, i.e., during the entire 2008 and 2009 reporting periods. As
       noted above, section 20.19(e)(2) of the Rules establishes a de minimis
       exception, requiring service providers that offer three digital
       wireless handset models per air interface to ensure that at least one
       handset model meets or exceeds the M3 rating for acoustic coupling and
       at least one handset model meets or exceeds the T3 rating for
       inductive coupling. STi Prepaid asserts that it falls within the de
       minimis exception and is only required to offer one handset model that
       meets the "hearing aid and [sic] acoustic coupling standards." Based
       on STi Prepaid's response to the LOI and its hearing aid compatibility
       reports for the 2008 and 2009 reporting periods, STi Prepaid only
       offered three handsets, which qualifies the company for the de minimis
       exception. Contrary to its assertions about the number of required
       hearing aid-compatible handsets under this exception, however, STi
       Prepaid was required to offer at least one M3-rated handset model and
       at least one T3-rated handset model. Although two of the three
       handsets offered by STi Prepaid are M3-rated for acoustic coupling,
       none of the three handsets meet the T3 rating for inductive coupling.
       Accordingly, we conclude that STi Prepaid apparently willfully and
       repeatedly failed to comply with section 20.19(e)(2) of the Rules by
       failing during the 2008 and 2009 reporting periods to offer at least
       one handset model that met or exceeded the T3 rating for inductive
       coupling.

   B. Failure to File Timely Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report

    8. Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules required service providers to submit
       hearing aid compatibility status reports on January 15, 2009 (covering
       the six month period ending December 31, 2008) and then annually
       thereafter. These reports are necessary to enable the Commission to
       perform its enforcement function and evaluate whether STi Prepaid is
       in compliance with Commission mandates that were adopted to facilitate
       the accessibility of hearing aid-compatible wireless handsets. As the
       Commission has noted, the reports also provide valuable information to
       the public concerning the technical testing and commercial
       availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets.  STi Prepaid admitted
       that it did not timely file the 2008 Report; indeed, the record
       indicates that this Report was filed eleven months late. Accordingly,
       we find that STi Prepaid failed to timely file the hearing aid
       compatibility status report due on January 15, 2009 in apparent
       willful violation of the requirements set forth in section 20.19(i)(1)
       of the Rules.

     A. C. Failure to Post Required Information Concerning Hearing
        Aid-Compatible Handset Models on its Public Web Site

    9. Section 20.19(h) of the Rules requires that, beginning January 15,
       2009, each service provider that maintains a publicly-accessible web
       site make available on its web site a list of all hearing
       aid-compatible handset models it currently offers, the ratings of
       those models, and an explanation of the rating system. Section
       20.19(h) also requires service providers to post on their web sites
       the level of functionality of each model and an explanation of the
       service provider's methodology for designating levels of
       functionality. In addition, the Commission has stated that any changes
       to a service provider's offerings must be reflected on its public web
       site listing within 30 days of the change. These web site postings
       provide consumers up-to-date hearing aid compatibility information.

   10. While STi Prepaid did not directly comply with these web posting
       requirements, it claims "substantial" compliance based on the
       information contained in the user guide for the LG LX-225 handset
       model posted on its web site. As an initial matter, we are concerned
       that the difficulty of finding the hearing aid compatibility rating
       information in the approximately 200-page user manual for the LG
       LX-225 model undercuts the clear intent of section 20.19(h) of the
       Rules, which is to make such information readily accessible to
       consumers. In any event, we find that the user manual for the LG
       LX-225 model fails to provide all of the information required under
       section 20.19(h) of the Rules. We note that the user guide provides
       general information about hearing aid compatibility and ratings,
       including general information with respect to the qualitative
       difference between the M3 and M4 ratings, and also specifies the
       rating for the LG LX-225. However, the user manual fails to specify
       the handset's level of functionality or to provide an explanation of
       the service provider's methodology for designating levels of
       functionality. In addition, STi Prepaid apparently failed to provide
       any rating information regarding the Sanyo SCP-200 handset model on
       its web site. Accordingly, we find that STi Prepaid failed to meet the
       public web site posting requirements in apparent willful and repeated
       violation of section 20.19(h) of the Rules.

     A. D. Proposed Forfeiture

   11. 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. Under this
       standard, we conclude that STi Prepaid is apparently liable for a
       forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violations of
       sections 20.19(e)(2) and 20.19(h) of the Rules, and its apparent
       willful violation of section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.

   12. 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, and 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."

   13. 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 deployment 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.

   14. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the
       hearing aid-compatible handset deployment 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 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.

   15. Our recent decisions established a base forfeiture amount of $15,000
       per handset for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset
       deployment requirements. In establishing this base forfeiture amount,
       we determined that violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset
       deployment requirements warranted a significantly higher forfeiture
       than 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 of
       the ability to make informed choices, is less egregious than a
       violation of the deployment requirements, where a failure to make
       compliant handsets available actually prevents hearing aid users from
       accessing digital wireless communications.

   16. The record establishes that STi Prepaid failed to include in its
       handset offerings at least one handset that met or exceeded the T3
       rating for inductive coupling, as required by section 20.19(e)(2) of
       the Rules. Accordingly, STi Prepaid is apparently liable for a
       forfeiture of $15,000 for failing to offer the required number of
       hearing aid-compatible handset models in willful and repeated
       violation of section 20.19(e)(2) of the Rules.

   17. Having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we conclude
       that an upward adjustment is warranted. We note, in this regard, that
       STi Prepaid was out of compliance with the hearing aid-compatible
       handset deployment requirements for 18 months, during the entire 2008
       and 2009 reporting periods. In view of the particularly lengthy
       duration of the violation and the potentially significant impact on
       consumers with hearing loss, we find that a significant upward
       adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. We therefore
       propose a $22,500 forfeiture against STi Prepaid for apparently
       willfully and repeatedly failing to comply with the hearing
       aid-compatible handset deployment requirements set forth in section
       20.19(e)(2) of the Rules.

   18. The 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 contained in section 503 of the Act.

   19. We have exercised our discretion to set a higher base forfeiture
       amount for violations of the wireless hearing aid compatibility
       reporting requirements. In the American Samoa Telecommunications
       Authority NAL, we found that the status reports are essential to the
       implementation and enforcement of 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
       established $6,000 base forfeiture for each violation of the hearing
       aid compatibility reporting requirement should apply here, for a
       proposed forfeiture of $6,000.

   20. Failure to file these reports, as is the case here, 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. Furthermore, in ASTCA, we made clear that
       failure to file a hearing aid compatibility status report constitutes
       a continuing violation that continues until the violation is cured.
       STi Prepaid's failure to file the report on time had a continuing
       adverse impact on the Commission's ability to ensure the commercial
       availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets. We
       do not believe that the circumstances presented warrant any downward
       adjustment of the proposed forfeiture amount. STi Prepaid maintains
       that its failure to timely file the report was due to administrative
       oversight and that it was not aware that it had an independent
       obligation to file the report, given its contractual relationship with
       Sprint Nextel. It is well established that administrative oversight or
       inadvertence is not a mitigating factor warranting a downward
       adjustment of a forfeiture. Likewise, a violator's lack of knowledge
       or erroneous beliefs is not a mitigating factor warranting reduction
       of a forfeiture. Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $6,000
       against STi Prepaid for apparently willfully failing to timely file
       the January 15, 2009 hearing aid compatibility status report in
       violation of section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.

   21. We have also exercised our discretion to set a higher base forfeiture
       amount for violation of the web posting requirements set forth in
       section 20.19(h) of the Rules. In determining the appropriate
       forfeiture amount for violation of the web site posting requirements,
       we noted that these requirements are "essential to the proper
       functioning of our hearing aid compatibility rules" and serve to
       increase the availability of up-to-date hearing aid compatibility
       information to consumers and service providers. In particular, we
       found that a web site may be the primary means through which consumers
       obtain information, and that the updated information between status
       reports is likely to be critical to both consumers and service
       providers. We further found that the web site postings, which must be
       updated within 30 days of a change in a manufacturer's or service
       provider's offerings, will enable consumers to obtain up-to-date
       hearing aid compatibility information from their service providers and
       will also enable service providers to readily obtain up-to-date
       information from their manufacturer suppliers. Accordingly, we
       concluded that the same considerations that led us to increase the
       base forfeitures for hearing aid compatibility status reporting
       violations also apply to the requirement for web posting. We therefore
       established $6,000 as the base forfeiture for violation of section
       20.19(h).

   22. As noted above, despite STi Prepaid's claims that posting a 200-page
       user manual on its website constituted "substantial" compliance with
       section 20.19(h) of the Rules, the record indicates that even this
       manual did not include all the required information about the
       company's hearing aid-compatible handset models. STi Prepaid also
       presents no mitigating factors in its LOI Response justifying a
       downward adjustment to the $6,000 base forfeiture. Accordingly, we
       propose a forfeiture of $6,000 against STi Prepaid for apparently
       willfully and repeatedly failing to provide required information
       concerning its hearing aid-compatible handset models on its public web
       site in violation of section 20.19(h) of the Rules.

   23. Thus, we propose an aggregate forfeiture of $34,500 against STi
       Prepaid for its apparent willful and repeated violations of sections
       20.19(e)(2) and 20.19(h) of the Rules, and its apparent willful
       violation of section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.

   IV. ORDERING clauses

   24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
       Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, STi Prepaid IS NOTIFIED of its
       APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of thirty- four
       thousand five hundred dollars ($34,500) for its apparent willful and
       repeated violations of sections 20.19(e)(2) and 20.19(h) of the Rules,
       and its apparent willful violation of section 20.19(i) of the Rules.

   25. 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, STi Prepaid SHALL PAY the full amount of the
       proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
       reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   26. 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 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. STi Prepaid must also send electronic
       notification on the date said payment is made to
       Katherine.Power@fcc.gov and Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov.

   27. 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/Account Number referenced in the caption. The statement must
       also be emailed to Katherine Power at Katherine.Power@fcc.gov and to
       Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov.

   28. 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.

   29. 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 Mr. Richard Rebetti, Chief Technical
       Officer, STi Prepaid, LLC, 1250 Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, New
       York 10001.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   STi Prepaid also holds both domestic and international section 214
   authorizations.

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e)(2).

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(2).

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h).

   See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
   Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16787 P: 89
   (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).

   As subsequently amended, section 20.19(b)(1) provides that, for the period
   beginning June 6, 2008 and ending January 1, 2010, a newly certified
   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 newly certified 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). Grants of certification issued before June 6, 2008,
   under previous versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid
   compatibility purposes.

   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:
   20.19(c), (d).

   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).

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e).

   Id. We note that the Commission recently limited the de minimis exception
   so that it is unavailable to 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).

   See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3443 P:
   91.

   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).

   See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3445-46
   P:P: 97-99.

   Id. at P: 99.

   Id. at 3450 P: 112.

   Id.

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Sam Tawfik,
   Chief Executive Officer, STi Mobile (November 23, 2009).

   See Letter from Richard Rebetti, Chief Technical Officer, STi Prepaid,
   LLC, to Katherine Power, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
   Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (December 8, 2009) ("Response").

   Id. at 1.

   Id. at 2.

   Id.

   Id. at 1-2. Specifically, STi Prepaid states that it currently offers the
   following three handset models: LG LX-225, Sanyo SCP-200, and Samsung
   SPH-A660. Id. at 1. Commission records indicate that the LG LX-225 handset
   (FCC ID BEJLX125) and the Sanyo SCP-200 handset (FCC ID AEZSCP-02H) both
   meet an M3 rating for acoustic coupling but do not meet at least a T3
   rating for inductive coupling. The Samsung SPH-A660 handset (FCC ID
   A3LSPHA660) does not meet either the M3 or T3 rating.

   Response at 2. See also http://www.stimobile.com/lg225-user-manual.pdf.,
   pp. 185-6. (last visited December 30, 2010).

   Response at 2.

   Id.

   STi Prepaid filed the report for the period July 1, 2008 through December
   31, 2008 (originally due on January 15, 2009) on December 30, 2009. See
   STi Prepaid Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report (filed December 30,
   2009) at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020355066 ("2008
   Report"). This report indicates that STi Prepaid offered only three
   handset models during the 2008 reporting period: the LG LX-225, the Sanyo
   SCP-200, and the Samsung SPH-A660.

   STi Prepaid timely filed the report for the period January 1, 2009 through
   December 31, 2009 on January 14, 2010. See STi Prepaid Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Status Report (filed January 14, 2010) at
   http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/100317/STi%20Prepaid,%20LLC%20on%20_95.PDF
   ("2009 Report"). The 2009 Report indicated that STi Prepaid only offered
   the same three handset models during the 2009 reporting period as it did
   during the 2008 reporting period: the LG LX-225, the Sanyo SCP-200, and
   the Samsung SPH-A660.2009.

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e)(2) ("service providers that offer three digital
   wireless handset models in an air interface must offer at least one
   handset model compliant with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section
   in that air interface."); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1), (b)(2).

   Response at 1, 2.

   See supra notes 24, 29, and 30 and accompanying text.

   Id.

   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"); see also Telrite
   Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7231,
   7237 P: 12 (2008) ("Telrite"); 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).

   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 C.F.R. S: 20.19(i)(1).

   See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3443 P:
   91.

   Response at 2; see supra notes 28 and 29 and accompanying text.

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

   See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 P:
   112.

   Response at 2.

   See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3448-9,
   3450 P:P: 109, 112 (noting generally that "[t]he idea that consumers
   should be able to access as much information as possible through easily
   accessible connections to relevant material is a fundamental" and
   "find[ing] it essential to the proper functioning of our hearing aid
   compatibility rules that manufacturers and service providers make certain
   limited categories of up-to-date information available on their websites")
   (emphasis added).

   While STi Prepaid does not indicate in its LOI response what, if any,
   rating information it provided on its web site for the Sanyo SCP-200
   handset, we note that the user guide for this handset posted on the STi
   Prepaid website, does not include any hearing aid compatibility rating
   information. See http://www.stimobile.com/s200-userguide.pdf (last visited
   December 30, 2010).

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h).

   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 P: 4 (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. STi
   Prepaid's apparent violations occurred after September 2, 2008, and
   therefore are 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 50.

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e)(2).

   While section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing a
   forfeiture for violations that occurred more than a year prior to the
   issuance of an NAL, we may consider the fact that STi Prepaid's misconduct
   occurred over an extended period to place "the violations in context, thus
   establishing the licensee's degree of culpability and the continuing
   nature of the violations." Roadrunner Transportation Inc., Forfeiture
   Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72 (2000). The forfeiture amount we propose
   herein relates only to STi Prepaid's apparent violations that occurred
   within the past year.

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

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd  at 17099 P: 22, 17101 P: 29.
   See also 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(4) ("The Commission and its staff may use
   these guidelines in particular cases [and] retain the discretion to issue
   a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to issue no
   forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or additional sanctions as
   permitted by the statute.") (emphasis added).

   See American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 16432 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
   2008), response pending ("ASTCA").

   See ASTCA, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436-7 P: 10.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id. at 16437 P: 11. See also Telrite, 23 FCC Rcd at 7244-45 (determining
   that the failure to file Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets was a
   continuing violation); Compass Global, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6138 (2008) (same); VCI Company, Notice
   of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940
   (2007) (determining that the failure to file Lifeline and Linkup
   Worksheets was a continuing violation).

   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 P: 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 P: 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 P: 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 P: 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).

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

   See e.g., Locus Telecommunications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 330, 335 P: 13 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010)
   ("Locus") (quoting Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23
   FCC Rcd at 3450 P: 112).

   Locus, 25 FCC Rcd at 335 P: 14.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id.

   In this regard, we note that each manufacturer and service provider is
   required to continuously maintain the required information concerning its
   hearing aid-compatible handset models on its web site and to update the
   web sites within 30 days of a change in its handset offerings.

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(h).

   (Continued from previous page ...)

   (continued ...)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439