Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Corr Wireless Communications, LLC
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-07-SE-327
NAL/Acct. No. 200832100064
FRN # 0003804101
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  July 31, 2008 Released:  July 31, 2008  
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find that Corr Wireless 
Communications, LLC (“Corr”) apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(d)(2)1 of the 
Commission’s Rules (“Rules”) by failing to include in its digital wireless handset offerings at least two 
models that meet the inductive coupling standards for hearing aid compatibility by September 18, 2006.  
For Corr’s apparent violations, and for the reasons discussed below, we propose a forfeiture in the amount 
of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000).   
II. BACKGROUND
2. 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.2 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.3 Specifically, the Commission adopted a standard for radio frequency interference (the 
  
1 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d)(2).
2 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).
3 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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828
2
“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.4 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 interface5 that are compliant with the 
relevant standard if they did not come under the de minimis exception.6 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 radio frequency interference by September 16, 2005.7  
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, 2006.8 In connection with the offer of hearing aid-compatible handset models, the 
  
4 Section 20.19(b)(1) provides 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).  Section 20.19(b)(2) provides 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.
5 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 Dispatch 
Enhanced Network (iDEN), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access 
(WCDMA) a/k/a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS).
6 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65; 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).
7 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65; see also 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c).  
8 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) 
modifies the obligation on manufacturers and service providers to offer handset models that meet the U3/M3 (radio 
frequency) standard, (b) increases the obligation on manufacturers and service providers to offer handset models that 
meet the U3T/T3 (inductive coupling) standard, (c) allows service providers other than Tier I carriers an additional 
three months to meet the new handset deployment benchmarks, (d) adopts a technology “refresh” requirement for 
manufacturers, (e) requires service providers to offer hearing aid-compatible handsets with different levels of 
functionality, (f) adopts an updated version of the technical standard for measuring hearing aid compatibility, and 
(g) requires manufacturers and service providers to submit annual reports on an open ended basis, beginning January 
15, 2009.  See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First 
Report and Order,  23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3408-3411, 3418 (2008) (“Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and 
(continued …)
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828
3
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.9
3. 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.10
4. In its November 10, 2006 Status Report, Corr indicated that it had available for sale 
several handset models that complied with the standard for radio frequency interference set forth in 
Section 20.19(b)(1) of the Rules, but did not address its compliance with the inductive coupling 
compatibility requirements in the report.11 Subsequently, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for investigation into whether Corr was in compliance with 
the inductive coupling compatibility requirements.  
5. On September 10, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division (“Division”) of the 
Enforcement Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to Corr.12 In its response, Corr asserted that it 
began offering for sale one inductive coupling-compliant handset, the Motorola V3i, on October 23, 
2006.13 Corr further asserted that it began offering for sale two additional inductive coupling-compliant 
handsets, Nokia models 6085 and 6126h, in August 2007.14  
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Offer For Sale Two Hearing Aid-Compatible Handsets
6. Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules requires digital wireless service providers to begin 
offering for sale at least two handsets models for each air interface that meet at least a T3 rating for 
inductive coupling by September 18, 2006.  According to its response, Corr did not begin offering for sale 
two inductive coupling-compliant handsets prior to the September 18, 2006 deadline.15 Corr began 
(Continued from previous page ...)   
Order”), Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008).  The effective date of the new rules was 
June 6, 2008.  See 73 Fed. Reg. 25,566 (May 7, 2008). 
9 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785 ¶¶ 83, 85-86; see also 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(f).  
10 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 ¶ 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).  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.   Manufacturers will report on January 15, 2009, and then annually beginning July 15, 2009.  Id. 
11 Corr Wireless Communications Status Report on Hearing Aid Compatibility, WT Docket No. 01-309, November 
10, 2006 (“November 10, 2006 Report”), at 1.  
12 Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Tom Buchanan, Corr Wireless Communications, LLC (September 10, 2007).
13 Letter from Donald J. Evans, Esq., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., counsel to Corr, to Marlene Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (September 21, 2007) (“LOI Response”), at 3.   
14 Id. at 4.
15 Corr clarified in its LOI response that its November 10, 2006 Report specified an incorrect FCC ID number for 
the Motorola RAZR V3i handset that it offered.  Corr indicated that the correct FCC ID number for the Motorola 
V3i handset that it offered was IHDT56GW1.  Id.  Motorola obtained a grant of equipment certification for the 
Motorola V3i under FCC ID IHDT56GW1 on August 3, 2006.   
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828
4
offering one inductive coupling-compliant handset model on October 23, 2006.  Corr did not offer for sale 
a second inductive coupling-compliant handset until August 2007.16 Accordingly, we conclude that Corr 
apparently willfully17 and repeatedly18 failed to comply with Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules. 
B. Proposed Forfeiture
7. 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.19 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.20 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.21  We conclude under this 
standard that Corr is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated violation of 
Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.
8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act,22 we may assess a common carrier a forfeiture of 
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, 
  
16 Corr stated in its response that it began offering two compliant Nokia models, the 6126h and the 6085, in August 
2007.  Id. Nokia obtained a grant of equipment certification for the 6126h model under FCC ID PPIRM-126H on 
September 5, 2006, and for the 6085 model under FCC ID LJPRM-198H on October 4, 2006.
17 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 ¶ 5 
(1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (“Southern California”).  
18 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, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 ¶ 9 (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC 
Rcd at 4388 ¶ 5.
19 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  
20 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
21 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 ¶ 4 (2002).  
22 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B).  The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
1.80(b)(3), to increase the maxima 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 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 from $120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,325,000); 
see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828
5
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice 
may require.”23
9. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement24 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 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.25 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.26  
10. 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.27 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.28
11. We note that in recent decisions, a base forfeiture amount of $15,000 per handset was 
established for violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements.29 This base forfeiture 
amount was based on a determination that a significantly higher base forfeiture amount is warranted for 
violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements than for violations of the labeling 
requirements for wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets.30 In reaching this determination, we found 
  
23 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.
24 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, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) 
(“Forfeiture Policy Statement”).
25 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 ¶ 22.  
26 See id.
27 Id. at 16755 ¶ 4.
28 Id. at 16786 ¶ 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 Report on the Status of Implementation of the Commission’s Hearing Aid Compatibility 
Requirements, Report, 22 FCC Rcd 17709, 17719 ¶ 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 – with that number expected 
to reach approximately 40 million at the end of this decade”).
29 See South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC 
Rcd 20, 24-25 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (“South Canaan”), response pending; AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a 
Blue Sky Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 2836, 2840 (Enf. Bur., 
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008).
30 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; IT&E Overseas, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 7660, 7665 ¶ 10 
(Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response pending.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828
6
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.31 Further, because providers were required to offer at least two handset models that 
meet at least a T3 rating for inductive coupling, we determined that a proposed forfeiture for violation of 
these requirements should be applied on a per handset basis.  Accordingly, we impose a base forfeiture 
amount of $15,000 per handset for violation of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements.  
12. Corr did not offer any handsets that met the T3 rating for inductive coupling by 
September 18, 2006.  Corr began offering one inductive coupling-compliant handset on October 23, 2006, 
and did not come into full compliance by offering a second inductive coupling-compliant handset until 
August 2007.  Although Corr’s failure to offer two handsets that meet the FCC’s inductive coupling 
compatibility requirements is a continuing violation for purposes of determining an appropriate forfeiture, 
we exercise our prosecutorial discretion in light of the limited period of time of the violation and decline 
to assess a forfeiture on a continuing violation basis in this case.32  
13. As explained above, we have determined that a proposed forfeiture for violation of the 
hearing aid compatibility handset requirements should be applied on a per handset basis.  Because Corr 
began offering for sale the first inductive coupling-compliant handset model on October 23, 2006, we 
note that the statute of limitations for proposing a forfeiture for the first handset model has expired.33  We 
also note that although Corr is a Tier III carrier, i.e., a wireless radio service provider with 500,000 or 
fewer subscribers,34 it is not a typical Tier III carrier. Specifically, Corr has over 300,000 subscribers in a 
three state area which has a population count of about two million, with annual revenues of approximately
28.8 million dollars.35  As such, we take into account Corr’s size and ability to pay a forfeiture in 
determining the appropriate forfeiture amount.  As the Commission made clear in the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, large or highly profitable communications entities could expect forfeitures significantly higher 
than those reflected in the base amounts.36 In view of Corr’s comparative size and ability to pay, and the 
  
31 South Canaan, 23 FCC Rcd at 24.
32 We caution Corr and other carriers that future enforcement actions may consider all failures to comply with our 
hearing aid compatibility rules, including the inductive coupling requirements, as continuing violations for purposes 
of calculating appropriate forfeiture amounts.    
33 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c)(3).
34 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).
35 See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., Duns Number 84-737-7579 (March 26, 2008); see also
http://www.interoptechnologies.com/news/2007/07_08-30_Corrwireless.php.
36 Specifically, the Commission stated:
[O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828
7
fact that Corr was in violation of Section 20.19(d)(2) until August 2007, almost a year after the September 
18, 2006 deadline, we believe that an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 
is appropriate.37 Accordingly, we find Corr is apparently liable for a $30,000 forfeiture for failing to fully 
comply with the inductive coupling compatibility requirements in willful and repeated violation of 
Section 20.19(d)(2).38  
14. Corr asserts in its LOI response that, in addition to the inductive coupling-compliant 
Motorola V3i, it carried and offered for sale in the fall of 2006 two Nokia handsets which, when used in 
conjunction with a Nokia loop set accessory it offered, complied with ANSI standards for inductive 
coupling.  According to Corr, it had assumed that these handsets met FCC requirements but it was 
recently advised that the necessary functionality must be internal to the handset in order to qualify for a 
T3 rating.  Corr states that it regrets that its product line, which it believed exceeded FCC requirements, 
may have fallen short due to the external nature of the hearing aid compatibility enhancement.  As a 
Commission licensee, however, Corr is charged with the responsibility of knowing and complying with 
the Act and the Rules.39 The Commission has long held that mitigation of a forfeiture is not justified 
where violators claim their actions or omissions were due to inadvertent errors or unfamiliarity with the 
statutory or regulatory requirements.40 Corr also notes that most of the interest in hearing aid-compatible 
products, to the extent there has been any interest at all, has actually been in the loop set accessory, which 
customers want to use in conjunction with their existing phones and that it has not received any 
complaints from the public or the Alabama PSC.  It is well-established, however, that the absence of harm 
is not a mitigating factor and does not warrant a downward adjustment of a forfeiture.41   
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 
1.80 of the Rules, Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY 
  
37  See Iowa Wireless Services, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 4735 (Enf. Bur., 
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (increasing forfeiture from $15,000 to $22,500 based on carrier’s size and ability to pay).
38 Although Section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6), id., prohibits us from assessing a forfeiture for a 
violation that occurred more than a year before the issuance of a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture, Section 
503(b)(6) does not bar us from considering Corr’s prior conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for 
violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period.  See Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1827 ¶ 20 (2006), forfeiture ordered, 22 FCC Rcd 10451 (2007) 
(forfeiture paid); Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19903 ¶ 23(2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006); Roadrunner 
Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-71 ¶ 8 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 ¶ 7 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37, 37-38 ¶ 3 (1967) recon. denied, 11 FCC 2d 193, 195 ¶ 6 (1967).  Accordingly, 
while we take into account the continuous nature of the violations in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, 
our proposed forfeiture relates only to Corr’s apparent violations that have occurred within the past year.
39 See Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 
7433, 7437 ¶ 12 (2004).
40 See e.g., Emery Telephone, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 23854, 23859 ¶ 12 (1998),
recon. dismissed in part and denied in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999); Profit 
Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 ¶ 5 (1993); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387 ¶ 3; 
Lakewood Broadcasting Service, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 2d 437, 438 ¶ 6 (1972).
41 See, e.g., Liberty Cable Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16105, 16113 ¶ 25 (2001); Pacific 
Western Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 50 FCC 2d 819 ¶ 4 (1975); Abocom Systems, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 7448, 7451 ¶ 9 (Enf. Bur., 2007).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828
8
FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for willful and repeated 
violation of Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules. 
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty 
days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Corr Wireless 
Communications, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a 
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.  
17. 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 
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. Corr Wireless 
will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Katherine Power at 
Katherine.Power@fcc.gov and to Ricardo Durham at Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov. 
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 Tom Buchanan, 
Corr Wireless Communications, P. O. Box 1500, Oneonta, AL 35121, and to its counsel, Donald J. 
Evans, Esq., Fletcher, Heald &Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA  22209.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau