Penalty Proposed Against Assist Wireless in HAC Reporting Case
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554In the Matter of
File No.: EB-SED-14-000133851
Assist Wireless, LLC
NAL/Acct. No.: 201432100012
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: February 18, 2014Released: February 18, 2014
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we propose a forfeiture in the amount
of six thousand dollars ($6,000) against Assist Wireless, LLC (Assist Wireless).2 We find that Assist
Wireless 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
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-13-00012380 was subsequently assigned File No. EB-SED-14-
00013385. Any future correspondence with the Commission concerning this matter should refer to the new case
2 Assist Wireless is a Tier III mobile virtual network operator that resells wireless telecommunications services.
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). Assist Wireless was designated as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier by the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission on November 29, 2011. See Final Order Granting Designation as a Wireless
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Order No. 591401 (Nov. 29, 2011),
available at http://imaging.occeweb.com/AP/Orders/ 03010CBA.pdf (last visited Feb. 3, 2014).
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 14-201compatible 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
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
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 See id. at 3443, para. 91; see also 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i).
9 See 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).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 14-201Compatibility First Report and Order, the Commission indefinitely extended these reporting
requirements with certain modifications.10
Assist Wireless failed to timely file its hearing aid compatibility status report for the
period January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012 (2012 Status Report), which was due to be filed on
January 15, 2013.11 Commission records indicate that an agent of Assist Wireless initially contacted the
Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless Bureau) on or about February 15, 2013,
advising the Wireless Bureau that Assist Wireless had been unable to file its 2012 Status Report by the
January 15, 2013 filing deadline.12 In response, the Wireless Bureau opened filing windows on February
26–27, 2013, and again on March 19–20, 2013, to permit the filing of the overdue report. Assist Wireless
filed its 2012 Status Report on March 20, 2013.13 The Wireless Bureau subsequently referred Assist
Wireless’s apparent violation of the hearing aid compatibility reporting requirement to the Enforcement
On December 11, 2013, the Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division (Division) issued a
letter of inquiry (LOI) to Assist Wireless, directing the company to submit a sworn written response to a
series of questions related to its compliance with the hearing aid compatibility reporting requirement.14
Assist Wireless responded to the LOI on January 8, 2014.15 In its LOI Response, Assist Wireless states
that, as a result of a corporate reorganization, the responsibility for hearing aid compatibility status
reporting was shifted to a new employee.16 According to Assist Wireless, when company management
became aware on January 13, 2013, that its 2012 Status Report had not been filed, there was insufficient
time to compile the required data and file its report by the January 15, 2013, filing deadline.17 In response
to a subsequent inquiry from the Division,18 Assist Wireless asserts that its agent, Visi Consulting
Services, LLC, had requested from the Wireless Bureau an extension of time to file its 2012 Status
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.
11 Service providers are required to file their hearing aid compatibility status reports on January 15th of each year.
See 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
12 See also E-mail from Bobbi Ferguson, Visi Consulting Services, LLC, to James Swartz, Management Information
Analyst, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Feb. 21, 2013,
9:08 EDT) (on file in EB-SED-14-00013385) (“Assist Wireless, LLC . . . respectfully requests that it be allowed to
late file its Form 655 [hearing aid compatibility] report. As mentioned in our conversation on Tuesday, Assist was
unable to timely file its Form 655 report due to a succession of events ranging from a relocation of company offices
in 3rd quarter to back [Universal Service Administrative Company payment quality assurance and in-depth data
validation] audits in 4th quarter coupled with changes in personnel and issues with our data reporting systems.”) (on
file in EB-SED-14-00013385).
13 See Assist Wireless, LLC, Hearing Aid Compatibility Report (Mar. 20, 2013),
14 See Letter from John D. Poutasse, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Byron
Young, Chief Executive Officer, Assist Wireless, LLC (Dec. 11, 2013) (on file in EB-SED-14-00013385).
15 See Letter from Byron Young, Chief Executive Officer, Assist Wireless, LLC, to Spectrum Enforcement Division,
FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 8, 2014) (on file in EB-SED-14-00013385) (LOI Response).
16 Id. at 1.
17 Id. Assist Wireless also asserts that it was unable to file its 2012 Status Report during the February 2013 filing
window because of technical difficulties with the FCC’s website. Id.
18 See E-mail from Kathy Harvey, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to
Byron Young, President and Chief Executive Officer, Assist Wireless, LLC (Feb. 28, 2014, 18:06 EDT) (on file in
Federal Communications Commission
DA 14-201Report, and suggests that by opening a subsequent filing window, the Wireless Bureau had granted that
Failure to Timely File Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report6.
Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules requires service providers to file hearing aid
compatibility status reports.20 These reports are necessary to enable the Commission to perform its
enforcement function and to evaluate whether Assist Wireless 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.21
As the record in this case reflects, Assist Wireless failed to timely file its 2012 Status
Report by January 15, 2013. In this regard, we reject Assist Wireless’s suggestion that, by opening a new
filing window for Assist Wireless, the Wireless Bureau had effectively extended the deadline by which
Assist Wireless was required to file that report. At the outset, Commission records indicate that Assist
Wireless did not contact the Wireless Bureau until approximately one month after its hearing aid
compatibility status report was due. Moreover, the opening of a new filing window to permit the filing of
an otherwise late-filed status report does not, standing alone, constitute an extension of the status report
filing deadline. In this instance, Assist Wireless has failed to provide any written documentation or other
evidence that the Wireless Bureau granted Assist Wireless an extension of time to file its 2012 Status
Report. Because of the important enforcement and consumer awareness goals that hearing aid
compatibility status reports serve, the Wireless Bureau requires service providers and handset
manufacturers that fail to submit required reports by the filing deadline to submit late-filed status reports,
and the Wireless Bureau routinely opens new filing windows for that purpose. The Wireless Bureau does
not, however, routinely extend the hearing aid compatibility status report filing deadline under such
circumstances. Absent any reliable evidence that Assist Wireless was granted such an extension, we find
that Assist Wireless failed to timely file the hearing aid compatibility status report due on January 15,
2013, in apparent willful22 and repeated23 violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.24
19 See Letter from Byron Young, Chief Executive Officer, Assist Wireless, LLC, to Spectrum Enforcement Division,
FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 30, 2014) (on file in EB-SED-14-00013385).
20 See 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
21 See 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 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 https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/.
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
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 S. Cal. Broad. Co.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387–88, para. 5 (1991) (Southern California), recons. denied,
7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992). 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
Federal Communications Commission
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.25 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.26 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.27 We conclude that Assist Wireless 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.28
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.29 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.30
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.31 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
(Continued from previous page)
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).
23 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).
24 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
25 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a).
26 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).
27 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, para. 4 (2002).
28 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
29 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 (1997) (Forfeiture
Policy Statement), recons. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
30 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099, 17101, paras. 22, 29; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
31 See ASTCA, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436–37, para. 10.
Federal Communications Commission
DA 14-201wireless industry meets the needs of the increasing number of consumers with hearing loss.32 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.33 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.34
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.35 Consistent with ASTCA, we believe the
$6,000 base forfeiture for violation of the hearing aid compatibility reporting requirement should apply
The $6,000 base forfeiture, however, is subject to adjustment. 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.”36 We see no basis to reduce the
proposed forfeiture. Although Assist Wireless indicates in its LOI Response that its failure to timely file
was an oversight,37 it is well established that administrative oversight or inadvertence is not a mitigating
factor warranting a downward adjustment of a forfeiture.38 Similarly, a violator’s lack of knowledge or
erroneous belief does not warrant a forfeiture’s downward adjustment.39 In addition, we have declined to
downwardly adjust a forfeiture based on claims that changes in personnel contributed to the violation.40
In view of all the factual circumstances presented, and having considered the statutory factors enumerated
above, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $6,000 against Assist Wireless for failing to file its
32 See id.
33 See id.
34 See id.
35 See id.
36 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
37 LOI Response at 1.
38 See Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387 (stating that “inadvertence … is at best, ignorance of the law, which
the Commission does not consider a mitigating circumstance”).
39 See, e.g., Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846, para. 5 (1993) (denying the mitigation claim of a
manufacturer/distributor who thought that the equipment certification and marketing requirements were
inapplicable, stating that its “prior knowledge or understanding of the law is unnecessary to a determination of
whether a violation existed . . . ignorance of the law is [not] a mitigating factor”); Lakewood Broadcasting Service,
Inc., 37 FCC 2d 437, 438, para. 6 (1972) (denying a mitigation claim of a broadcast licensee who asserted an
unfamiliarity with the station identification requirements, stating that licensees are expected “to know and conform
their conduct to the requirements of our rules”); Kenneth Paul Harris, Sr., 15 FCC Rcd 12933, 12935, para. 7 (Enf.
Bur. 2000) (denying a mitigation claim of a broadcast licensee, stating that its ignorance of the law did not excuse
the unauthorized transfer of the station); Maxwell Broadcasting Group, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 784, 784, para. 2 (Mass
Med. Bur. 1993) (denying a mitigation claim of a noncommercial broadcast licensee, stating that the excuse of
“inadverten[ce], due to inexperience and ignorance of the rules . . . are not reasons to mitigate a forfeiture” for
violation of the advertisement restrictions).
40 See, e.g., Emigrant Storage LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 8917, 8920 (Enf. Bur.
2012) (declining to downwardly adjust a forfeiture based on company’s claims that the violation resulted from
oversight and a change in personnel).
Federal Communications Commission
DA 14-201hearing 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.41
IT IS ORDEREDthat, 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,42 Assist
Wireless, LLC is hereby
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFFEITUREin the
amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat, 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,
Assist Wireless, LLC
SHALL PAYthe full amount of the proposed forfeiture, or
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with paragraph
Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above. Assist Wireless,
LLC shall send electronic notification of payment to Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov,
Kathy Harvey at Kathy.Harvey@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.44 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 Assist 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
41 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
42 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
43 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
44 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
Federal Communications Commission
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 20554.45 If Assist 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.
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.46 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 and to Kathy Harvey at Kathy.Harvey@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.
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 Byron Young,
Chief Executive Officer, Assist Wireless, LLC, 2402 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76118.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John D. Poutasse
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
45 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
46 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
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.