******************************************************** 
                      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.

*****************************************************************



   January 14, 2010

   VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

   AND FACSIMILE AT 305 538 2009

   Mr. Hayri Barutcu, Director of Operations

   Firefly Mobile Communications, Inc.

   119 Washington Avenue, Suite 401

   Miami Beach, FL 33139

   Re: File No. EB-09-SE-154

   Dear Mr. Barutcu:

   This is an official CITATION, issued to Firefly Mobile Communications,
   Inc. ("Firefly"), a reseller of wireless services, pursuant to section
   503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), for
   violating the digital wireless handset hearing aid compatibility status
   report filing requirements set forth in section 20.19(i)(1) of the
   Commission's Rules ("Rules"). As explained below, future violations of the
   Commission's rules in this regard may subject Firefly to monetary
   forfeitures.

   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. The Commission further
   established, for each standard, deadlines by which manufacturers and
   service providers were required to offer specified numbers or percentages
   of digital wireless handsets per air interface that are compliant with the
   relevant standard if they did not come under the de minimis exception. In
   February 2008, as part of a comprehensive reconsideration of the
   effectiveness of the hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission
   released an order that, among other things, adopted new compatible handset
   deployment benchmarks beginning in 2008. 

   Of primary relevance, the Commission also adopted reporting requirements
   to ensure that it could 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 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 service providers that fit within
   the de minimis exception.

   Firefly did not file a hearing aid compatibility status report prior to
   the January 15, 2009 deadline. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
   referred Firefly's apparent violation of the hearing aid compatibility
   reporting requirement to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement
   action. On October 14, 2009, the Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement
   Division issued Firefly, a Mobile Virtual Network Operator, a Letter of
   Inquiry ("LOI"). Firefly responded to the LOI on November 13, 2009.
   Firefly requested that its LOI Response be accorded confidential
   treatment. Although we are not ruling on Firefly's request at this time,
   we are treating its LOI Response as confidential for the purposes of this
   Citation.

   Under section 20.19(e)(1) of the Rules, "... service providers that offer
   two or fewer digital wireless handsets in an air interface in the United
   States are exempt from the [hearing aid compatibility wireless handset]
   requirements of this section in connection with that air interface, except
   with regard to the reporting requirements in paragraph (i) of this
   section." As a service provider offering only two digital wireless
   handsets, Firefly is exempt from the hearing aid compatibility handset
   deployment and consumer information requirements, but is not exempt from
   the reporting requirements of section 20.19(i)(1).

   Under section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules, all service providers, including
   resellers, must file hearing aid compatibility status reports initially on
   January 15, 2009, and annually thereafter. These reports are necessary to
   enable the Commission to perform its enforcement function and evaluate
   whether Firefly is in compliance with Commission mandates that were
   adopted to facilitate the accessibility of hearing aid-compatible wireless
   handsets. These reports also provide valuable information to the public
   concerning the technical testing and commercial availability of hearing
   aid-compatible handsets.  Based on the record before us, we find that
   Firefly did not file the January 15, 2009 report. Accordingly, Firefly
   violated the hearing aid compatibility status report filing requirements
   set forth in section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.

   Firefly should take prompt action to ensure that it does not continue to
   violate the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules. If,
   after receipt of this Citation, Firefly violates the Communications Act or
   the Commission's rules or orders in any manner described herein, the
   Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $150,000 for each
   such violation or each day of a continuing violation.

   Firefly may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this
   letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission's Field
   Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a written statement.
   Firefly's response should specify the actions that it is taking to ensure
   that it does not violate the Commission's rules governing the filing of
   hearing aid compatibility status reports in the future.

   The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Miami District
   Office, in Miami, Florida. Please call Ava Holly Berland at 202-418-2075,
   if Firefly wishes to schedule a personal interview. Firefly should
   schedule any interview to take place within 30 days of the date of this
   letter. Firefly should send any written statement within 30 days of the
   date of this letter to:

   Ava Holly Berland

   Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Re: EB-09-SE-154

   Federal Communications Commission

   445 12th Street, S.W., Rm. 4-C448

   Washington, D.C. 20554

   Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we are informing Firefly that the
   Commission's staff will use all relevant material information before it,
   including information that Firefly discloses in its interview or written
   statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to
   ensure Firefly's compliance with the Communications Act and the
   Commission's rules and orders.

   The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment
   of any material fact, in response to this citation is punishable by fine
   or imprisonment.

   We thank Firefly in advance for its anticipated cooperation.

   Sincerely,

   Kathryn Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   cc: Steven A. Augustino, Esq. and Denise N. Smith, Esq.

   Kelley Drye & Warren

   3050 K Street, N.W.

   Suite 400

   Washington, DC 20007

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5).

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

   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 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").

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777 P: 56; 47 C.F.R.
   S: 20.19(b)(1), (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 Dispatch Enhanced Network (iDEN)
   and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) a/k/a Universal Mobile
   Telecommunications System (UMTS).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 P: 65; 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 deployment requirements, and manufacturers or mobile 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 Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406 (2008) ("Hearing
   Aid Compatibility First Report and Order"), Order on Reconsideration and
   Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008).

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

   Id. P: 99.

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau to Hayri Barutcu, Director of Operations, Firefly
   Communications, Inc. (October 14, 2009).

   See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Esq. and Denise N. Smith, Esq.,
   Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum
   Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (November 13, 2009).

   Id.

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

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

   To date, Firefly still has not filed the January 15, 2009 report.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3).

   See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3).

   See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001.

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82

   1

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-82

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554