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-11-SE-046
In the Matter of )
NAL/Acct. No.: 201232100011
Caprock Cellular Limited Partnership )
FRN: 0001665900
)
)
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: December 23, 2011 Released: December 23, 2011
By the Acting Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we
propose a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000) against Caprock Cellular Limited Partnership ("Caprock"). As
detailed herein, we find that Caprock apparently willfully and
repeatedly violated section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules
("Rules"). Specifically, Caprock apparently failed to offer to
consumers the required number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible
digital wireless handset models as set forth in the Rules. These
hearing aid compatibility requirements serve to ensure that consumers
with hearing loss have access to advanced telecommunications services.
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 must offer specified numbers
or percentages of digital wireless handset models that are rated as
hearing aid-compatible. The number or percentage of digital wireless
handset models required to be offered to consumers by each deadline
depends on the applicable compatibility standard ("M" rating or "T"
rating), and the deployment schedule is tailored to the size of the
service provider as measured by its number of subscribers.
Specifically, 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. Beginning May 15, 2010, non-Tier I service
providers were required to offer to consumers at least ten handset
models per digital air interface, or at least 50% of the models
offered per digital air interface, that met or exceeded the M3 rating.
Similarly, between May 15, 2010 and May 14, 2011, non-Tier I service
providers were required to offer at least seven handset models per
digital air interface, or at least one-third of the models offered per
digital air interface, that met or exceeded the T3 rating.
4. On December 21, 2010, Caprock submitted a hearing aid compatibility
status report covering January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. Caprock
identified each handset model it offered to consumers in its retail
stores and on its website, www.caprockcellular.com, and specified the
model's FCC Identification ("FCC ID") as well as the hearing aid
compatibility rating, if any. After a careful review of Caprock's
submission, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau referred this
matter to the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for investigation. As part
of its investigation, the Bureau consulted the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology ("OET") Equipment Authorization System to
independently confirm the hearing aid compatibility rating of each
handset model as established in the grant of equipment authorization
issued by the Commission for that handset. Taking into account the
manufacturer-reported information in the OET database, we conclude
that Caprock apparently failed to offer the required number or
percentage of handset models that met or exceeded the M3 rating.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Comply with Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment
Requirements
5. We find that Caprock apparently failed to offer to consumers the
required number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible handset models
that met or exceeded the M3 rating. As noted above, the Commission has
imposed varying benchmarks for the deployment of hearing
aid-compatible handsets. Between October 1 and November 30, 2010,
Caprock was required to offer at least four M3 or higher rated handset
models per air interface, and during December 2010, it was required to
offer at least three. As set forth in greater detail in the Appendix,
Caprock apparently failed to meet this standard, repeatedly falling
short by one handset model. Accordingly, we find that Caprock
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 20.19(c)(3)(ii)
of the Rules by failing to offer to consumers the required number or
percentage of digital wireless handset models with a minimum M3 rating
between October 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
6. 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 for forfeiture 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 Caprock is
apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful and
repeated violations of section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
7. 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."
8. 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 in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not
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.
9. 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 consumers with
hearing loss have access to advanced 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 public's
growing reliance on wireless technology and with the increasing median
age of our population.
10. We have previously determined that violations of the hearing
aid-compatible handset deployment requirements are serious in nature
because failure to make compatible handsets available to consumers
actually prevents hearing aid users from accessing digital wireless
communications. Accordingly, we generally apply a base forfeiture
amount of $15,000 to reflect the gravity of these violations. We have
applied the $15,000 base forfeiture on a per handset model basis
(i.e., for each handset model below the minimum number of hearing
aid-compatible models required by the Rules).
11. For purposes of calculating the base forfeiture amount for Caprock's
apparent M3-related violations, we focus on the company's failure to
offer to consumers the requisite number or percentage of handset
models with a minimum M3 rating in December 2010, when Caprock missed
the benchmark by one handset model. Accordingly, and consistent with
section 503(b)(6) of the Act, we find that Caprock is apparently
liable for a forfeiture of $15,000 for failing to offer to consumers
the required number or percentage of M3-rated handset models in
willful and repeated violation of section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the
Rules.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules, Caprock Cellular
Limited Partnership IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE
in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for apparent willful
and repeated violation of section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the release date of this Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Caprock Cellular Limited
Partnership SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or
SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of
the proposed forfeiture.
14. 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. Caprock Cellular Limited Partnership
must also send electronic notification to Celia Lewis at
Celia.Lewis@fcc.gov, Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, and
Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date said payment is
made.
15. 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 Celia Lewis at Celia.Lewis@fcc.gov and Pamera
Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov.
16. 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 ("GAAP"); 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.
17. 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 Jimmy Whitefield, Chief Executive Officer,
Caprock Cellular Limited Partnership, 121 E 3rd Street, Spur, TX
79370.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John D. Poutasse
Acting Chief
Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
APPENDIX
Caprock Cellular Limited Partnership
Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Model Offerings
(M3 or higher rating)
Total M3-rated
Period Handset Handset M3-rated Handset MS
Models Models Models Required Compliance?
Offered Offered
January 11 7 Yes
2010
February 11 7 Yes
2010
March 11 7 Yes
2010
April 10 7 Yes
2010
May 2010 10 7 At least 50% of Yes
June 2010 10 7 of handset Yes
July 2010 10 7 or at least 9 Yes
August 9 5 At least 50% of Yes
2010 (1/1/10-5/14/10) the total number
September 8 4 offered or at Yes
2010 least 10 handset
October 7 3 No
2010 (5/15/10-12/31/10)
November 7 3 No
2010
December 5 2 No
2010
Caprock is a Tier III carrier serving Spur, Texas. Tier III carriers are
non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer
subscribers as of the end of 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: 22-23 (2002). Caprock offers service over
the Global System for Mobile Communications ("GSM") air interface.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
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)(B) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 610(b)(2)(B).
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 coupling (telecoil) 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
sound by the hearing aid speaker. 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.
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16763 P: 22.
As subsequently amended, section 20.19(b)(1) provides that, for the period
beginning January 1, 2010, a wireless handset is deemed hearing
aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, at a minimum, it meets
the M3 rating associated with the technical standard set forth in the
standard document "American National Standard Methods of Measurement of
Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,"
ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) ("ANSI C63.19-2007"), except that grants
of certification issued before January 1, 2010 under earlier versions of
ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing-aid compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R.
S: 20.19(b)(1). Section 20.19(b)(2) provides that, for the period
beginning 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 set forth in ANSI
C63.19-2007, except that grants of certification issued before January 1,
2010 under earlier versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid
compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(2).
These requirements apply to each air interface over which service
providers offer service. See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and
Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419 P:P: 35-36 (stating that the hearing aid
compatibility handset deployment requirements apply on a per interface
basis). However, the handset deployment requirements do 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, 3413 P: 20
(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(e). 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). Effective September 10, 2012, the
de minimis exception will not be available to manufacturers or mobile
service providers that do not meet the definition of a "small entity"
beginning two years after their initial offerings. 47 C.F.R. S:
20.19(e)(1)(ii); see also 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, 25 FCC Rcd 11167,
11180-89 P:P: 35-59 (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 GSM, Wideband Code Division Multiple Access ("WCDMA")
a/k/a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System ("UMTS"), Code Division
Multiple Access ("CDMA"), and Integrated Digital Enhanced Network
("iDEN").
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 supra note 8.
See supra note 9.
See Caprock Cellular Limited Partnership Hearing Aid Compatibility Status
Report (filed December 21, 2010), available at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/110210/5904080_27.PDF ("2010
Report").
The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Equipment Authorization
System is an electronic database of all equipment certified under FCC
authority. The database identifies the hearing aid compatibility rating of
each device by FCC ID, as reported by the handset manufacturer in test
reports submitted to the Commission at the time of an equipment
authorization or of any modifications to such authorizations. See
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/.
See 2010 Report.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii) (requiring non-Tier I digital wireless
service providers are required to ensure that beginning May 15, 2010,
either at least 50% of the handset models they offered, or at least ten
handset models, met or exceeded the M3 rating for radio frequency
interference). All of Caprock's handset models for the 2010 reporting
period operate over the GSM air interface.
See Appendix, Caprock Cellular Limited Partnership Hearing Aid-Compatible
Handset Offerings (M3 or higher rating) (indicating that between October
1, 2010 and December 31, 2010, Caprock offered between five and seven
handset models, only two to three of which had a minimum M3 rating).
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 clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both
sections 312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-765 (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); 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 Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P: 9 (2001),
forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626 (2002) (forfeiture
paid); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 P: 5.
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)(4); 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)(2)
of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2), three times to increase the maximum
forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment
requirements contained in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment
Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. S: 3701 note. The most recent inflation
adjustment took effect September 2, 2008 and applies to violations that
occur after that date. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the
Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the maximum statutory
amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,325,000 to
$150,000/$1,500,000); 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5), Note to
paragraph (b)(5): 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, Report and
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); 47 C.F.R.
S:S: 1.80, 20.19.
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P: 22.
Id.
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755 P: 4.
Id. at 16756 P: 5 (noting that approximately one in ten Americans, or 28
million Americans, 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 Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's
Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report on the Status of
Implementation of the Commission's Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements,
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 people -- with that number expected to
reach approximately 40 million people at the end of [2010].").
See South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 20, 24 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
Enf. Div. 2008) (forfeiture paid) ("South Canaan") (finding 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."). See also, e.g., NEP Cellcorp, Inc.,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 8, 13 P: 11 (Enf.
Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009) (forfeiture paid) ("NEP Cellcorp");
Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23
FCC Rcd 9290, 9295 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), consent
decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 24 FCC Rcd 2951 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009) ("Pinpoint Wireless"); Smith Bagley, Inc., Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 14113, 14118 P: 11 (Enf.
Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009), response pending ("Smith Bagley").
See, e.g., NEP Cellcorp, 24 FCC Rcd at 13 P: 11; Pinpoint Wireless, 23 FCC
Rcd at 9295 P: 11; Smith Bagley, 24 FCC Rcd at 14118 P: 11; South Canaan,
23 FCC Rcd at 24 P: 11.
See supra note 30.
See supra para. 5.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6).
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-2060
4
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-2060