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-127
In the Matter of
) NAL/Acct. No.: 201232100024
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
) FRN: 0006945950
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: April 13, 2012 Released: April 13, 2012
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we propose a
forfeiture in the amount of eight hundred nineteen thousand dollars
($819,000) against T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile). As detailed herein,
we find that T-Mobile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Sections 20.19(c)(2) and 20.19(d)(2) of the Commission's rules
(Rules). We further find that this apparent misconduct persisted for
the two-year period, 2009-2010. Specifically, T-Mobile, a nationwide
wireless carrier with more than 33 million customers and more than $21
billion dollars in annual revenue, apparently failed to offer the
required number 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.
1. In the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the
Commission established various deadlines between 2008 and 2011 by
which manufacturers and service providers must offer specified numbers
of digital wireless handset models rated hearing aid-compatible. These
handset deployment requirements apply to each air interface over which
the service provider offers service. In addition, the number of
digital wireless handset models that each company must offer 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.
2. Specifically, Tier I carriers were required to offer the following
minimum numbers of hearing aid-compatible handsets:
Table 1: Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment Requirements
M3 - T3 - Inductive
Acoustic Coupling
Coupling
Dates Number of wireless Number of wireless
handset models per handset models per
digital air interface digital air
that must be rated M3 interface that
or higher must be rated T3
or higher
Effective date At least 8 handset At least 3 handset
of rules to models, or at least models, or at
50% of the models least 1/3 of the
February 14, offered (whichever is models offered
2009 less) (whichever is
less)
February 15, At least 9 handset
2009 to models or 50% of At least 5 handset
models, or 1/3 of
February 14, the models offered the models offered
2010
February 15,
2010 to At least 10 handset At least 7 handset
models, or 50% of the models, or 1/3 of
December 31, models offered the models offered
2010
1. On January 14, 2010, T-Mobile submitted a hearing aid compatibility
status report covering January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. T-Mobile
identified each handset model it offered to consumers and specified
the model's FCC Identification (FCC ID) as well as the hearing aid
compatibility rating, if any. After a careful review of T-Mobile's
submission, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau referred this
matter to the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) for investigation and
possible enforcement action.
2. As part of its investigation, Commission staff consulted the FCC
Office of Engineering and Technology 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. 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 authorization. The
Commission's investigation revealed a variety of inaccuracies in
T-Mobile's hearing aid compatibility reports as to both its WCDMA and
GSM handset offerings.
3. On September 10, 2010, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (LOI) to
T-Mobile, directing the company to submit a sworn written response to
a series of questions related to its compliance with Sections
20.19(c)(2) and 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules. T-Mobile responded to the
LOI on September 30, 2010 (LOI Response), stating that it had relied
on the manufacturers' reports for several handset models' hearing aid
compatibility ratings. In October 2010, T-Mobile disclosed to the
Commission possible hearing aid-compatible handset deployment
violations during the 2010 calendar year. As a consequence, the
Commission expanded its investigation to include these additional
potential violations.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Comply With Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment
Requirements on the WCDMA Air Interface
5. Our analysis of T-Mobile's compliance with the hearing aid
compatibility rules focuses on the company's apparent handset
deployment deficiencies for the WCDMA air interface, where over an
extended period of time, T-Mobile apparently failed to meet the
minimum regulatory benchmarks for hearing aid-compatible handsets
rated M3 or higher (M3-rated handset models) and for hearing aid-
compatible handsets rated T3 or higher (T3-rated handset models).
6. Acoustic Coupling (M3-rated handset models). We find that T-Mobile
apparently failed to offer to consumers during the 2009 and 2010
calendar years the required number of M3-rated handset models that
operate on the WCDMA air interface. As noted above, the Commission
has imposed varying benchmarks for the deployment of hearing
aid-compatible handsets. During 2009, T-Mobile was required to offer
between four and nine M3-rated handset models that operate on the
WCDMA air interface. As detailed in Appendix A, T-Mobile apparently
failed to meet this standard, repeatedly falling short each month by
one to three handset models. T-Mobile's record failed to improve
during 2010: T-Mobile was required to offer either nine or ten
M3-rated handset models that operate on the WCDMA air interface, but
failed to meet this benchmark even once, repeatedly falling short
each month by as many as four handset models. Accordingly, we find
that T-Mobile apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
20.19(c)(2) of the Rules by failing to offer to consumers the
required number of digital wireless M3-rated handset models that
operate on the WCDMA air interface. We also find that this apparent
misconduct continued for seven months in 2009 and for all of 2010.
7. Inductive Coupling (T3-rated handset models). We further find that
T-Mobile apparently failed to offer to consumers during the 2009 and
2010 calendar years the required number of T3-rated handset models
that operate on the WCDMA air interface. During 2009, T-Mobile was
required to offer between three and five T3-rated handset models that
operate on the WCDMA air interface. As set forth in greater detail in
Appendix C, T-Mobile apparently failed to meet this standard,
repeatedly falling short each month during the year by as many as
four handset models. Similarly, during 2010, T-Mobile was required to
offer between five and seven T3-rated handset models that operate on
the WCDMA air interface. As shown in Appendix D, T-Mobile failed to
meet the deployment benchmarks during seven months in 2010,
repeatedly falling short by at least one and by as many as three
handset models. Accordingly, we conclude that T-Mobile apparently
willfully and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules by
failing to offer to consumers the required number of T3-rated handset
models that operate on the WCDMA air interface. We also find that
this apparent misconduct continued for all of 2009 and for seven
months in 2010.
8. We note that with respect to one handset model-the Huawei Tap (FCC ID
QISU7519)-offered from November 2009 until December 2010, T-Mobile
asserts that it obtained ratings information for the handset model
"directly from Huawei," and that it "lawfully relied" on
manufacturers' representations of the hearing aid compatibility
rating for handsets in accordance with Commission guidance. In
support of its assertion, T-Mobile provides a copy of a document
titled "2008 Roadmap v9 T-Mobile - Product Development," which
references the Huawei Tap by its FCC ID and purports to indicate that
the model has an M3 rating.
9. T-Mobile's reliance on a preliminary technical specifications sheet
for the Huawei Tap handset was not reasonable under the circumstances
here. For example, in the specifications sheet submitted by
T-Mobile, many of the handset model's technical specifications are
incomplete (e.g., including the notations "need to clarify," "screen
shots not ready," "Partial support Pending on TMO clarification," and
"TBD"). The record shows that there was ample information available
to T-Mobile from the manufacturer establishing that the Huawei
handset was not hearing aid-compatible. Specifically, Huawei's early
submissions to the Commission in connection with the equipment
authorization of the handset, the equipment authorization itself, the
device user manual prepared by Huawei, and Huawei's hearing aid
compatibility report for the July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010
reporting period all confirm the absence of a hearing aid-compatible
rating. Therefore, T-Mobile's decision to rely on a preliminary spec
sheet to the exclusion of numerous sources of more accurate
information that were readily available from the manufacturer was
unreasonable and taken at its own peril.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
10. 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 T-Mobile is
apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful and
repeated violations of Sections 20.19(c)(2) and 20.19(d)(2) of the
Rules.
11. 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."
12. 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, however, 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.
13. 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 growing
reliance on wireless technology and with the increasing median age of
our population.
14. In prior cases decided on delegated authority since at least 2008,
the Bureau generally has applied a base forfeiture amount of $15,000
on a per handset model basis, identifying the calendar month within
the statute of limitations where the service provider or manufacturer
fell the furthest short of the required benchmark. The Bureau then
applied the $15,000 per handset base forfeiture only with respect to
the handset shortages in that calendar month_the so-called "highest
handset shortfall approach."
15. Both the Commission and the Bureau, however, are concerned that the
"highest handset shortfall" approach does not adequately reflect the
nature and scope of the violations of hearing aid compatibility
rules. As the Bureau has previously indicated, the failure to make
compatible handsets available to consumers actually prevents hearing
aid users from accessing digital wireless communications. After
careful consideration, we conclude that the highest handset shortfall
approach could yield anomalous results contrary to the critical
policy goals at stake.
16. It is counterintuitive, for example, that a company with more
violations (taking into account the number of months in which the
violations occur) would be assessed the same base forfeiture as a
competitor with fewer violations overall. To illustrate, take two
carriers that were out of compliance with the deployment requirements
for an entire calendar year, both of which had the greatest handset
shortfall (of five handsets) in December. Assume that Carrier A is
down five handsets for the entire year and Carrier B was short only
one handset for the first 11 months of that year. Using the Bureau's
current approach, both Carriers A and B would receive the same base
forfeiture of $75,000 (5 handsets x $15,000). The current approach,
by focusing only on the single month with the greatest handset
shortfall, does not take into account the fact that consumers may
have been denied an adequate choice of compatible handsets for a
period of time well beyond that particular month.
17. Moreover, we are troubled that failing to capture all the handset
shortages during a calendar year could lead to inappropriately low
base forfeiture amounts and provide little incentive to comply. If
the existing base forfeiture approach-using the highest handset
shortfall-were applied to the facts and circumstances of this case,
the resulting base forfeiture amount would be inadequate to deter
continuing noncompliance. Indeed, if a carrier was short five
handsets in one month, the current approach would provide little
incentive to quickly reduce the shortfall given that the likely
forfeiture would remain the same whether the carrier was short five
or one handsets the next month. Here, T-Mobile was out of compliance
with the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements on
the WCDMA air interface through the entire 24-month period, January
2009 to December 2010. During this extended period of noncompliance,
T-Mobile was short by a total of 52 handset models-a deficiency which
gave potentially large number of consumers with hearing disabilities
far fewer choices of compatible handsets than the minimum numbers
required by our rules.
18. Furthermore, while T-Mobile made available to consumers without
hearing loss a wide variety of handset offerings (as many as 20
handset models in 2009 and 25 handset models in 2010), T-Mobile
apparently failed to offer to consumers experiencing hearing loss
even the minimum number of hearing aid-compatible handset models
required by the rules during those two years. T-Mobile was aware, or
should have been aware, of its compliance problems when it submitted
the 2009 wireless hearing aid compatibility status report. Rather
than addressing the handset shortages, however, it continued to
violate the Commission's rules for an additional year. In fact,
T-Mobile's compliance with the deployment benchmarks not only failed
to improve in 2010, but significantly worsened with respect to its
M3-rated handset offerings.
19. Recognizing that "our hearing aid compatibility rules provide people
who use hearing aids and cochlear implants with continuing access to
the most advanced and innovative technologies as science and markets
develop," we find that a more nuanced base forfeiture methodology is
warranted in order to more fully reflect the significance of the
violations at issue and to better deter future noncompliance with
these critical rules. In this regard, we are mindful that the
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules have been in place for
almost a decade and that carriers have had more than sufficient
opportunity to structure compliance programs and ensure that they
meet our requirements.
20. Given the potentially substantial and tangible impact on consumers
with hearing loss, we will continue to apply the $15,000 per handset
base amount. However, for the reasons explained above, we will apply
this per handset base amount to each failure to offer a hearing
aid-compatible handset during each month of the calendar year, rather
than to a limited subset of such handset shortages as the Bureau did
previously. We will implement this approach consistent with our
obligation to consider the nature and circumstances of each
particular case and the other statutory factors in section
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act. We recognize that there may be instances
where the violator's size or inability to pay may be particularly
salient factors. Section 503 gives us ample discretion
to consider such circumstances and adjust the forfeiture amount
accordingly.
21. Consequently, and consistent with Section 503(b)(6) of the Act, we
start with a base forfeiture of $570,000 (38 handset models x
$15,000) for T-Mobile's apparent failure to offer to consumers the
required number of M3-rated handset models that operate on the WCDMA
air interface in willful and repeated violation of Section
20.19(c)(2) of the Rules. We also conclude that a base forfeiture of
$210,000 (14 handset models x $15,000) is warranted for T-Mobile's
apparent failure to offer to consumers the required number of
T3-rated handset models that operate on the WCDMA air interface in
willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.
22. These base forfeiture amounts, however, are subject to adjustment.
Consistent with the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, we find that an upward adjustment of the
$780,000 base forfeiture amount is warranted. T-Mobile is a
sophisticated Tier I carrier with 33 million subscribers and the
buying power to procure any number of wireless hearing aid-compatible
handsets from equipment manufacturers. In addition, as the Commission
made clear in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, it is appropriate to
impose higher forfeitures than the base amounts on large or highly
profitable entities, such as T-Mobile, to ensure that the forfeiture
serves as an effective deterrent against their future noncompliance.
T-Mobile reported more than $21 billion in total annual revenues and
equipment sales of more than $2.4 billion in 2009 and 2010. We also
note, however, that the severity of the apparent violations is
somewhat mitigated by the fact that T-Mobile disclosed the 2010
handset deployment shortfall several months early, which assisted the
Bureau in timely investigating this matter. We note that but for
T-Mobile's cooperation the upward adjustment would have been
significantly higher.
23. In view of all the factual circumstances presented and after weighing
the upward and downward adjustment factors (including the T-Mobile's
ability to pay as well as the company's timely disclosure of certain
of the violations), we propose a total forfeiture of $819,000 against
T-Mobile for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to comply
with the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements set
forth in Sections 20.19(c)(2) and 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, T-Mobile USA, Inc. is NOTIFIED of
its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of eight
hundred and nineteen thousand dollars ($819,000) for willful and
repeated violations of Sections 20.19(c)(2) and 20.19(d)(2) of the
Rules.
6. 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, T-Mobile USA, Inc. SHALL
PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.
7. 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.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. must also send electronic notification to Pamera
Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, Linda Nagel at
Linda.Nagel@fcc.gov, and Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on
the date said payment is made.
8. 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 also should be emailed to Pamera Hairston at
Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov and to Linda Nagel at Linda.Nagel@fcc.gov.
9. 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.
10. 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 Kathleen O'Brien Ham, Vice
President, Regulatory Affairs, T-Mobile USA, Inc., 401 9th St, NW
Suite 550, Washington, DC 20004 and to counsel to T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
David H. Solomon, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, 2300 N Street,
N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20037.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
APPENDIX A
2009 T-Mobile Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (M3 Rating)
WCDMA Air Interface
Hearing
Aid- Hearing
Total Compatible Aid-Compatible
Period Handsets Handsets Handsets Compliance?
Offered Offered Required
(M3 (M3 rating)
rating)
January 7 3 No
2009
February
1-14, 8 4
2009
February
15-28, 8 4
2009
March 8 4 Yes
2009
April 8 4 of the total At least Yes
2009 number of 50% of
May 2009 8 4 offered or at number of Yes
June 2009 8 4 handset models models Yes
July 2009 11 4 (1/1/09 - or at No
August 14 4 handset No
2009 models
September 15 5 (2/15/09 No
2009 -
October 15 5 No
2009
November 20 7 No
2009
December 19 6 No
2009
APPENDIX B
2010 T-Mobile Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (M3 Rating)
WCDMA Air Interface
Hearing
Aid- Hearing
Total Compatible Aid-Compatible
Period Handsets Handsets Handsets Compliance?
Offered Offered Required
(M3 (M3 rating)
rating)
January 18 6 No
2010
February
1-14, 18 6
2010
February
15-28, 18 6
2010
March 20 6 No
2010
April 17 5 of the total At least No
2010 number of 50% of
May 2010 17 5 offered or at number of No
June 2010 24 7 handset models models No
July 2010 24 9 (1/1/10 - or at No
August 22 6 handset No
2010 models
September 23 7 (2/15/10 No
2010 -
October 23 8 No
2010
November 25 9 No
2010
December 24 9 No
2010
APPENDIX C
2009 T-Mobile Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (T3 Rating)
WCDMA Air Interface
Hearing
Aid- Hearing
Total Compatible Aid-Compatible
Period Handsets Handsets Handsets Compliance?
Offered Offered Required
(T3 (T3 rating)
rating)
January 7 2 No
2009
February
1-14, 8 2
2009
February
15-28, 8 2
2009
March 8 2 No
2009 At least 1/3
April 8 2 of the total 1/3 No
2009 number of
May 2009 8 1 offered or total No
June 2009 8 1 at least 3 handset No
July 2009 11 1 offered No
August 14 1 2/14/09) No
2009 at least
September 15 2 models No
2009
October 15 2 - No
2009 12/31/09)
November 20 4 No
2009
December 19 4 No
2009
APPENDIX D
2010 T-Mobile Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (T3 Rating)
WCDMA Air Interface
Hearing
Aid- Hearing
Total Compatible Aid-Compatible
Period Handsets Handsets Handsets Compliance?
Offered Offered Required
(T3 (T3 rating)
rating)
January 18 4 No
2010
February
1-14, 18 4
2010
February
15-28, 18 4
2010
March 20 4 No
2010 At least 1/3
April 17 4 of the total 1/3 No
2010 number of
May 2010 17 4 offered or total No
June 2010 24 6 at least 5 handset No
July 2010 24 8 offered Yes
August 22 6 No
2010 2/14/10) at least
September 23 7 models Yes
2010
October 23 7 - Yes
2010 12/31/10)
November 25 7 Yes
2010
December 24 7 Yes
2010
T-Mobile is a Tier I carrier. Tier I carriers are nationwide wireless
radio service providers. 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, paras. 22-23 (2002). T-Mobile offers service over
the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and Wideband Code
Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) a.k.a. Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS) air interfaces.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(2), (d)(2).
See infra note 65 and accompanying text.
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, 11174, para. 18 (2010)
(2010 Policy Statement).
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, para. 56. See
also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1), (2). The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order
described the acoustic coupling and 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, para. 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). A recently adopted further amendment to Section 20.19(b)
will permit manufacturers to test handsets for hearing aid compatibility
using the 2011 version of the ANSI standard (ANSI C63.19-2011) as an
alternative to ANSI C63.19-2007. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Third Report and Order,
DA 12-550 (WTB/OET rel. Apr. 9, 2012).
See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3419, paras.
35-36 (2008) (Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order), Order on
Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008). These requirements do
not apply to service providers and manufacturers that meet the de minimis
exception. See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC
Rcd at 3413, para. 20; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406,
3419, paras. 35-36 (stating that the hearing aid compatibility handset
deployment requirements apply on a per air interface basis).
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, WCDMA a.k.a. 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,
para. 35; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(2).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419,
para. 36; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(2).
See supra note 11.
See supra note 12.
See supra note 11.
See supra note 12.
See T-Mobile USA, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, Docket No. 07-250
(Jan. 14, 2010), available at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/100317/T-Mobile%20USA_164.PDF (2009
Report).
See http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/.
See supra note 10 (explaining that WCDMA and GSM are two technical
protocols that permit a handset to communicate with a service provider's
base station). Specifically, with respect to certain handsets operating
over the WCDMA air interface, T-Mobile's 2009 Report indicated that the
Huawei Tap (FCC ID QISU7519) is rated M3 when Commission records show that
the model is not rated for hearing aid compatibility; that the Research in
Motion Blackberry 8220 (FCC ID L6ARBY40GW) is rated M3/T3 when Commission
records show that the model has an M3/T4 rating; and that the Sony
Ericsson TM747 (FCC ID PY7A3880030) is rated M3/T3 when Commission records
show the model has an M3/T4 rating. Because the Blackberry 8220 and Sony
Ericsson TM747 handset models meet the minimum requirements for hearing
aid compatibility, the noted discrepancies had no impact on our analysis
herein. The Bureau's investigation revealed similar inaccuracies with
respect to certain handset models that operate only over the GSM air
interface. Specifically, T-Mobile's 2009 Report indicated that the
Research in Motion Blackberry 8900 (FCC ID L6ARBZ40GW) is not rated for
hearing aid compatibility while Commission records show that the model has
an M3 rating; and that the Nokia 3711 (FCC ID PPIRM-511) is rated M3/T3
while Commission records show that the model has an M3/T4 rating. We have
carefully considered all of this information, including the hearing aid
compatibility ratings from the OET database that would be more favorable
to T-Mobile than the ratings in its own submission.
See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Kathleen O'Brien
Ham, Vice President, Federal Regulatory Affairs, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Sept.
10, 2010) (LOI).
See Letter from David H. Solomon, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP,
Counsel to T-Mobile USA, Inc., to Linda M. Nagel, Spectrum Enforcement
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Sept. 30,
2010). In response to follow-up questions regarding its corporate
structure, T-Mobile filed a supplemental response on February 22, 2011.
See Letter from David H. Solomon, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP,
Counsel to T-Mobile USA, Inc., to Linda M. Nagel, Spectrum Enforcement
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 22,
2011).
Id. at 1-3.
T-Mobile filed its Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report for the January
1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 reporting period on January 18, 2011; its
disclosure of possible deployment violations was made prior to this
filing. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, Docket
No. 07-250 (Jan. 18, 2011), available at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/110210/5940157_186.PDF (2010
Report).
To permit a full and fair investigation of this matter, the Bureau and
T-Mobile entered into tolling agreements to toll the statute of
limitations until April 15, 2012 for apparent violations that occurred
after October 31, 2009. See, e.g., Tolling Agreement Extension, File No.
EB-10-SE-127, executed by and between John D. Poutasse, Acting Chief,
Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, and David H. Solomon, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP,
Counsel to T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Dec. 16, 2011).
All of T-Mobile's handsets for 2009 and 2010 either operated only over the
GSM air interface or were capable of operating over both the GSM and WCDMA
air interfaces. Based on information provided in the 2009 Report and 2010
Report, T-Mobile has demonstrated its compliance with the deployment
benchmarks applicable to handset models that operate over the GSM air
interface.
See supra Table 1.
Id.
See Appendix A, 2009 T-Mobile Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (M3
Rating) (indicating that in January 2009, T-Mobile offered seven WCDMA
handset models, only three of which were hearing aid-compatible for
acoustic coupling, and that between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009,
T-Mobile offered between 11 and 20 WCDMA handset models, only four to
seven of which were hearing aid-compatible for acoustic coupling).
See supra Table 1.
See Appendix B, 2010 T-Mobile Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (M3
Rating) (indicating that between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010,
T-Mobile offered between 18 and 25 WCDMA handset models, only five to nine
of which were hearing aid-compatible for acoustic coupling).
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, para. 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, para. 12 (2008); Regent USA, Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523, para. 9 (2007); San Jose
Navigation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040, 1042, para. 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.
See supra Table 1.
See Appendix C, 2009 T-Mobile Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (T3
Rating) (indicating that between January 1 and February 14, 2009, T-Mobile
offered either seven or eight WCDMA handset models, only two of which were
hearing-aid compatible for inductive coupling, and that between February
15 and December 31, 2009, T-Mobile offered between eight and 20 WCDMA
handset models, only one to four of which were hearing aid- compatible for
inductive coupling).
See supra Table 1.
See Appendix D, 2010 T-Mobile Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (T3
Rating) (indicating that between January 1 and June 30, 2010, T-Mobile
offered between 17 and 24 WCDMA handset models, only four to six of which
were hearing aid-compatible for inductive coupling, and that in August
2010, T-Mobile offered 22 WCDMA handset models, only six of which were
hearing aid-compatible for inductive coupling).
LOI Response at 1-2 (citing Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and
Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3445-46, para. 98 and claiming that its reliance on
Huawei's representations was consistent with Commission guidance).
Id. at Exhibit 1.
See
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&
calledFromFrame=N&application_id=352140&fcc_id='QISU7519' (test reports
submitted with the Huawei Tap handset model's application for equipment
authorization showing that the model apparently was not tested for hearing
aid compatibility).
See
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPY&RequestTimeout=500&tcb_cod
e=&application_id=352140&fcc_id=QISU7519 (grant of authorization for
Huawei Tap handset model showing that the model is not rated for hearing
aid compatibility).
See https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=1167422
(user manual for Huawei Tap handset model providing no indication that the
model is rated for hearing aid compatibility).
See Futurewei Technologies, Inc. dba Huawei Technologies, Hearing Aid
Compatibility Status Report (July 15, 2010), available at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/100720/Futurewei%20Technologies21.PDF
(reporting that the Huawei Tap handset model is not rated for hearing aid
compatibility).
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, para. 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 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); 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, para. 22.
Id.
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755, para. 4.
Id. at 16756, para. 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 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 para. 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, e.g., NEP Cellcorp, 24 FCC Rcd at 13, para. 11; Pinpoint Wireless, 23
FCC Rcd at 9295, para. 11; Smith Bagley, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 14113, 14117-18, para. 11 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009), response pending; South Canaan, 23 FCC Rcd at
24-25, para. 11.
See, e.g., Keystone Wireless LLC d/b/a Immix Wireless, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 15210, 15216-17, para. 13 (Enf. Bur.
2011), response received; (Keystone) (finding that Keystone missed the T3
deployment benchmark by four handset models in October 2010, and assessing
a base forfeiture of $60,000 for such shortage); see also Missouri RSA 5
Partnership d/b/a Chariton Valley Wireless Services, 26 FCC Rcd 15237,
15244, para 13 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (response received) (Chariton Valley)
(finding that Chariton Valley missed the T3 deployment benchmark by three
handsets in October 2010, and assessing a base forfeiture of $45,000 for
such shortage). In recent years, the Bureau also has upwardly adjusted
these base forfeitures based on the duration of the violation. See, e.g.,
Keystone, 26 FCC Rcd at 15217, para. 14 (upwardly adjusting the base
forfeiture because Keystone was out of compliance with the M3 deployment
benchmark for nine and one-half months and with the T3 deployment
benchmark for eleven and one-half months); see also Chariton Valley, 26
FCC Rcd at 15244, para. 14 (upwardly adjusting the base forfeiture because
Chariton Valley was out of compliance with the M3 deployment benchmark for
seven months and with the T3 deployment benchmark for ten consecutive
months).
See South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 20, 24 para. 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").
Applying the highest handset shortfall approach in this case would have
resulted in the assessment of a base forfeiture of only $165,000 (11
handset models x $15,000). Specifically, the calculation would only have
reflected the handset shortages in December 2009 (three M3 handsets short;
one T3 handset short) and in March 2010 (four M3 handsets short and three
T3 handsets short).
See Appendices A through D (indicating that T-Mobile was short a total of
five M3-rated handset models in November and December 2009, 33 M3-rated
handset models from January through December 2010, two T3-rated handset
models in November and December 2009, and 12 T3-rated handset models from
January through December 2010).
See Appendices A through D (showing that during the 2009 and 2010 calendar
years, T-Mobile failed to offer the requisite number of M3-rated and
T3-rated handset models during each calendar month). While non-hearing
aid-compatible handsets are technically available to all consumers, these
handsets may not function effectively with hearing aids and can create
excessive feedback and "noise." See also Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,
18 FCC Rcd at 16756 para. 6 ("[D]igital wireless phones can cause
interference to hearing aids and cochlear implants because of
electromagnetic energy emitted by the phone's antenna, backlight, or other
components. This interference can be significant enough to prevent
individuals with hearing aids or cochlear implants from using digital
wireless phones and services. In addition, most wireless phones do not
internally provide the capability to inductively couple with hearing aids
containing telecoils, as wireline phones do.").
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17092 - 93, para. 8
(recognizing that "guidelines will provide the needed measure of
predictability to the process and uniformity to our administrative
sanctions while retaining flexibility for the Commission to act
appropriately in particular cases").
2010 Policy Statement, 25 FCC Rcd at 11168 (noting that the Commission's
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules are "intended to ensure that
consumers with hearing loss are able to access wireless communications
service through a wide selection of handsets without experiencing
disabling interference or other technical obstacles").
See, e.g., South Canaan, 23 FCC Rcd at 25, para. 12 & n.33 (cautioning
carriers that "that future enforcement actions may consider all failures
to comply with our hearing aid compatibility rules . . . as continuing
violations").
See Appendices A and B (indicating that T-Mobile was short a total of five
M3-rated handset models in November and December 2009, and 33 M3-rated
handset models from January through December 2010). In calculating the
number of handset shortages in 2009, we focus on the company's failure to
offer to consumers the requisite number of M3-rated and T3-rated handset
models in November and December 2009, when T-Mobile missed the benchmarks
by a total of seven handset models. See supra paras. 9 and 10. While we
find that T-Mobile also was apparently out of compliance with the hearing
aid-compatible handset deployment requirements for the entire 2009
calendar year (see supra paras. 9-10) and that these violations are
continuing violations, we exercise our prosecutorial discretion to focus
on the apparent violations that occurred after October 31, 2009. This is
consistent with the tolling agreements negotiated with T-Mobile under the
Bureau's prior forfeiture calculation framework, which tolled the statute
of limitations for apparent violations that occurred after this date.
See Appendices C and D (indicating that T-Mobile was short a total of two
T3-rated handset models in November and December 2009, and 12 T3-rated
handset models from January through December 2010).
Specifically, the Commission stated:
[W]e recognize that for large or highly profitable communication entities,
the base forfeiture amounts ... are generally low. In this regard, we are
mindful that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an effective
deterrent against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high
level. For this reason, we caution all entities and individuals that,
independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts ..., we intend to
take into account the subsequent violator's ability to pay in determining
the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures issued against
large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an
affordable cost of doing business. Such large or highly profitable
entities should expect in this regard that the forfeiture amount set out
in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many cases be above,
or even well above, the relevant base amount.
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100, para. 24.
See T-Mobile USA Reports Fourth Quarter 2010 Results, February 25, 2011,
available at
http://s.tmocache.com/Cms/Files/Published/0000BDF20016F5DD010312E2BDE4AE9B/5657
114502E70FF3012B5A79D454F2C8/file/TMUSQ42010PressReleaseFinalv2.pdf (last
visited April 13, 2012);
see also T-Mobile USA Reports Fourth Quarter 2011 Operating Results, Press
Release, February 23, 2012, available at
http://www.tmobile.com/Cms/Files/Published/0000BDF20016F5DD010312E2BDE4AE9B/565711
4502E70FF30135AD3E32E64A86/file/TMUS%20Q4%202011%20Press%20Release%20FINAL.pdf
(last visited Mar. 16, 2012). In 2011, T-Mobile served nearly 33.2 million
customers, and reported total annual revenues of $20.6 billion and
equipment sales of $1.9 billion. Id.
See Petracom of Texarkana, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 8096,
8097-8098, para. 6 (Enf. Bur. 2004). See also SES Americom, Inc, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 2694, 2697, para. 11 (Enf.
Bur., Spectrum Enforcement Div. 2009) (forfeiture paid); Side By Side,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 898, 901,
para. 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008); Lazer Broadcasting Corp.,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 8710, 8712, para.
10 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005) (forfeiture paid).
See, e.g., Locus Telecommunications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture and Admonishment, 26 FCC Rcd 17073, 17079-80, para. 13
(Enf. Bur. 2011) (upwardly adjusting the base forfeiture to reflect the
carrier's noncompliance during the entire 2010 calendar year and the
carrier's ability to pay); Centennial Communications Corporation, Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9406, 9412-13 P: 13 (Enf.
Bur. 2008) (forfeiture paid) (2008 Centennial NAL) (emphasizing that
large, highly profitable entities can expect forfeitures that are higher
than the base amount); SunCom Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 8681, 8688 P: 17 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (forfeiture
paid) (SunCom Wireless) (violations of the hearing aid compatibility
handset requirements by Tier II carriers are more egregious, warranting a
higher forfeiture amount than that assessed against smaller Tier III
carriers and serves as an effective deterrent against their future
noncompliance with the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements ).
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(2), (d)(2).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
Id. S: 20.19(c)(2), (d)(2).
Id. S:S: 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
(...continued from previous page)
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-39
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-39