Federal Communications Commission DA 14-192
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Westlink Communications, LLC,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
United Wireless Communications, Inc.
)
)
)
)
)
)
         File No.:  EB-SED-14-00013342
1
         NAL/Acct. No.:  201432100008
         FRN:  0002315224  
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  February 12, 2014          Released:  February 12, 2014
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau: 
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we propose a forfeiture in the amount 
of five thousand dollars ($5,000) against Westlink Communications, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
United Wireless Communications, Inc. (Westlink).
2
  We find that Westlink apparently willfully and 
repeatedly violated the digital wireless handset hearing aid compatibility status report filing requirements 
set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Commission’s rules (Rules).
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 
                                                     
1
The investigation initiated under File No. EB-SED-13-00012379 was subsequently assigned File No. EB-SED-14-
00013342.  Any future  correspondence with the Commission concerning this matter should refer to the new case 
number. 
2
Westlink is a Tier III wireless service provider that provides service in Kansas.  Tier III carriers are non-
nationwide wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer subscribers as of the end of 2001.  See Revision of 
the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II 
Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers, Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14847–48, paras. 
22–24 (2002).  At the time Westlink’s hearing aid compatibility status report was due to be filed, Westlink was a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of High Plains Telecommunications, Inc. (High Plains), which was a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of the Pioneer Telephone Association, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Communications.  On August 28, 2013, the 
Commission granted its consent to the transfer of control of Westlink from High Plains to United Wireless 
Communications, Inc. (United Wireless).  See Universal Licensing System File No. 0005651265, filed by United 
Wireless Communications, Inc. (filed Mar. 21, 2013).  
3
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
4
See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report and Order, 
18 FCC Rcd 16753 (2003), Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003), Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11221 (2005) (Hearing Aid Compatibility Order).  The Commission adopted 
these requirements for digital wireless telephones under the authority of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, 
Pub. L. No. 100-394, 102 Stat. 976 (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 609 note, 610, 610 note).
Federal Communications Commission DA 14- 192
2
compatible with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil) modes.
5
  
Specifically, the Commission adopted a standard for radio frequency interference (the M3 rating) to 
enable acoustic coupling between digital wireless phones and hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling 
mode, and a separate standard (the T3 rating) to enable inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in 
telecoil mode.
6
  In the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the Commission 
established various deadlines by which manufacturers and service providers were required to offer 
specified numbers of digital wireless handset models rated hearing aid-compatible.
7
  
3. The Commission also adopted reporting requirements to ensure that it could monitor the 
availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets and to provide valuable information to the public 
concerning the technical testing and commercial availability of these handsets.
8
  The Commission initially 
required manufacturers and digital wireless service providers to report every six months on efforts toward 
compliance with the hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first three years of implementation, 
and then annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation.
9
  In its 2008 Hearing Aid 
                                                     
5
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777, 16779, paras. 56, 63; see also 47 C.F.R. 
§ 20.19(b)(1)-(2).  The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order described the acoustic coupling and inductive coupling 
(telecoil) modes as follows: 
In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding sounds, desired and undesired, 
and converts them into electrical signals.  The electrical signals are amplified as needed and then 
converted back into sound by the hearing aid speaker.  In telecoil mode, with the microphone 
turned off, the telecoil picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field generated by the voice coil 
of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible telephones, audio loop systems, or powered neck 
loops.  The hearing aid converts the magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies them as 
needed, and converts them back into sound via the speaker.  Using a telecoil avoids the feedback 
that often results from putting a hearing aid up against a telephone earpiece, can help prevent 
exposure to over amplification, and eliminates background noise, providing improved access to 
the telephone.
18 FCC Rcd at 16763, para. 22.    
6
See 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b).  As subsequently amended, Section 20.19(b)(1) of the Rules provided that, for the period 
beginning January 1, 2010, a wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, 
at a minimum, it meets the M3 rating associated with the technical standard set forth in the standard document, 
“American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices 
and Hearing Aids,” ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) (ANSI C63.19-2007), except that grants of certification 
issued before January 1, 2010, under earlier versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility 
purposes.  47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1).  Section 20.19(b)(2) provided that, for the period beginning January 1, 2010, a 
wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-compatible for inductive coupling if, at minimum, it meets the T3 rating 
associated with the technical standard set forth in ANSI C63.19-2007, except that grants of certification issued 
before January 1, 2010, under earlier versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes.  
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(2).  Effective August 16, 2012, a further amendment to Section 20.19(b) permits manufacturers 
to test handsets for hearing aid compatibility using the 2011 version of the ANSI standard, ANSI C63.19-2011, as an 
alternative to ANSI C63.19-2007. See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible 
Mobile Handsets, Third Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 3732 (WTB/OET 2012).  
7
See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First Report and 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3418–20, paras. 35–36 (2008), Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 
(2008) (Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order).  
8
Id. at 3443, para. 91; see also 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i).  
9
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787, para. 89; see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
Announces Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, Public 
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 2004).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 14- 192
3
Compatibility First Report and Order, the Commission indefinitely extended these reporting 
requirements with certain modifications.
10
  
