Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554
In the matter of 
STi Prepaid, LLC
)
)
)
)
File No.  EB-09-SE-186
NAL/Acct. No.  201132100019
FRN  0016004731
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:   December 30, 2010 Released:  December 30, 2010
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find that STi Prepaid, 
LLC, a reseller of wireless services through its operating division, STi Mobile (collectively, “STi 
Prepaid”),1 apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 20.19(e)(2) of the Commission’s rules 
(“Rules”)2 by failing for 18 months to include in its digital wireless handset offerings at least one handset 
model that meets the inductive coupling standard for hearing aid compatibility set forth in section 
20.19(b)(2) of the Rules.3 Further, we find that STi Prepaid apparently willfully violated the hearing aid 
compatibility status report filing requirements set forth in section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules,4 and apparently 
willfully and repeatedly violated the public web site posting requirements set forth in section 20.19(h) of 
the Rules.5 For these apparent violations, we propose a total forfeiture of thirty-four thousand five 
hundred dollars ($34,500).  
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.6 The 
Commission established technical standards that digital wireless handsets must meet to be considered 
  
1 STi Prepaid also holds both domestic and international section 214 authorizations.
2 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(2).  
3 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(2).
4 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
5 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(h). 
6 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report and Order, 
18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16787 ¶ 89 (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 10-2439
2
compatible with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil) modes.7  
Specifically, the Commission adopted a standard for radio frequency interference (the “M” rating) to 
enable acoustic coupling between digital wireless phones and hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling 
mode and a separate standard (the “T” rating) to enable inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in 
telecoil mode.8  
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 providers are 
required to offer specified numbers or percentages of digital wireless handset models.9 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 as well as the number of handsets 
offered.10 In this regard, the Commission created the de minimis exception set forth in section 20.19(e) of 
the Rules, which establishes different handset deployment benchmarks for manufacturers and service 
providers that offer three or fewer handset models.  Under the de minimis exception, service providers 
that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models per air interface are exempt from the hearing aid 
compatibility requirements.11 Service providers that offer three digital wireless handset models per air 
interface, however, must offer at least one model that is compliant with the acoustic coupling standard 
and at least one model that is compliant with the inductive coupling standard.12   
4. 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 (including on the 
  
7 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777 ¶ 56; 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1), (2).  
8 As subsequently amended, section 20.19(b)(1) provides that, for the period beginning June 6, 2008 and ending 
January 1, 2010, a newly certified 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 newly certified 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).  Grants of certification issued before June 6, 2008, under previous versions of ANSI C63.19 remain 
valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes.  
9 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).
10 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).
11 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e).
12 Id. We note that the Commission recently limited the de minimis exception so that it is unavailable to 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).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
3
Internet).13 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).14 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, 2009.15 The Commission also made clear 
that these reporting requirements apply to manufacturers and service providers that fit within the de 
minimis exception.16  In addition, the Commission required manufacturers and service providers with 
publicly-accessible web sites to maintain a list of hearing aid-compatible handset models and provide 
certain information regarding those models on their web sites.17 The web site postings, which must be 
updated within 30 days of a change in a manufacturer’s or service provider’s offerings, enable consumers 
to obtain up-to-date hearing aid compatibility information.18
5. STi Prepaid, a reseller of wireless services, failed to file the required hearing aid 
compatibility status report for the period July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 (originally due on 
January 15, 2009), and failed to post on its web site all of the required information concerning the ratings 
and levels of functionality of its hearing aid-compatible handset models.  The Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau referred STi Prepaid’s apparent violation of the reporting and web site 
requirements to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action.
6. On November 23, 2009, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the Enforcement Bureau 
(“Bureau”) issued STi Prepaid a letter of inquiry (“LOI”).19 STi Prepaid responded to the LOI on 
December 8, 2009, noting that “STi Mobile is an operating division of STi Prepaid, which provides 
interstate and international prepaid telecommunications services.”20 STi Prepaid states that it is a mobile 
virtual network operator (“MVNO”), and that it relies on Sprint Nextel for all of its underlying network 
services and handsets.21 STi Prepaid admits that it failed to file the service provider report due January 
15, 2009, but claims that such failure was “[d]ue to an administrative oversight.” 22 Given that it obtains 
all of its underlying network services and handsets via its contractual relationship with Sprint Nextel, STi 
Prepaid also asserts that it “was not aware that it had an independent obligation to file the report.”23 STi 
  
13 See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3443 ¶ 91.
14 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).
15 See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3445-46 ¶¶ 97-99.  
16 Id. at ¶ 99.
17 Id. at 3450 ¶ 112.
18 Id.
19 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Sam Tawfik, Chief Executive Officer, STi Mobile (November 23, 2009).
20 See Letter from Richard Rebetti, Chief Technical Officer, STi Prepaid, LLC, to Katherine Power, Esq., Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (December 8, 2009) 
(“Response”).
21 Id. at 1.
22 Id. at 2.
23 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
4
Prepaid further claims that because it currently offers only three handsets all within the same air interface 
(CDMA), it falls within the de minimis exception and is only required to offer one handset model that 
meets the “hearing aid and [sic] acoustic coupling standards.”24 In addition, STi Prepaid argues that it is 
in “substantial” compliance with the web posting requirements in section 20.19(h) of the Rules, noting 
that it posted the user guide for the M3-rated LG LX-225 handset model25 on its website and that the user 
guide explains the difference between the M3 and M4 ratings.  STi Prepaid acknowledged, however, that 
the user guide “does not contain information on the inductive coupling rating for that handset.” 26 As to 
the reporting requirements, STi Prepaid also stated that it would file the report originally due January 15, 
2009 as soon as electronically possible, and that it will timely file all future reports.27 The record reflects 
that STi Prepaid filed its 2008 report eleven months late,28 and that it timely filed its 2009 report.29
III. DISCUSSION
A. A. Failure to Comply with Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment 
Requirements
7. We find that STi Prepaid failed to offer the required number of hearing aid-compatible 
handsets that met or exceeded the T3 rating for 18 months, i.e., during the entire 2008 and 2009 reporting 
periods.  As noted above, section 20.19(e)(2) of the Rules establishes a de minimis exception, requiring 
service providers that offer three digital wireless handset models per air interface to ensure that at least 
one handset model meets or exceeds the M3 rating for acoustic coupling and at least one handset model 
meets or exceeds the T3 rating for inductive coupling.30  STi Prepaid asserts that it falls within the de 
minimis exception and is only required to offer one handset model that meets the “hearing aid and [sic] 
acoustic coupling standards.”31  Based on STi Prepaid’s response to the LOI and its hearing aid 
  
24 Id. at 1-2.  Specifically, STi Prepaid states that it currently offers the following three handset models:  LG LX-
225, Sanyo SCP-200, and Samsung SPH-A660.  Id. at 1.  Commission records indicate that the LG LX-225 handset 
(FCC ID BEJLX125) and the Sanyo SCP-200 handset (FCC ID AEZSCP-02H) both meet an M3 rating for acoustic 
coupling but do not meet at least a T3 rating for inductive coupling.  The Samsung SPH-A660 handset (FCC ID 
A3LSPHA660) does not meet either the M3 or T3 rating.  
25 Response at 2.  See also http://www.stimobile.com/lg225-user-manual.pdf., pp. 185-6. (last visited December 30, 
2010).  
26 Response at 2.
27 Id.
28 STi Prepaid filed the report for the period July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 (originally due on January 15, 
2009) on December 30, 2009.  See STi Prepaid Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report (filed December 30, 2009) 
at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020355066 (“2008 Report”).  This report indicates that STi 
Prepaid offered only three handset models during the 2008 reporting period:  the LG LX-225, the Sanyo SCP-200, 
and the Samsung SPH-A660.
29 STi Prepaid timely filed the report for the period January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 on January 14, 
2010.  See STi Prepaid Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report (filed January 14, 2010) at 
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/100317/STi%20Prepaid,%20LLC%20on%20_95.PDF (“2009 Report”).   
The 2009 Report indicated  that STi Prepaid only offered the same three handset models during the 2009 reporting 
period as it did during the 2008 reporting period:  the LG LX-225, the Sanyo SCP-200, and the Samsung SPH-
A660.2009.
30 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(2) (“service providers that offer three digital wireless handset models in an air interface must 
offer at least one handset model compliant with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section in that air interface.”); 
see also 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1), (b)(2).
31 Response at 1, 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
5
compatibility reports for the 2008 and 2009 reporting periods, STi Prepaid only offered three handsets,
which qualifies the company for the de minimis exception.32 Contrary to its assertions about the number 
of required hearing aid-compatible handsets under this exception, however, STi Prepaid was required to 
offer at least one M3-rated handset model and at least one T3-rated handset model.  Although two of the 
three handsets offered by STi Prepaid are M3-rated for acoustic coupling, none of the three handsets meet 
the T3 rating for inductive coupling.33 Accordingly, we conclude that STi Prepaid apparently willfully34
and repeatedly35 failed to comply with section 20.19(e)(2) of the Rules by failing during the 2008 and 
2009 reporting periods to offer at least one handset model that met or exceeded the T3 rating for inductive 
coupling.  
B.  Failure to File Timely Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report 
8. Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules required service providers to submit hearing aid 
compatibility status reports on January 15, 2009 (covering the six month period ending December 31, 
2008) and then annually thereafter.36 These reports are necessary to enable the Commission to perform its 
enforcement function and evaluate whether STi Prepaid is in compliance with Commission mandates that 
were adopted to facilitate the accessibility of hearing aid-compatible wireless handsets.  As the 
Commission has noted, the reports also provide valuable information to the public concerning the 
technical testing and commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets.37  STi Prepaid admitted 
that it did not timely file the 2008 Report; indeed, the record indicates that this Report was filed eleven 
months late.38 Accordingly, we find that STi Prepaid failed to timely file the hearing aid compatibility 
status report due on January 15, 2009 in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in section 
20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.39
  
32 See supra notes 24, 29, and 30 and accompanying text.
33 Id.
34 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”); see also Telrite Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7237 ¶ 12 (2008) (“Telrite”); 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).  
35 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.
36 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
37 See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3443 ¶ 91.
38 Response at 2; see supra notes 28 and 29 and accompanying text.
39 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
6
B. C. Failure to Post Required Information Concerning Hearing Aid-Compatible 
Handset Models on its Public Web Site
9. Section 20.19(h) of the Rules requires that, beginning January 15, 2009, each service 
provider that maintains a publicly-accessible web site make available on its web site a list of all hearing 
aid-compatible handset models it currently offers, the ratings of those models, and an explanation of the 
rating system.  Section 20.19(h) also requires service providers to post on their web sites the level of 
functionality of each model and an explanation of the service provider’s methodology for designating 
levels of functionality.  In addition, the Commission has stated that any changes to a service provider’s 
offerings must be reflected on its public web site listing within 30 days of the change.40 These web site 
postings provide consumers up-to-date hearing aid compatibility information.
10. While STi Prepaid did not directly comply with these web posting requirements, it claims 
“substantial” compliance based on the information contained in the user guide for the LG LX-225 handset 
model posted on its web site.41 As an initial matter, we are concerned that the difficulty of finding the 
hearing aid compatibility rating information in the approximately 200-page user manual for the LG LX-
225 model undercuts the clear intent of section 20.19(h) of the Rules, which is to make such information 
readily accessible to consumers.42 In any event, we find that the user manual for the LG LX-225 model 
fails to provide all of the information required under section 20.19(h) of the Rules.  We note that the user 
guide provides general information about hearing aid compatibility and ratings, including general 
information with respect to the qualitative difference between the M3 and M4 ratings, and also specifies 
the rating for the LG LX-225.  However, the user manual fails to specify the handset’s level of 
functionality or to provide an explanation of the service provider’s methodology for designating levels of 
functionality.  In addition, STi Prepaid apparently failed to provide any rating information regarding the 
Sanyo SCP-200 handset model on its web site.43 Accordingly, we find that STi Prepaid failed to meet the 
public web site posting requirements in apparent willful and repeated violation of section 20.19(h) of the 
Rules.44
C. D. Proposed Forfeiture
11. 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.45 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 
  
40 See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3450 ¶ 112.
41 Response at 2.
42 See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3448-9, 3450 ¶¶ 109, 112 (noting generally 
that “[t]he idea that consumers should be able to access as much information as possible through easily accessible
connections to relevant material is a fundamental” and “find[ing] it essential to the proper functioning of our hearing 
aid compatibility rules that manufacturers and service providers make certain limited categories of up-to-date 
information available on their websites”) (emphasis added).
43 While STi Prepaid does not indicate in its LOI response what, if any, rating information it provided on its web site 
for the Sanyo SCP-200 handset, we note that the user guide for this handset posted on the STi Prepaid website, does 
not include any hearing aid compatibility rating information.  See http://www.stimobile.com/s200-userguide.pdf  
(last visited December 30, 2010).  
44 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(h). 
45 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
7
penalty should be imposed.46 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.47 Under this standard, we 
conclude that STi Prepaid is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated 
violations of sections 20.19(e)(2) and 20.19(h) of the Rules, and its apparent willful violation of section 
20.19(i)(1) of the Rules. 
12. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes a forfeiture assessment against a common 
carrier up to $150,000 for each violation, or for each day of a continuing violation, and up to a maximum 
of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act.48 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.”49
13. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement50 and section 1.80 of the Rules do not 
establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment 
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.51  
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.52
14. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the hearing aid-
compatible handset deployment 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 
  
46 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
47 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 ¶ 4 (2002).  
48 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 only applies to 
violations that occur after that date.  See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.  STi Prepaid’s apparent violations occurred after 
September 2, 2008, and therefore are subject to the new forfeiture limits.
49 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.
50 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”).
51 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.  
52 Id.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
8
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.53 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.54
15. Our recent decisions established a base forfeiture amount of $15,000 per handset for 
violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements.55 In establishing this base 
forfeiture amount, we determined that violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment 
requirements warranted a significantly higher forfeiture than violations of the labeling requirements for 
wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets.56 We found that a violation of the labeling requirements, while 
serious because it deprives hearing aid users of the ability to make informed choices, is less egregious 
than a violation of the deployment requirements, where a failure to make compliant handsets available 
actually prevents hearing aid users from accessing digital wireless communications.57
16. The record establishes that STi Prepaid failed to include in its handset offerings at least 
one handset that met or exceeded the T3 rating for inductive coupling, as required by section 20.19(e)(2) 
of the Rules.58 Accordingly, STi Prepaid is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $15,000 for failing to offer 
the required number of hearing aid-compatible handset models in willful and repeated violation of section 
20.19(e)(2) of the Rules.
17. Having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we conclude that an upward 
adjustment is warranted.  We note, in this regard, that STi Prepaid was out of compliance with the hearing 
aid-compatible handset deployment requirements for 18 months, during the entire 2008 and 2009 
reporting periods.  In view of the particularly lengthy duration of the violation and the potentially 
  
53 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755 ¶ 4.
54 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”).
55 See, e.g., SLO Cellular, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 3990, 3996-97 ¶ 14 (Enf. 
Bur. 2008), response received; NEP Cellcorp, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 8, 13 ¶ 
11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009), forfeiture paid; Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 11567, 11571 ¶ 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response received;
Blanca Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9398, 9403 ¶ 12 (Enf. Bur., 
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response received; Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
23 FCC Rcd 9290, 9295 ¶ 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), forfeiture paid; 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 received.  
56 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, 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, 23 FCC Rcd 4485 (Enf. Bur. 
2008).  
57 See supra note 50.  
58 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(2).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
9
significant impact on consumers with hearing loss, we find that a significant upward adjustment of the 
base forfeiture amount is warranted.59  We therefore propose a $22,500 forfeiture against STi Prepaid for 
apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to comply with the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment 
requirements set forth in section 20.19(e)(2) of the Rules.  
18. The 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.60 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 contained in section 503 of the Act.61  
19. We have exercised our discretion to set a higher base forfeiture amount for violations of 
the wireless hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements.  In the American Samoa 
Telecommunications Authority NAL, we found that the status reports are essential to the implementation 
and enforcement of the hearing aid compatibility rules.62 The Commission relies on these reports to 
provide consumers with information regarding the technical specifications and commercial availability of 
hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets and to ensure that the digital wireless industry meets the 
needs of the increasing number of consumers with hearing loss.63 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.64 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.65 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.66 Consistent with ASTCA, we believe the established $6,000 base 
forfeiture for each violation of the hearing aid compatibility reporting requirement should apply here, for 
a proposed forfeiture of $6,000.  
  
59 While section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing a forfeiture for violations that occurred 
more than a year prior to the issuance of an NAL, we may consider the fact that STi Prepaid’s misconduct occurred 
over an extended period to place “the violations in context, thus establishing the licensee’s degree of culpability and 
the continuing nature of the violations.” Roadrunner Transportation Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-
72 (2000).  The forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to STi Prepaid’s apparent violations that occurred 
within the past year.    
60 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).
61 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 ¶ 22, 17101 ¶ 29.  See also 47 C.F.R. §1.80(b)(4) (“The 
Commission and its staff may use these guidelines in particular cases [and] retain the discretion to issue a higher or 
lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or additional 
sanctions as permitted by the statute.”) (emphasis added).
62 See American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 
16432 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response pending (“ASTCA”).
63 See ASTCA, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436-7 ¶ 10.   
64 Id.  
65 Id.  
66 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
10
20. Failure to file these reports, as is the case here, 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.  Furthermore, in ASTCA, we made clear that failure to file a 
hearing aid compatibility status report constitutes a continuing violation that continues until the violation 
is cured.67 STi Prepaid’s failure to file the report on time had a continuing adverse impact on the 
Commission’s ability to ensure the commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless 
handsets.  We do not believe that the circumstances presented warrant any downward adjustment of the 
proposed forfeiture amount.  STi Prepaid maintains that its failure to timely file the report was due to 
administrative oversight and that it was not aware that it had an independent obligation to file the report, 
given its contractual relationship with Sprint Nextel.  It is well established that administrative oversight or 
inadvertence is not a mitigating factor warranting a downward adjustment of a forfeiture.68 Likewise, a 
violator’s lack of knowledge or erroneous beliefs is not a mitigating factor warranting reduction of a 
forfeiture.69 Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $6,000 against STi Prepaid for apparently willfully 
failing to timely file the January 15, 2009 hearing aid compatibility status report in violation of section 
20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.70
21. We have also exercised our discretion to set a higher base forfeiture amount for violation 
of the web posting requirements set forth in section 20.19(h) of the Rules.  In determining the appropriate 
forfeiture amount for violation of the web site posting requirements, we noted that these requirements are 
“essential to the proper functioning of our hearing aid compatibility rules” and serve to increase the 
availability of up-to-date hearing aid compatibility information to consumers and service providers.71  In 
particular, we found that a web site may be the primary means through which consumers obtain 
information, and that the updated information between status reports is likely to be critical to both 
consumers and service providers.72 We further found that the web site postings, which must be updated 
  
67 Id. at 16437 ¶ 11.  See also Telrite, 23 FCC Rcd at  7244-45 (determining that the failure to file 
Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets was a continuing violation); Compass Global, Inc., Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6138 (2008) (same); VCI Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15933, 15940 (2007) (determining that the failure to file Lifeline and Linkup 
Worksheets was a continuing violation).
68 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”).
69 See, e.g., Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 ¶ 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 ¶ 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 ¶ 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 ¶ 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). 
70 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
71 See e.g., Locus Telecommunications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 330, 335 ¶ 13 
(Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010) (“Locus”) (quoting Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 
FCC Rcd at 3450 ¶ 112).
72 Locus, 25 FCC Rcd at 335 ¶ 14.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
11
within 30 days of a change in a manufacturer’s or service provider’s offerings, will enable consumers to 
obtain up-to-date hearing aid compatibility information from their service providers and will also enable 
service providers to readily obtain up-to-date information from their manufacturer suppliers.73  
Accordingly, we concluded that the same considerations that led us to increase the base forfeitures for 
hearing aid compatibility status reporting violations also apply to the requirement for web posting.74  We 
therefore established $6,000 as the base forfeiture for violation of section 20.19(h).75
22. As noted above, despite STi Prepaid’s claims that posting a 200-page user manual on its 
website constituted “substantial” compliance with section 20.19(h) of the Rules, the record indicates that 
even this manual did not include all the required information about the company’s hearing aid-compatible 
handset models.  STi Prepaid also presents no mitigating factors in its LOI Response justifying a 
downward adjustment to the $6,000 base forfeiture.  Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $6,000 
against STi Prepaid for apparently willfully and repeatedly76 failing to provide required information 
concerning its hearing aid-compatible handset models on its public web site in violation of section 
20.19(h) of the Rules.77
23. Thus, we propose an aggregate forfeiture of $34,500 against STi Prepaid for its apparent 
willful and repeated violations of sections 20.19(e)(2) and 20.19(h) of the Rules, and its apparent willful 
violation of section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 
1.80 of the Rules, STi Prepaid IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE
in the amount of thirty- four thousand five hundred dollars ($34,500) for its apparent willful and repeated 
violations of sections 20.19(e)(2) and 20.19(h) of the Rules, and its apparent willful violation of section 
20.19(i) of the Rules.  
25. 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, STi Prepaid SHALL PAY the 
full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
26. 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 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 
  
73 Id.
74 Id.
75 Id.
76 In this regard, we note that each manufacturer and service provider is required to continuously maintain the 
required information concerning its hearing aid-compatible handset models on its web site and to update the web 
sites within 30 days of a change in its handset offerings.  
77 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(h).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2439
12
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.  STi Prepaid must also send 
electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Katherine.Power@fcc.gov and 
Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov.
27. 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/Account 
Number referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be emailed to Katherine Power at 
Katherine.Power@fcc.gov and to Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov.
28. 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.
29. 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 Mr. Richard 
Rebetti, Chief Technical Officer, STi Prepaid, LLC, 1250 Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, New York  
10001. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau