Federal Communications Commission DA 10-81
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
TCT Mobile Ltd.,
a subsidiary of TCL Communication Technology 
Holdings Ltd.
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-09-SE-151
NAL/Acct. No. 201032100013
FRN 0009221672
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  January 14, 2010 Released:  January 14, 2010
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find that TCT Mobile 
Limited (“TCT Mobile”) apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(i)(1) of the 
Commission’s Rules (“Rules”), which requires the filing of status reports regarding the hearing aid 
compatibility of wireless handsets.1 We also find that TCT Mobile apparently willfully violated a 
Commission order by failing to respond to a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) from the Enforcement Bureau.  
Based on our review of facts and circumstances in this matter, we conclude that TCT Mobile is apparently 
liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $16,000.
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 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 interface4 that are compliant with the relevant standard if they did not come 
  
1 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
2 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).  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”).  
3 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777 ¶ 56; 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.19(b)(1) and (2).  
4 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) and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) a/k/a Universal Mobile 
Telecommunications System (UMTS).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-81
2
under the de minimis exception.5 In February 2008, as part of a comprehensive reconsideration of the 
effectiveness of the hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission released an order that, among other 
things, adopted new compatible handset deployment benchmarks beginning in 2008. 6  
3. Of primary relevance, the Commission also adopted reporting requirements to ensure that 
it could monitor the availability of these handsets and to provide valuable information to the public 
concerning the technical testing and commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets, 
including on the Internet.7 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).8 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, 2009.9 The Commission also made 
clear that these reporting requirements apply to manufacturers and service providers that fit within the de 
minimis exception.10  
4. Commission records, however, indicate that no hearing aid compatibility status reports 
have been filed for TCT Mobile, a wireless handset manufacturer.11 Accordingly, the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) referred TCT Mobile’s apparent violation of the hearing aid 
compatibility reporting requirements to the Spectrum Enforcement Division (“Division”) of the 
Enforcement Bureau.  
5. On September 30, 2009, the Division issued TCT Mobile an LOI directing the company 
to provide, within thirty calendar days from the date of the letter, certain information and documents 
regarding the company’s compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the 
Rules.12 Copies of the LOI were sent to both TCT Mobile and its corporate parent, TCL Communication 
Technology Holdings, Ltd., via Federal Express.  The copy sent to the address on file at the Commission
  
5 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 deployment requirements, and manufacturers 
or mobile 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).  
6 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First Report and 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406 (2008) (“Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order”), Order on Reconsideration 
and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008).
7 See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3443 ¶ 91.
8 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).   
9 See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3445-46 ¶¶ 97-99.  
10 Id. at 3446 ¶ 99.
11 TCT Mobile holds equipment certifications for numerous digital wireless handsets.  See, e.g., FCC ID RAD111 
(granted 4/24/2009); FCC ID RAD104 (granted 04/13/2009); FCC ID RAD084 (granted 12/24/2008); FCC ID 
RAD060 (granted 08/01/2007); FCC ID RAD054 (granted 04/30/2007); FCC ID RAD036 (granted 11/07/2006); 
FCC ID RAD034 (granted 07/27/2006); FCC ID RAD014 (granted 09/22/2005).
12 Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission to Mr. Gong Zhizhou, TCT Mobile Ltd. (Sep. 30, 2009), with carbon copy to Mr. Li 
Dongshen, Chairman, TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. (“LOI”).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-81
3
for TCT Mobile was returned undelivered;13 similarly, an attempt to deliver a copy to the fax number on 
file for TCT Mobile was unsuccessful.  The copy of the LOI delivered to the corporate parent was 
confirmed by Federal Express tracking as having been received on October 16, 2009.  To date, the
Division has received no response to the LOI, and no hearing aid compatibility status reports have been 
filed by TCT Mobile.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to File Timely Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Reports
6. Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules requires handset manufacturers to file hearing aid 
compatibility status reports initially under the current rules on January 15, 2009 (covering the six-month 
period ending December 31, 2008) and then annually beginning July 15, 2009.14 These reports are 
necessary to enable the Commission to perform its enforcement function and evaluate whether TCT 
Mobile is in compliance with Commission mandates that were adopted to facilitate the accessibility of 
hearing aid-compatible wireless handsets.  These reports also provide valuable information to the public 
concerning the technical testing and commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets. To date, 
Commission records show no status reports on file for TCT Mobile.  Accordingly, we find that TCT 
Mobile failed to file two hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful15 and repeated16
violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.
B. Failure to Respond to the LOI
7. We also find that TCT Mobile’s failure to respond to the Division’s LOI constitutes an 
apparent willful violation of a Commission order.  Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act afford the 
Commission broad authority to investigate the entities it regulates.  Section 4(i) authorizes the 
Commission to “issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of 
its functions,”17 and Section 4(j) states that “the Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner 
as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.”18 Likewise, Section 
403 grants the Commission “full authority and power to institute an inquiry, on its own motion ... relating 
to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act.”19 Numerous FCC decisions have reaffirmed the 
Commission’s authority to investigate potential misconduct and to punish those that disregard 
  
13 We note that TCT Mobile is an ongoing concern and in the past year has received numerous grants of equipment 
certification from the Commission.  The Bureau’s LOI was sent to the address set forth by the company in its 
applications for those authorizations.
14 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
15 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). 
16 Section 312(f)(2) 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, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary 
Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 ¶ 10 (2001).
17 47 U.S.C. § 154(i).
18 47 U.S.C. § 154(j).
19 47 U.S.C. § 403.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-81
4
Commission inquiries.20
8. Congress has directed the Commission to “ensure reasonable access to telephone service 
by persons with impaired hearing.”21 In furtherance of that mission, the Division’s LOI directed TCT 
Mobile to provide, by October 30, 2009, certain information and documents regarding the company’s 
compliance with reporting requirements applicable to providers of hearing aid-compatible handsets.  
Federal Express tracking services confirmed that TCT Mobile received the Division’s LOI, through its 
corporate parent TCL Communication Holdings, Ltd., on October 16, 2009.  To date, the Division has 
received no response to its communication.  Accordingly, we find that TCT Mobile apparently willfully 
violated a Commission order by failing to provide the information requested by the Division.
C. Proposed Forfeiture
9. 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.22 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.23 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.24 We conclude under this 
standard that TCT Mobile is apparently liable for forfeiture for its apparent willful and repeated failure to 
file the required status reports in violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules and for its apparent willful 
violation of a Commission order to provide information.
10. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b) of the Rules set a 
base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to file required forms or information.25 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.26  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 
  
20 See, e.g., Connect Paging, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 6303, 6306 
(Enf. Bur. 2007) (proposing forfeiture of $4,000 for failure to respond to an LOI); Digital Antenna, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7600, 7602 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) 
(proposing forfeiture of $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters of inquiry); Hauppauge 
Computer Works, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3684, 3688 (Enf. Bur., 
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (proposing forfeiture of $11,000 for failure to provide a complete response to two letters 
of inquiry).
21 47 U.S.C. § 610(a).
22 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  
23 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
24 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 ¶ 4 (2002).
25 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, 17114 (1997) , recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 
(1999) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).
26 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 ¶ 22, 17101 ¶ 29 (1997); 47 C.F.R. §1.80(b)(4) Note to 
paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures (“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.”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-81
5
to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”27
11. 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, 28 we found that status reports are essential to the implementation 
and enforcement of the hearing aid compatibility rules.  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 hold the digital wireless industry accountable to 
the increasing number of hearing-impaired individuals.29 We noted that when setting an $8,000 base 
forfeiture for violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset labeling requirements, the Commission 
emphasized that individuals with hearing impairments 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.30 We also noted that the Commission has upwardly 
adjusted the base forfeiture when noncompliance with filing requirements interferes with the accurate 
administration and enforcement of Commission rules.31 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.32 Consistent with ASTCA, we believe the established $6,000 base forfeiture for each 
hearing aid compatibility reporting violation should apply here, for an aggregate forfeiture of $12,000 
($6,000 *2 reporting violations).
12. 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.    Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $12,000 against TCT 
Mobile for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to file the January 15, 2009 and the July 15, 2009 
hearing aid compatibility status reports in violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.
13. Turning to TCT Mobile’s failure to respond to the LOI, the Commission’s Forfeiture 
Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules also establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for 
failure to respond to Commission communications.33 TCT Mobile’s failure to respond to the Division’s 
LOI has hindered our investigation of the company’s compliance with regulations that ensure the 
availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets.  Prompt and complete responses to letters of inquiry and 
other Bureau communications are essential to the Commission’s enforcement function.
14. Consistent with precedent in similar cases where a company failed to respond to a Bureau 
directive to provide certain information or documents,34 we find that TCT Mobile’s failure to respond to 
the Division’s LOI in this instance warrants assessment of the base forfeiture amount.  We therefore 
propose a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 against TCT Mobile for failing to respond to a 
communication from the Commission.  
  
27 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
28 See American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 
16432 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response received (“ASTCA NAL”).
29 Id. at ¶ 10.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17114; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
34 See, e.g., Connect Paging, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 6303 (Enf. 
Bur. 2007) (proposing forfeiture of $4,000 for failure to respond to an LOI).
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-81
6
15. Thus, we propose a total forfeiture in the amount of $16,000, $12,000 for TCT Mobile’s 
apparent willful and repeated failure to file required forms in violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) and $4,000 
for its apparent willful failure to respond to a communication from the Commission.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 
1.80 of the Rules, and the authority delegated by Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Rules, TCT Mobile, Ltd. 
is NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of sixteen 
thousand dollars ($16,000) for its failure to file required hearing aid compatibility status reports in willful 
and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules and for its willful violation of a Commission 
order.
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty 
(30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, TCT Mobile SHALL 
PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
18. 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.  TCT Mobile will 
also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to JoAnn Lucanik at 
JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov and to Kevin M. Pittman at Kevin.Pittman@fcc.gov. 
19. 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 e-mailed to JoAnn Lucanik at 
JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov and to Kevin M. Pittman at Kevin.Pittman@fcc.gov.
20. 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 10-81
7
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by Federal Express to TCT Mobile Limited, 4/F, South Building, No. 2966, Jinke 
Road, Zhangjiang High-Tech Park, Pudong, Shanghai 201203, People’s Republic of China, and shall also 
be sent to TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd., 15/F, TCL Tower, Gaoxin Nanxi Road, 
Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518057, People’s Republic of China.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau