Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

NAL Issued to Airvoice for HAC Reporting Violation

Download Options

Released: February 12, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-175

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

)
File No.: EB-SED-13-000129591
In the Matter of
)
)

NAL/Acct. No.: 201432100009
Airvoice Wireless, LLC
)
)

FRN: 0019466515
)

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: February 12, 2014

Released: February 12, 2014

By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we propose a forfeiture in the amount
of six thousand dollars ($6,000) against Airvoice Wireless, LLC (Airvoice).2 We find that Airvoice
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated 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).3

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.4 The
Commission established technical standards that digital wireless handsets must meet to be considered

1 The investigation initiated under File No. EB-SED-13-00012382 was subsequently assigned File No. EB-SED-13-
00012959. Any future correspondence with the Commission concerning this matter should reflect the new case
number.
2 Airvoice is a Tier III mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) that resells AT&T’s wireless telecommunications
services. See Airvoice Wireless, LLC, Petition for Limited Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier
in the States of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New York, Tennessee, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Florida and the District of Columbia at ii, WC Docket No. 09-197 (filed Aug. 6, 2012),
available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021997029 (last visited Jan. 10, 2014) (Airvoice Petition).
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, paras. 22–24 (2002). In the Airvoice Petition, Airvoice petitioned the Commission to be designated as an
eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) for purposes of offering Lifeline services supported by the Universal
Service Fund (USF) Low-Income program. See Airvoice Petition.
3 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
4 See 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), Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11221 (2005) (Hearing Aid Compatibility Order). The Commission adopted
these requirements for digital wireless telephones under the authority of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988,
Pub. L. No. 100-394, 102 Stat. 976 (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 609 note, 610, 610 note).

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-175

compatible with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil) modes.5
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.6 In the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the Commission
established various deadlines by which manufacturers and service providers were required to offer
specified numbers of digital wireless handset models rated hearing aid-compatible.7
3.
The Commission also adopted reporting requirements to ensure that it could monitor the
availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets and to provide valuable information to the public
concerning the technical testing and commercial availability of these handsets.8 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,
and then annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation.9 In its 2008 Hearing Aid

5 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777, 16779, paras. 56, 63; see also 47 C.F.R.
§ 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.
18 FCC Rcd at 16763, para. 22.
6 See 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b). As subsequently amended, Section 20.19(b)(1) of the Rules provided 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. § 20.19(b)(1). Section 20.19(b)(2) provided 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. § 20.19(b)(2). Effective August 16, 2012, a further amendment to Section 20.19(b) permits 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, 27 FCC Rcd 3732 (WTB/OET 2012).
7 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First Report and
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3418–20, paras. 35–36 (2008), Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249
(2008) (Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order).
8 Id. at 3443, para. 91; see also 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i).
9 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787, para. 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).
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-175

Compatibility First Report and Order, the Commission indefinitely extended these reporting
requirements with certain modifications.10
4.
Airvoice failed to timely file its hearing aid compatibility status report for the period
January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. The required report was due on January 15, 2013.11 In
order to permit the late filing of the required report, the Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (Wireless Bureau) opened a filing window on February 26–27, 2013.12 Airvoice filed its status
report for 2012 on February 26, 2013.13 The Wireless Bureau subsequently referred Airvoice’s apparent
violation of the hearing aid compatibility status report filing requirement to the Enforcement Bureau
(Bureau).
5.
On December 12, 2013, the Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a letter of
inquiry (LOI) to Airvoice, directing the company to submit a sworn written response to a series of
questions relating to Airvoice’s failure to timely file its hearing aid compatibility status report by the
January 15, 2013 deadline.14 Airvoice responded to the LOI on December 30, 2013.15

III.

DISCUSSION

A.

Failure to Timely File Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report

6.
Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules requires service providers to file hearing aid
compatibility status reports.16 These reports are necessary to enable the Commission to perform its
enforcement function and to evaluate whether Airvoice 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.17 As the record in this case reflects, Airvoice failed to

10 See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3444–46, paras. 97–99, 101. The
extensions of these reporting requirements became effective on December 13, 2011. See 76 Fed. Reg. 77,415 (Dec.
13, 2011).
11 Service providers are required to file their hearing aid compatibility status reports on January 15th of each year.
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1); see also Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Reporting, http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac.
12 The opening of a new filing window does not constitute an extension of time to file an otherwise late-filed hearing
aid compatibility status report.
13 See Airvoice Wireless, LLC, Hearing Aid Compatibility Report (Feb. 26, 2013),
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/130411/7444403_323.PDF (last visited on Jan. 10, 2014).
14 See Letter from John D. Poutasse, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Jim
Bahri, CEO, Airvoice Wireless, LLC (Dec. 12, 2013) (on file in EB-SED-13-00012959).
15 See Letter from Glenn S. Richards, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Counsel to Airvoice Wireless,
LLC, to Jason A. Koslofsky, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau
(Dec. 30, 2013) (on file in EB-SED-13-00012959) (LOI Response). Airvoice also requested that certain information
in its LOI Response be withheld from public inspection pursuant to Section 0.459 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(a).
See Letter from Glenn S. Richards, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Counsel to Airvoice Wireless,
LLC, to Jason A. Koslofsky, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 19,
2014) (on file in EB-SED-13-00012959). Because we defer action on the confidentiality request pursuant to Section
0.459(d)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(d)(3), Airvoice’s confidentiality request remains pending. We do not
disclose in this NAL any information that is the subject of the confidentiality request.
16 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
17 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3446, para. 98 (stating that a handset model’s
hearing aid compatibility rating, among other relevant information, “should be readily available to service providers
either from the manufacturer’s previous reports to the Commission, from the manufacturer’s own website, or from
(continued….)
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-175

timely file the hearing aid compatibility status report due on January 15, 2013, in apparent willful18 and
repeated19 violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.20

B.

Proposed Forfeiture

7.
Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (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.21 To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must first
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.22 The
Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has
violated the Act or the Rules.23 We conclude that Airvoice is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its
failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful and repeated
violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.24
(Continued from previous page)
the manufacturer directly”). We note, however, that the Commission’s Equipment Authorization System is the most
reliable source for information on a handset’s hearing aid compatibility rating. The Equipment Authorization
System is an electronic database of all equipment certified under Commission authority. The database identifies the
hearing aid compatibility rating of each handset 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 modification to such authorization.
See http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/.
18 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. § 312(f)(1). The legislative history of Section 312
clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Sections 312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765 (1982)
(Conf. Rep.), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. See So. Cal. Broad.
Co.
, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387–88, para. 5 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454
(1992) (Southern California). In the context of a forfeiture action, “willful” does not require a finding that the rule
violation was intentional. See, e.g., Tidewater Communications, LLC, Order on Review, 25 FCC Rcd 1675, 1676,
para. 5 (2010) (“To be willful, the violator must consciously commit or omit certain actions and need not be aware
that such actions violate the Rules.”); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5 (holding that, consistent with
the Congressional record accompanying the 1982 amendments to the Act, a “willful” violation need not be
intentional); Princess K Fishing Corp., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2606, 2608-09, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2009)
(stating that a licensee need not have the mens rea to commit a violation in order for a violation to be “willful”),
recons. dismissed, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4707 (Enf. Bur. 2012).
19 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
defines “repeated” as “the commission or omission of [any] act more than once or, if such commission or omission
is continuous, for more than one day.” 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2); see also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388,
para. 5. Failure to file these reports can have an adverse impact on the Commission’s ability to ensure the
commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets, to the detriment of consumers. As we
have previously stated, the failure to file a hearing aid compatibility status report constitutes a continuing violation
that persists until the violation is cured. See American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 16432, 16437, para. 11 (Enf. Bur. 2008), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order,
27 FCC Rcd 13174 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (forfeiture paid) (ASTCA).
20 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
21 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a).
22 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
23 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, para. 4 (2002).
24 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-175

8.
The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a
base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information.25 While the base
forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the
Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case
basis under its general forfeiture authority in Section 503 of the Act.26
9.
We have exercised our discretion to set a higher base forfeiture amount for violations of
the wireless hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements. In ASTCA, we found that the status reports
are essential to implement and enforce the hearing aid compatibility rules.27 The Commission relies on
these reports to provide consumers with information regarding the technical specifications and
commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets and to ensure that the digital
wireless industry meets the needs of the increasing number of consumers with hearing loss.28 In an
analogous context, we noted that when setting an $8,000 base forfeiture for violations of the hearing aid-
compatible handset labeling requirements, the Commission emphasized that consumers with hearing loss
could only take advantage of critically important public safety benefits of digital wireless services if they
had access to accurate information regarding hearing aid compatibility features of handsets.29 We also
noted that the Commission has adjusted the base forfeiture upward when noncompliance with filing
requirements interferes with the accurate administration and enforcement of Commission rules.30
Because the failure to file hearing aid compatibility status reports implicates similar public safety and
enforcement concerns, we exercised our discretionary authority and established a base forfeiture amount
of $6,000 for failure to file a hearing aid compatibility report.31 Consistent with ASTCA, we believe the
$6,000 base forfeiture for violation of the hearing aid compatibility reporting requirement should apply
here.
10.
In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we 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.”32 It is undisputed that Airvoice failed to timely file its hearing aid compatibility status
report for the 2012 reporting period. We have fully considered the arguments raised by Airvoice in its
LOI Response and conclude that none of them mitigate the violation or warrant a downward adjustment
of the proposed forfeiture. In view of all the factual circumstances presented, and having considered the
statutory factors, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $6,000 against Airvoice for failing to timely
file its hearing aid compatibility status report for the period ending December 31, 2012, by the
January 15, 2013 deadline, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.33

25 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, 17113, Appendix A, Section I, recons. denied,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
26 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099, 17101, paras. 22, 29; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
27 See ASTCA, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436–37, para. 10.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
33 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-175

IV.

ORDERING CLAUSES

11.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED

that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,34 Airvoice
Wireless, LLC is

NOTIFIED

of its

APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE

in the amount of
six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the
Commission’s rules.35
12.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
Airvoice Wireless, LLC

SHALL PAY

the full amount of the proposed forfeiture, or

SHALL FILE

a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with
paragraph 15 below.
13.
The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or credit card,
and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above. Airvoice Wireless, LLC shall
send electronic notification of payment to Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, Jason Koslofsky
at Jason.Koslofsky@fcc.gov, and Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date said payment is
made. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
submitted.36 When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code). Below are
additional instructions Airvoice Wireless, LLC should follow based on the form of payment it selects:

Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire transfer and ensure
appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank
at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on
FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment.
The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank –
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101.
14.
Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.37 If Airvoice Wireless, LLC has questions
regarding payment procedures, it should contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-
877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

34 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
35 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
36 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
37 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-175

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 Commission’s rules.38 The written statement must be mailed to the
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau—Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the
NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption. The statement must also be e-mailed to Pamera
Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, Jason Koslofsky at Jason.Koslofsky@fcc.gov, and Samantha
Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov. 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.
16.

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 Jim Bahri, CEO,
Airvoice Wireless, LLC, 2425 Franklin Road, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302, and to Glenn S. Richards,
Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Counsel to Airvoice Wireless, LLC, 2300 N Street N.W.,
Washington, DC 20037-1122.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John D. Poutasse
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau

38 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
7

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.