4. Westlink failed to timely file its hearing aid compatibility status report for the period 
January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012.  The required report was due on January 15, 2013.
11
  
Westlink contacted the Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Wireless Bureau) on 
February 12, 2013, regarding its failure to file the hearing aid compatibility status report.  The Wireless 
Bureau then opened filing windows to submit the overdue report.
12
  Westlink ultimately filed its status 
report on March 19, 2013.
13
  The Wireless Bureau subsequently referred Westlink’s apparent violation of 
the hearing aid compatibility status report filing requirement to the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau).
5. On December 9, 2013, the Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a letter of 
inquiry (LOI) to Westlink, directing the company to submit a sworn written response to a series of 
questions relating to Westlink’s failure to timely file its hearing aid compatibility status report by the 
January 15, 2013 deadline.
14
  Westlink responded to the LOI on December 30, 2013.
15
  In its LOI 
Response, Westlink admits that it did not timely file its hearing aid compatibility status report, stating that 
the failure resulted from a change in personnel and the subsequent transfer of responsibilities for 
Westlink’s hearing aid compatibly compliance to another employee.
16
  Westlink asserts that after it 
discovered its failure to file the required report in early February 2013, it promptly notified the Wireless 
Bureau that it had not met the filing deadline and requested a new filing window to permit the late filing 
of the report.
17
  
III. DISCUSSION 
A. Failure to Timely File Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Report
6. Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules requires service providers to file hearing aid 
compatibility status reports.
18
  These reports are necessary to enable the Commission to perform its 
                                                     
10
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3444–46, paras. 97–99, 101.  The 
extensions of these reporting requirements became effective on December 13, 2011.  See 76 Fed. Reg. 77,415 (Dec. 
13, 2011).  
11
Service providers are required to file their hearing aid compatibility status reports on January 15th of each year.  
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1); see also Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Reporting, http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac.  
12
The opening of a new filing window does not constitute an extension of time to file an otherwise late-filed hearing 
aid compatibility status report.
13
See Westlink Communications, Hearing Aid Compatibility Report (Mar. 19, 2013), 
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/130411/7447238_324.PDF (last visited on Jan. 28, 2014).  
14
See Letter from John D. Poutasse, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Catherine 
Moyer, Chief Executive Officer and General Manager, Westlink Communications, LLC dba Pioneer 
Communications (Dec. 9, 2013) (on file in EB-SED-14-00013342).
15
See Letter from Kenneth C. Johnson and Anthony K. Veach, Bennet & Bennet, PLLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 30, 2013) (on file in EB-SED-14-00013342) (LOI 
Response).
16
Id. at 2.  Westlink also explains that the confusion within the company over who was responsible for filing 
Westlink’s status report was exacerbated by the pending sale of the company to United Wireless.  Id.
17
Id.  The Wireless Bureau initially opened a filing window for Westlink on February 13–14, 2013; then again on 
February 26–27, 2013; and then again on March 19–20, 2013.  According to Westlink, the company was unable to 
file its status report during the February 13–14 and February 26–27, 2013 filing windows, because of technical 
difficulties with the FCC’s website.  Id.        
18
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
Federal Communications Commission DA 14- 192
4
enforcement function and to evaluate whether Westlink 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.
19
  As the record in this case reflects, Westlink failed to 
timely file the hearing aid compatibility status report due on January 15, 2013, in apparent willful
20
and 
repeated
21
violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.
22
B. Proposed Forfeiture
7. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), any 
person who is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any 
provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the 
United States for a forfeiture penalty.
23
  To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must first 
issue a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture and the person against whom such notice has been issued 
must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.
24
  The 
Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has 
                                                     
19
Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3446, para. 98 (stating that a handset model’s 
hearing aid compatibility rating, among other relevant information, “should be readily available to service providers 
either from the manufacturer’s previous reports to the Commission, from the manufacturer’s own website, or from 
the manufacturer directly”).  We note, however, that the Commission’s Equipment Authorization System is the most 
reliable source for information on a handset’s hearing aid compatibility rating.  The Equipment Authorization 
System is an electronic database of all equipment certified under Commission authority.  The database identifies the 
hearing aid compatibility rating of each handset by FCC ID, as reported by the handset manufacturer in test reports 
submitted to the Commission at the time of an equipment authorization or of any modification to such authorization.  
See http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/.
20
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines “willful” as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] 
act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.  47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  The legislative history of Section 312 
clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Sections 312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765 (1982) 
(Conf. Rep.), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.  See So. Cal. Broad. 
Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387–88, para. 5 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 
(1992) (Southern California).  In the context of a forfeiture action, “willful’ does not require a finding that the rule 
violation was intentional.  See, e.g., Tidewater Communications, LLC, Order on Review, 25 FCC Rcd 1675, 1676, 
para. 5 (2010) (“To be willful, the violator must consciously commit or omit certain actions and need not be aware 
that such actions violate the Rules.”); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5 (holding that, consistent with 
the Congressional record accompanying the 1982 amendments to the Act, a “willful” violation need not be 
intentional); Princess K Fishing Corp., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 2606, 2608-09, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2009) 
(stating that a licensee need not have the mens rea to commit a violation in order for a violation to be “willful”), 
recons. dismissed, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4707 (Enf. Bur. 2012).
21
Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 
defines “repeated” as “the commission or omission of [any] act more than once or, if such commission or omission 
is continuous, for more than one day.”  47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2); see also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, 
para. 5.  Failure to file these reports can have an adverse impact on the Commission’s ability to ensure the 
commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets, to the detriment of consumers.  As we 
have previously stated, the failure to file a hearing aid compatibility status report constitutes a continuing violation 
that persists until the violation is cured.  See American Samoa Telecommunications Authority, Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 16432, 16437, para. 11 (Enf. Bur. 2008), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 
27 FCC Rcd 13174 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (forfeiture paid) (ASTCA).  
22
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
23
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a).  
24
47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 14- 192
5
violated the Act or the Rules.
25
  We conclude that Westlink is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its 
failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful and repeated 
violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.
26
8. 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.
27
  While the base 
forfeiture requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the forfeiture process, the 
Commission retains the discretion to depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case 
basis under its general forfeiture authority in Section 503 of the Act.
28
  
9. We have exercised our discretion to set a higher base forfeiture amount for violations of 
the wireless hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements.  In ASTCA, we found that the status reports 
are essential to implement and enforce the hearing aid compatibility rules.
29
  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.
30
  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.
31
  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.
32
  
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.
33
  Consistent with ASTCA, we believe the 
$6,000 base forfeiture for violation of the hearing aid compatibility reporting requirement should apply 
here.  
10. The $6,000 base forfeiture, however, is subject to adjustment.  In assessing forfeitures, 
Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we take into account the “nature, circumstances, extent, and 
gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior 
offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”
34
  In its LOI Response, Westlink 
states that the failure to timely file its status report was due to a change in personnel and the resulting 
transfer of responsibilities for Westlink’s hearing aid compatibility compliance.
35
  It is well established, 
                                                     
25
See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, para. 4 (2002).  
26
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).  
27
See The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113, Appendix A, Section I, recons. denied,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
28
See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099, 17101, paras. 22, 29; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
29
See ASTCA, 23 FCC Rcd at 16436–37,  para. 10.  
30
Id.
31
Id.  
32
Id.  
33
Id.  
34
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
35
LOI Response at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14- 192
6
however, that administrative oversight or inadvertence is not a mitigating factor warranting a downward 
adjustment of a forfeiture.
36
  Similarly, a violator’s lack of knowledge or erroneous belief does not
warrant a forfeiture’s downward adjustment.
37
  In addition, we have declined to downwardly adjust a 
forfeiture based on claims that changes in personnel contributed to the violation.
38
  The severity of 
Westlink’s apparent violation, however, is mitigated by its prompt voluntary disclosure to Commission 
staff of the failure to timely file and its remedial efforts, both of which preceded the Bureau’s 
investigation and the initiation of enforcement action.
39  
As such, we find that, based on the particular 
circumstances of this case, some reduction of the forfeiture is appropriate.
40
  In view of all the factual 
circumstances presented, and having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we propose a 
forfeiture in the amount of $5,000 against Westlink for failing to timely file its hearing aid compatibility 
status report for the period ending December 31, 2012, by the January 15, 2013 deadline, in apparent 
willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.
41
  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
42
Westlink 
Communications, LLC is NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the 
                                                     
36
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”).
37
See, e.g., Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846, para. 5 (1993) (denying the mitigation claim of a 
manufacturer/distributor who thought that the equipment certification and marketing requirements were 
inapplicable, stating that its “prior knowledge or understanding of the law is unnecessary to a determination of 
whether a violation existed … ignorance of the law is [not] a mitigating factor”); Lakewood Broadcasting Service, 
Inc., 37 FCC 2d 437, 438, para. 6 (1972) (denying a mitigation claim of a broadcast licensee who asserted an 
unfamiliarity with the station identification requirements, stating that licensees are expected “to know and conform 
their conduct to the requirements of our rules”).     
38
See, e.g., Emigrant Storage LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 8917, 8920 (Enf. Bur. 
2012) (declining to downwardly adjust a forfeiture based on company’s claims that the violation resulted from 
oversight and a change in personnel).
39
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8), Note to Paragraph (b)(8):  Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures
(establishing “good faith or voluntary disclosure” as a downward adjustment factor).  The Forfeiture Policy 
Statement affords us discretion to adjust forfeitures downward in cases of voluntary disclosure.  See Forfeiture 
Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, para. 27; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.  But the Forfeiture Policy Statement neither 
explains what constitutes voluntary disclosure nor establishes a particular downward adjustment 
percentage. Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100, para. 26 (expressly declining to prescribe the 
amount of the voluntary disclosure adjustment and explaining instead that the adjustment must reflect “the unique 
facts of each case”). We emphasize the public interest benefits of express, non-dilatory, and factually detailed 
noncompliance disclosures provided to the Enforcement Bureau and coupled with immediate corrective action.  In 
this case, Westlink states that it discovered the violation approximately three weeks after the January 15, 2013 filing 
deadline, and that it notified the Commission of the error on February 12, 2013.  LOI Response at 2.  This type of 
voluntary disclosure can expedite resolution of the resulting enforcement proceeding, and yield tangible benefits to 
the disclosing party in terms of the forfeiture penalty applied.  Of course, the forfeiture we adopt in any particular 
case will always entail our exercise of discretion based on the particular circumstances before us.    
40
Although we can upwardly adjust a forfeiture based on the violation’s duration (see 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)), we 
refrain from doing so in this case based on the particular facts and circumstances.  See, e.g., Northeast Telephone 
Services, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 13611, 13616 n.35 (Enf. Bur. 2013).    
41
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).    
42
47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14- 192
7
amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(i)(1) of the 
Commission’s rules.
43
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 
within thirty (30) calendar days after the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
Westlink Communications, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture, or SHALL 
FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with 
paragraph 15 below.
13. The payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire 
transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.  Westlink 
Communications, LLC shall send electronic notification of payment to Pamera Hairston at 
Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, Paul Noone at Paul.Noone@fcc.gov, and Samatha Peoples at 
Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date payment is made.  Regardless of the form of payment, a completed 
FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
44
  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the 
Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 
24A (payment type code).  Below are additional instructions Westlink Communications, LLC should 
follow based on the form of payment it selects:
? Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be 
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
? Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank 
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire transfer and ensure 
appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank 
at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
? Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on 
FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment.   
The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. 
Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank –
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 
63101.
14. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent 
to:  Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, DC  20554.  If Westlink has questions regarding payment 
procedures, it should contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by 
e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.   
15. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Commission’s rules.
45
  The written statement must be mailed to the 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 
20554, ATTN:  Enforcement Bureau—Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the 
                                                     
43
47 C.F.R. § 20.19(i)(1).
44
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
45
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14- 192
8
NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed to Pamera 
Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, Paul Noone at Paul.Noone@fcc.gov, and to Samantha Peoples at 
Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov.  The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response 
to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:  (1) federal tax returns for the most recent 
three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; 
or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current 
financial status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by 
reference to the financial documentation.
16. 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 Catherine Moyer, 
Chief Executive Officer and General Manager, Westlink Communications, LLC, 120 West Kansas 
Avenue, Ulysses, KS 67880, and to Kenneth C. Johnson, Esq., and Anthony K. Veach, Esq., Bennet & 
Bennet, PLLC, Counsel to Westlink Communications, LLC, 6124 MacArthur Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 
20816.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John D. Poutasse
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau