Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1654
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Oklahoma Independent RSA 5 Partnership
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-10-SE-102
NAL/Acct. No. 201032100039
FRN #  0010698959
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  August 30, 2010 Released:  August 30, 2010
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we propose a forfeiture of 
fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) against Oklahoma Independent RSA 5 Partnership (“Oklahoma 
Independent”), a Global System for Mobile Communications-based (“GSM-based”) Tier III carrier,1
serving parts of Oklahoma.  As detailed herein, we find that Oklahoma Independent apparently willfully 
and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Commission’s rules (“Rules”),2 by failing to offer to 
consumers the required number or percentage of digital wireless handsets that met or exceeded the radio 
frequency interference standards for hearing aid compatibility set forth in Section 20.19(b)(1).3
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted several measures 
to enhance the ability of consumers with hearing loss to access digital wireless telecommunications.4 The 
Commission established technical standards that digital wireless handsets must meet to be considered 
compatible with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil) modes.5  
  
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, 14847-48 ¶¶ 22-24 (2002).
2 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(3)(ii).  
3 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1).
4 Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report and Order, 18 
FCC Rcd 16753 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) (“Hearing Aid Compatibility Order”); Order on 
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11221 (2005).  The Commission adopted 
these requirements for digital wireless telephones under the authority of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, 
codified at Section 710(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C).  
5 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 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1654
2
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  
3. In the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the Commission 
established several deadlines between 2008 and 2011 by which manufacturers and service providers7 are 
required to offer specified numbers or percentages of digital wireless handset models.  The number or 
percentage of digital wireless handset models required by each deadline is based on several factors, 
including the applicable interference standard and air interface, 8 as well as the category of carrier.  For 
example, between May 15, 2009 and May 14, 2010, non-Tier I service providers were required to ensure 
that at least nine handset models per digital air interface, or at least 50% of the models offered per digital 
air interface, met or exceeded the M3 rating,9 and that at least five handset models per digital air 
interface, or at least one-third of the models offered per digital air interface, met or exceeded the T3 
rating.10 To ensure that the Commission can accurately monitor the availability of these handsets, and to 
provide valuable information to the public concerning the technical testing and commercial availability 
     
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.  
6 As subsequently amended, Section 20.19(b)(1) provides that, for the period beginning June 6, 2008 and ending 
January 1, 2010, a wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, at 
minimum, it meets the M3 rating associated with the technical standard set forth in either the standard document 
“American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices 
and Hearing Aids,” ANSI C63.19-2006 (June 12, 2006) or ANSI 63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007).  47 C.F.R. § 
20.19(b)(1).  Section 20.19(b)(2) provides that, for the period beginning June 6, 2008 and ending 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 as set forth in either the standard document “American National Standard 
Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,” ANSI 
C63.19-2006 (June 12, 2006) or ANSI 63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007).  47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(2).  
7 This requirement does not apply to service providers and manufacturers that meet the de minimis exception.  See 
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First Report and 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3418-24 ¶¶ 34-46 (2008) (“Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order”), Order on 
Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008); 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).  We note that the Commission recently limited the de minimis exception to exclude service providers that 
are not small entities after an initial two-year period.  See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing 
Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Policy Statement and Second Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-145 ¶¶ 35-59 (rel. Aug. 5, 2010).
8 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), and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) a/k/a Universal Mobile 
Telecommunications System (UMTS).
9 See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419 ¶ 35; 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
10 See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419 ¶ 36; 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d)(3)(ii).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1654
3
of hearing aid-compatible handsets (including on the Internet)11 the FCC also requires annual reports 
from service providers and manufacturers on their efforts towards compliance.   
4. On January 15, 2010, Oklahoma Independent submitted its hearing aid compatibility 
status report for the 2009 reporting period.12 Oklahoma Independent’s 2009 Report reveals that between 
May 15, 2009 and May 30, 2009, only eight of the 24 handset models it offered to consumers met or 
exceeded the M3 rating; between June 1, 2009 and July 31, 2009, only eight of the 25 handset models it 
offered to consumers met or exceeded the M3 rating; and between August 1, 2009 and August 31, 2009, 
only eight of the 26 handset models it offered to consumers met or exceeded the M3 rating .13  
5. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau subsequently referred Oklahoma 
Independent’s apparent violation of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements to the 
Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action.  
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Comply with Hearing Aid Compatibility Handset Deployment 
Requirements.
6. According to its 2009 Report, Oklahoma Independent failed to offer the required number 
or percentage of compliant handsets.  Specifically, Oklahoma Independent offered for sale only eight M3-
compliant handset models, which did not constitute at least 50% of the total number of handset models 
that Oklahoma Independent offered to consumers during the 2009 reporting period.  Section 
20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules requires non-Tier I digital wireless service providers like Oklahoma 
Independent to ensure that between May 15, 2009 and May 14, 2010 and for each air interface for which 
they offered handsets to consumers,14 at least 50% of the handset models they offered, or at least nine 
handset models, met or exceeded the M3 rating for radio frequency interference.15 Accordingly, we 
  
11 See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3443 ¶ 91.  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 (May 17, 
2004, November 17, 2004, May 17, 2005, November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006 and November 17, 2006), and then 
annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation (November 19, 2007 and November 17, 2008).  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).  In its 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the 
Commission extended these reporting requirements with certain modifications on an open ended basis, beginning 
January 15, 2009.  See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3410 ¶ 13.  In addition, 
the Commission made clear that these reporting requirements apply to manufacturers and service providers that fit 
within the de minimis exception.  Id. at 3446 ¶ 99.  
12 See Oklahoma Independent RSA 5 Partnership Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report (filed January 15, 2010) 
(“2009 Report”), at http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/100317/Oklahoma%20Independent_35.PDF.
13 See id. Oklahoma Independent’s 2009 Report indicates that it offered the required number or percentage of 
handset models that met or exceeded the M3 rating between January 1, 2009 and May 15, 2009, and between 
September 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009.  Oklahoma Independent’s 2009 Report also indicates that it offered the 
required number or percentage of handset models that met or exceeded the T3 rating during the 2009 reporting 
period.  Id.
14 All of Oklahoma Independent’s handsets for the 2009 reporting period operated over the GSM air interface.
15 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1654
4
conclude that Oklahoma Independent apparently willfully16 and repeatedly17 violated Section 
20.19(c)(3)(ii) 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.18 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.19 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.20  We conclude under this 
standard that Oklahoma Independent is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and 
repeated violation of Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
8. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act21 authorizes a forfeiture assessment against a common 
carrier up to $150,000 for each violation, or for each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of 
$1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act.  In exercising such authority, we are required to take into 
account “the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, 
  
16 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”); see also Telrite Corporation, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7237 ¶ 12 (2008); Regent USA, Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523 ¶ 9 (2007); San Jose Navigation, Inc., Forfeiture Order 22 FCC Rcd 1040, 
1042 ¶ 9 (2007), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 25 FCC Rcd 1494 (2010).  
17 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 (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd 
at 4388.
18 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  
19 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
20 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002).  
21 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, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) 
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,300,000 to 
$150,000/$1,500,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima 
to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945, 10947 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for 
common carriers from $120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,300,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221, 18223 
(2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from $100,000/$1,000,000 to 
$120,000/$1,200,000).  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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1654
5
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice 
may require.”22
9. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement23 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.”24 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.25  
10. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the hearing aid 
compatibility handset deployment requirements, we take into account that these requirements serve to 
ensure that consumers with hearing loss 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 loss should not be denied the public safety and 
convenience benefits of digital wireless telephony.26 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.27
11. We have previously determined that violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset 
deployment requirements are serious in nature because failure to make compliant handsets available 
actually prevents hearing aid users from accessing digital wireless communications.28 As such, we 
generally apply a base forfeiture amount of $15,000 to reflect the gravity of these violations.29 We have 
  
22 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.
23 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 
Statement”).
24 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.  
25 Id.  
26 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755 ¶ 4.
27 Id. at 16756 ¶ 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”).
28 Compare, e.g., South Central Utah Telephone Association, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 
FCC Rcd 19251, 19255-56 ¶ 10 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response pending; Pine Telephone Company, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9205, 9210 ¶ 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), 
consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 23 FCC Rcd 4485 (Enf. Bur. 2008).  In contrast to handset 
deployment requirement violations, we have found that a violation of the labeling requirements (while serious 
because it prevents hearing aid users from making informed choices) is less egregious than a violation of the 
deployment requirements.  In the past, a base forfeiture amount of $8,000 has applied to violations of the labeling 
requirements for wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets.  
29 See, e.g., SLO Cellular, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 3990, 3996-97 ¶ 14 (Enf. 
Bur. 2008), response pending; NEP Cellcorp, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 8, 13 ¶ 
11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009); Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1654
6
also applied the $15,000 base forfeiture on a per handset basis (i.e., for each handset below the minimum 
number of hearing aid-compliant handsets required by the rules).30
12. The record establishes that Oklahoma Independent was out of compliance with the 
handset deployment requirements for three and a half months (between May 15, 2009 and August 31, 
2009) during the 2009 reporting period.  Thus, Oklahoma Independent did not satisfy the requirement that 
non-Tier I service providers offer at least nine handset models that meet or exceed the M3 rating, nor did 
it ensure that at least 50% of the handset models that it offered met or exceeded the M3 rating.  
Accordingly, Oklahoma Independent is apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $15,000 for failing to 
offer to consumers the required number or percentage of handset models in willful and repeated violation 
of Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules. 
13. Based on the record before us, and having considered the statutory factors set forth 
above, we conclude that no upward or downward adjustment of the forfeiture from the base amount of 
$15,000 is warranted under these particular circumstances.  We therefore propose a $15,000 forfeiture 
against Oklahoma Independent for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to comply with the hearing 
aid compatibility handset deployment requirements set forth in Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 
1.80 of the Rules, Oklahoma Independent RSA 5 Partnership IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for willful and 
repeated violation of Section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules. 
15. 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, Oklahoma Independent RSA 5 
Partnership SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement 
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.   
16. 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. Oklahoma Independent 
RSA 5 Partnership will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Kathy 
Berthot at Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov. 
     
Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 11567, 11571 ¶ 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response pending; Blanca 
Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9398, 9403 ¶ 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum 
Enf. Div. 2008), response pending; Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 
9290, 9295 ¶ 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008); Iowa Wireless Services, LLC d/b/a i Wireless, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 4735, 4739 ¶ 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008); South Slope 
Cooperative Telephone Company d/b/a South Slope Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC 
Rcd 4706, 4711-12 ¶ 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response pending.       
30 See id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1654
7
17. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules.  The written statement must be mailed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, 
ATTN: Enforcement Bureau – Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 
referenced in the caption.  The statement should also be emailed to Kathy Berthot at 
Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov.
18. 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.
19. 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 Oklahoma 
Independent RSA 5 Partnership, 170 S. Warner Rd., Suite 104, Wayne, PA 19087, and to its counsel, 
Todd Slamowitz, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, 1650 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500, McLean, VA 
22102.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau