NEP Cellcorp, Inc
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554)
In the Matter of
File No. EB-08-SE-1204
NAL/Acct. No. 200932100020
NEP Cellcorp, Inc.
FRN # 0014802284
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: December 31, 2008
Released: January 5, 2009By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division:
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we propose a forfeiture of
twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) against NEP Cellcorp, Inc. ("NEP"), a Global System for Mobile
Communications-based ("GSM-based") Tier III carrier,1 serving rural parts of Pennsylvania. As detailed
herein, we find that NEP apparently willfully and repeatedly violated former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the
Commission's Rules ("Rules"),2 by failing to timely include in its digital wireless handset offerings at
least two models that meet the inductive coupling standards for hearing aid compatibility.
In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted several measures
to enhance the ability of individuals with hearing disabilities to access digital wireless
telecommunications.3 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
1 Tier III carriers are non-Nationwide wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer subscribers as of the
end of September 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 22-24 (2002) ("Non-Nationwide Carrier Order").
2 47 C.F.R. 20.19(d)(2) (2007). In February 2008, as part of a comprehensive reconsideration of the effectiveness
of the hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission made several changes to these rules, including, inter alia, the
continuation and expansion of hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements, and the phasing in of new technical
standards for hearing aid compatibility. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-
Compatible Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3408-11, 3418 at 6-13, 34 (2008)
("Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order"), Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249
(2008). See also infra note 9. These revised rules, however, do not govern NEP's conduct prior to the effective date
of the revisions, June 6, 2008. See 73 Fed. Reg. 25,566 (May 7, 2008). Accordingly, we assess NEP's conduct in
this NAL under the former version of the rules.
3 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) ("Hearing Aid
Compatibility Reconsideration Order"). The Commission adopted these requirements for digital wireless
telephones under the authority of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, codified at Section 710(b)(2)(C) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 610(b)(2)(C).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 08-2826(telecoil) modes.4 Specifically, the Commission adopted a standard for radio frequency interference (the
"U3" or "M3" rating) to enable acoustic coupling between digital wireless phones and hearing aids
operating in acoustic coupling mode, and a separate standard (the "U3T" or "T3" rating) to enable
inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in telecoil mode.5 The Commission further established,
for each standard, deadlines by which manufacturers and service providers were required to offer
specified numbers or percentages of digital wireless handsets per air interface6 that are compliant with the
relevant standard if they did not come under the de minimis exception.7
The Commission required that manufacturers and service providers begin making
commercially available at least two handset models per air interface that meet the U3 or M3 rating for
4 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777 56; 47 C.F.R. 20.19(b)(1), (2). The Hearing Aid
Compatibility Order described the acoustic coupling and the inductive (telecoil) coupling 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 electrical signals. 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.
Id. at 16763 22.
5 Former Section 20.19(b)(1) provided that a wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-compatible for radio frequency
interference if, at minimum, it receives a U3 rating as set forth in "American National Standard for Methods of
Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices and Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19-2001."
47 C.F.R. 20.19(b)(1). Former Section 20.19(b)(2) provided that a wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-
compatible for inductive coupling if, at minimum, it receives a U3T rating as set forth in ANSI C63.19-2001. 47
C.F.R. 20.19(b)(2). On April 25, 2005, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology announced that
it would also certify handsets as hearing aid-compatible based on the revised version of the standard, ANSI C63.19-
2005. See OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard Measurement
Procedures and Rating Nomenclature, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005). On June 6, 2006, the
Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology announced that the
Commission would also certify handsets as hearing aid-compatible based on the revised version of the standard,
ANSI C63.19-2006. Thus, during the time period relevant here, applicants for certification could rely on either the
2001 version, the 2005 version, or the 2006 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard. See Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Clarify Use of Revised Wireless Phone
Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6384 (WTB/OET 2006). In addition, since the
2005 version, the ANSI C63.19 technical standard has used an "M" nomenclature for the radio frequency
interference rating rather than a "U," and a "T" nomenclature for the handset's inductive coupling rating, rather than
a "UT." The Commission has approved the use of the "M" and "T" nomenclature and considers the M/T and U/UT
nomenclatures as synonymous. See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11238 33.
6 The term "air interface" refers to the technical protocol that ensures compatibility between mobile radio service
equipment, such as handsets, and the service provider's base stations. Currently, the leading air interfaces include
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), Integrated Digital
Enhanced Network (iDEN), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access
(WCDMA) a/k/a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS).
7 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780; 47 C.F.R. 20.19(c), (d). The de minimis
exception provides that manufacturers or mobile service providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset
models per air interface are exempt from the hearing aid compatibility 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. 20.19(e).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 08-2826radio frequency interference by September 16, 2005.8 The Commission also required that manufacturers
and service providers make commercially available at least two handset models per air interface that meet
the U3T or T3 rating for inductive coupling by September 18, 2006.9 In connection with the offer of
hearing aid-compatible handset models, the Commission further required entities to label the handsets
with the appropriate technical rating, and to explain the technical rating system in the owner's manual or
as part of the packaging material for the handset.10 In order to monitor the availability of these handsets,
the Commission 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.11
On March 21, 2008, NEP sought a waiver of former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules for
the period February 1, 2007 through January 11, 2008.12 In its waiver petition, NEP acknowledged that it
erred in its November 2007 Hearing Aid Compatibility Report ("November Report") by mistakenly, but
in good faith, reporting that it was offering two inductive coupling-compliant models.13 NEP explained
that at the time it filed its Report, it failed to distinguish between acoustic and inductive coupling
compliance. NEP discovered its error upon learning, on January 3, 2008, that another carrier was issued
an NAL for its apparent violation of former Section 20.19(d)(2).14 Thereafter, NEP promptly reviewed its
handset offerings; determined that as of February 1, 2007, it had only offered the inductive coupling-
compliant Motorola V3i model; and obtained and offered its second compliant model, the Motorola V8,
on January 11, 2008.15 In support of its waiver request, NEP stated that it is a new carrier, having just
8 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 65; see also 47 C.F.R. 20.19(c).
9 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780; see also 47 C.F.R. 20.19(d). In addition, on
February 28, 2008, the Commission released an order that, as modified on reconsideration, among other things: (a)
modified the requirement that manufacturers and service providers ensure that 50 percent of their digital wireless
handset models per air interface meet the U3/M3 (radio frequency) standard and stayed enforcement of that
requirement until the new rules took effective, (b) increased the obligation on manufacturers and service providers to
offer handset models that meet the U3T/T3 (inductive coupling) standard, (c) allowed service providers other than
Tier I carriers an additional three months to meet the new handset deployment benchmarks, (d) adopted a
technology "refresh" requirement for manufacturers, (e) required service providers to offer hearing aid-compatible
handsets with different levels of functionality, (f) adopted an updated version of the technical standard for measuring
hearing aid compatibility, and (g) required manufacturers and service providers to submit annual reports on an open
ended basis, beginning January 15, 2009. See Hearing Aid-Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at
3408-3411, 3418. The effective date of the new rules was June 6, 2008. See 73 Fed. Reg. 25,566 (May 7, 2008).
10 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785; see also 47 C.F.R. 20.19(f).
11 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787; 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). The Commission will now require service providers to submit
annual status reports beginning January 15, 2009. See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC
Rcd at 3410 13. Manufacturers will report on January 15, 2009, and then annually beginning July 15, 2009. Id. at
12 See Letter from Sylvia Lesse, Esq., Communications Advisory Counsel, LLC to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, and
John Branscome, Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission (March 21, 2008) ("Waiver Petition").
13 See Waiver Petition at 1.
14 See id. at 2; see also South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 20 (Enf. Bur. 2008).
15 See Waiver Petition at 2.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 08-2826launched its service on February 1, 2007; that its non-compliance was attributed to its misinterpretation of
Commission requirements; that it took prompt corrective action by voluntarily notifying the Commission
and amending its November Report; and that it obtained and offered a second inductive-coupling handset
-- prior to any investigation or enforcement action.16 NEP also noted that it has adopted new regulatory
oversight policies and procedures, which include the periodic review by its President regarding, and the
designation of a Vice President of Operations tasked with overseeing, FCC compliance matters.17
On December 31, 2008, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB") denied
NEP's waiver request.18 Consistent with the Commission's February 2008 Inductive Coupling
Compatibility Waiver Order,19 which addressed petitions filed on behalf of other Tier II and III carriers
seeking relief from the hearing aid compatibility requirements, the WTB found that NEP presented "no
unique facts or circumstances that would justify its failure to comply with the inductive coupling
capability requirement."20 Specifically, the WTB found that NEP failed to provide evidence that it
exercised sufficient diligence to understand its hearing aid compatibility obligations as set forth in the
Commission's rules.21 The WTB thus referred NEP's apparent violation of the hearing aid compatibility
requirements to the Enforcement Bureau for action.
A. Failure to Offer For Sale Two Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Models6.
Former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules required digital wireless service providers to
begin offering for sale at least two handset models for each air interface that meet at least a T3 rating for
inductive coupling by September 18, 2006. NEP launched its service on February 1, 2007, and admits
that on that date, it offered for sale only one inductive coupling-compliant handset model and that it did
not offer a second model until January 11, 2008. Accordingly, we conclude that NEP apparently
willfully22 and repeatedly23 failed to comply with former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules, by failing to
offer two inductive coupling-compliant handset models as of February 1, 2007.
16 See id.
17 See id. NEP also indicated that as a Tier III carrier its access to compatible handsets is limited. See id. at n. 3.
Based on the record, it appears that NEP's failure to timely offer a second compatible handset is attributable to its
misinterpretation of former Section 20.19(d)(2), rather than its status as a small carrier.
18 Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Petition of NEP
Cellcorp, Inc. for Waiver of Section 20.19 of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 08-
2822 (WTB rel. December 31, 2008).
19 See id. at 7.
20 Id. at 8.
21 See id.
22 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(f)(1)
of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No.
97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b)
context. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388
(1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("Southern California").
23 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. 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision,
Federal Communications Commission
B. Proposed Forfeiture7.
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.24 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.25 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.26 We conclude under this
standard that NEP is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violation of
former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.
At the time of NEP's apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act27 authorized a
forfeiture assessment against a common carrier up to $130,000 for each violation, or for each day of a
continuing violation up to a maximum of $1,325,000 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."28
The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement29 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 former Section 20.19 of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify
a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement
states that "... any omission of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ... should not
signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant.30 The
Commission retains the discretion, moreover, to depart from the Forfeiture Policy Statement and issue
(Continued from previous page ...)
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd
24 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1).
25 47 U.S.C. 503(b); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f).
26 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002).
27 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission has amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3),
three times to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements
contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of
the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000)
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from $100,000/$1,000,000 to
$120,000/$1,200,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima
to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for common
carriers from $120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,325,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules
and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (adjusting the
maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,325,000 to $150,000/$1,500,000). The most
recent inflation adjustment took effect September 2, 2008 and applies to violations that occur after that date. See 73
Fed. Reg. 44663-5.
28 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment
Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
29 See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate
the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy
30 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 08-2826forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the
In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the hearing aid
compatibility handset requirements, we take into account that these requirements serve to ensure that
individuals with hearing disabilities have access to digital wireless telecommunications services. In
adopting the hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission underscored the strong and immediate need
for such access, stressing that individuals with hearing impairments should not be denied the public safety
and convenience benefits of digital wireless telephony.32 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.33
Our recent decisions established a base forfeiture amount of $15,000 per handset for
violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements.34 In establishing this base forfeiture
amount, we determined that violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements warranted a
significantly higher forfeiture than for violations of the labeling requirements for wireless hearing aid-
compatible handsets.35 We found 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.36 We also found that the handset requirements require
providers to offer at least two handset models that meet at least a T3 rating for inductive coupling, and
thus determined that a proposed forfeiture for violation of these requirements should be applied on a per
The record establishes that NEP only offered one handset model that met the T3 rating
for inductive coupling on February 1, 2007, when it launched service. The record further establishes that
NEP did not offer the second inductive coupling-compliant model, and thus did not come into compliance
with former Section 20.19(d)(2), until January 11, 2008. Although NEP sought a waiver of former
32 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755.
33 Id. at 16756 (noting that approximately one in ten Americans, 28 million, have some level of hearing loss, that the
proportion increases with age, and that the number of those affected will likely grow as the median age increases).
See also Report on the Status of Implementation of the Commission's Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements,
Report, 22 FCC Rcd 17709, 17719 (2007) (noting, just four years later, that the number of individuals with hearing
loss in the United States was "at an all time high of 31 million with that number expected to reach approximately
40 million at the end of this decade").
34 See, e.g., Blanca Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9398, 9403 12
Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response pending; Iowa Wireless Services, LLC d/b/a i Wireless, 23 FCC Rcd
4735 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response pending; South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company
d/b/a South Slope Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 4706 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
Enf. Div. 2008), response pending; Epic Touch Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd
2831, 2835 10-11 (Enf. Bur. 2008), response pending.
35 The Enforcement Bureau has established a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 for violation of the labeling
requirements for wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets. See, e.g., South Central Utah Telephone Association,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 19251 10 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007),
response pending; Pine Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9205,
9210 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), consent decree ordered, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4495 (Enf. Bur. 2008).
36 See supra note 34.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 08-2826Section 20.19(d)(2),37 the WTB determined that the carrier's efforts to come into compliance did not
demonstrate due diligence or unique or unusual circumstances and thus denied the petition.38
Accordingly, NEP is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $15,000 for failing to comply with the
inductive coupling compatibility requirements in willful and repeated violation of former Section
We find, however, that downward adjustment to the $15,000 base forfeiture amount to
$12,000 is warranted based on NEP's demonstrated good faith efforts. NEP volunteered information to
the Commission,39 corrected its violation,40 as well as instituted procedures and policies to ensure future
compliance with its carrier responsibilities, prior to our initiating any investigative or other enforcement
action. We do not find, however, that a further downward adjustment is warranted based on NEP's
misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the hearing aid compatibility requirements for digital wireless
handsets.41 We also note that NEP is a small Tier III carrier that only began offering service in February
Based on all of the foregoing, we therefore propose a $12,000 forfeiture against NEP for
failing to comply with the inductive coupling compatibility requirements in apparent willful and repeated
violation of former Section 20.19(d)(2).
IT IS ORDEREDthat, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section
1.80 of the Rules, NEP Cellcorp, Inc.
IS NOTIFIEDof its
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty
days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NEP
SHALL PAYthe full
amount of the proposed forfeiture or
SHALL FILEa written statement seeking reduction or cancellation
of the proposed forfeiture.
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 Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to
37 See supra notes 12-17 and accompanying text.
38 See supra notes 18-21 and accompanying text.
39 See, e.g., Emery Telephone, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23854, 23858 10 (1998), recon
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999); Victoria Cellular Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 7853,
7854 10-11 (1992); American Family Association, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 18135, 18137 10 (Enf. Bur.
2002), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 2413 (Enf. Bur. 2003); RSDC of Michigan,
LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 6858, 6861 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
2007), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 19865 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007) ("RSDC"); T-
Mobile Northeast, LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 11799, 11806-07 19 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2006) ("T-Mobile").
40 See, e.g., SpectraSite Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 17673 10-11 (2004); Radio One
Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15965 4 (2003), recon. denied, 18 FCC Rcd 25481 (2003); T-Mobile,
21 FCC Rcd at 11806-07 19; RSDC, 22 FCC Rcd at 6861 12; Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, Inc., Forfeiture
Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17893, 17899 18 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005).
41 See, e.g., Profit Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 5 (1993); Lakewood Broadcasting
Service, Inc., 37 FCC 2d 437, 438 6 (1972); South Canaan Cellular Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 20, 25 13 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008); Domtar Industries, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 13811, 13817 16 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2006).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 08-2826Federal 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: email@example.com with any questions regarding payment procedures. NEP will also send
electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Kathy.Berthot at kathy.berthot @fcc.gov and
Ava Holly Berland at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The response, if any, 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 response should also be emailed to Kathy.Berthot at kathy.berthot @fcc.gov and Ava Holly Berland
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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Edward Tourje,
CEO, NEP Cellcorp, Inc., 720 Main Street, Forest City, PA 18421 and to counsel, Sylvia Lesse, Esq.,
Communications Advisory Counsel, LLC, 2154 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
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.