Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554


                                )                               
                                                                
                                )   File No. EB-08-SE-118       
     In the Matter of                                           
                                )   NAL/Acct. No. 200832100054  
     Blanca Telephone Company                                   
                                )   FRN # 0003766201            
                                                                
                                )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: June 16, 2008 Released: June 18, 2008

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Blanca Telephone Company ("Blanca"), a Code Division Multiple
       Access-based ("CDMA-based") Tier III carrier, serving rural Colorado,
       apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(d)(2) of
       the Commission's Rules ("Rules") by failing to include in its digital
       wireless handset offerings at least two models that meet the inductive
       coupling standards for hearing aid compatibility by the September 18,
       2006 deadline. For Blanca's apparent violations, and for the reasons
       discussed below, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of fifteen
       thousand dollars ($15,000).

   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. 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. Specifically, the Commission adopted a standard for radio
       frequency interference (the "U3" or "M3" rating) to enable acoustic
       coupling between digital wireless phones and hearing aids operating in
       acoustic coupling mode,  and a separate standard (the "U3T" or "T3"
       rating) to enable inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in
       telecoil mode. 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 interface that are compliant with the relevant standard if
       they did not come under the de minimis exception.

    3. The Commission required that manufacturers and service providers begin
       making commercially available at least two handset models per air
       interface that meet the U3 or M3 rating for radio frequency
       interference by September 16, 2005. The Commission also required that
       manufacturers and service providers make commercially available at
       least two handset models per air interface that meet the U3T or T3
       rating for inductive coupling by September 18, 2006. In connection
       with the offer of hearing aid-compatible handset models, the
       Commission further required entities to label the handsets with the
       appropriate technical rating, and to explain the technical rating
       system in the owner's manual or as part of the packaging material for
       the handset. In order to monitor the availability of these handsets,
       the Commission required manufacturers and digital wireless service
       providers to report every six months on efforts toward compliance with
       the hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first three years
       of implementation, and then annually thereafter through the fifth year
       of implementation.

    4. In its September 18, 2006 Report, Blanca noted that, as of the
       September 18, 2006 deadline, it had been unable to obtain U3T/T3
       (inductive coupling) compliant phones from its handset distributors
       (Motorola and Nokia) and requested a waiver of this requirement.
       Blanca further noted that it had available for sale at least two
       handset models that comply with the U3/M3 (radio frequency
       interference) rating set forth in Section 20.19(b)(1) of the Rules.
       Blanca also stated that it had not received a request for a hearing
       aid-compatible handset. In its March 29, 2007 Report, Blanca stated
       that it was fully compliant with the inductive coupling requirements
       in that it offered the Kyocera K132, Kyocera Kx5, Kyocera K323 and
       Motorola V3c models of U3T/T3 compliant phones.

    5. In its June 21, 2007 Report, Blanca explained that its March 29, 2007
       Report erroneously stated that it fully complied with the inductive
       coupling compatibility requirements. Blanca explained that due to
       confusion at Blanca, it did not realize that it was required to
       distinguish between acoustic coupling-compliant and inductive
       coupling-compliant handsets and believed it was fully compliant with
       the hearing aid-compatible handset rules at that time. At the time of
       the March 29, 2007 Report, however, Blanca only offered one handset
       that was compliant with the inductive coupling requirements - the
       Motorola V3c handset. Blanca further stated that it subsequently came
       into compliance with the inductive coupling requirements on June 20,
       2007 by offering a second inductive coupling-compliant handset - the
       Samsung SCH-A870 T handset. Blanca again asserted that it had not
       received any requests for hearing aid-compatible handsets.

    6. On February 27, 2008, the Commission released the February 2008
       Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order, addressing individually
       each of 46 waiver petitions filed on behalf of a total of 90 Tier III
       carriers, including Blanca, five Tier II carriers, one Mobile Virtual
       Network Operator, and one handset manufacturer for relief from the
       hearing aid compatibility requirements for wireless digital
       telephones. The Commission found that Blanca did not meet the
       requirements to justify a waiver under the rules. The Commission
       stated that Blanca failed to provide evidence that it exercised
       sufficient diligence in seeking inductive coupling-compliant handsets
       not only before, but within a reasonable period of time after the
       September 18, 2006 compliance deadline. Further, the Commission stated
       that Blanca did not present any unique facts or circumstances that
       clearly distinguished it from other Tier III carriers that were able
       to comply by January 1, 2007, or before. The Commission also noted
       that 20 inductive coupling-compliant handsets for use on CDMA-based
       systems had been certified as of the September 18, 2006 deadline. The
       Commission further found it immaterial whether a carrier has actually
       received requests for hearing aid-compatible handsets, since the
       purpose of the hearing aid compatibility rules is to ensure that such
       handsets will be available in a timely manner when a customer needs
       them. Accordingly, the Commission denied the waiver petition of Blanca
       and referred its apparent violation to the Enforcement Bureau.

   III. DISCUSSION

    A. Failure to Offer For Sale Two Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Models

    7. Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules requires digital wireless service
       providers to begin offering for sale at least two handset models for
       each air interface that meet at least a T3 rating for inductive
       coupling compatibility by September 18, 2006. Blanca admits that it
       did not offer for sale the required two models of inductive
       coupling-compliant handsets until June 20, 2007. Accordingly, we
       conclude that Blanca apparently willfully and repeatedly failed to
       comply with Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.

   B. Proposed Forfeiture

    8. 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. 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. 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. We conclude
       under this standard that Blanca is apparently liable for forfeiture
       for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(d)(2)
       of the Rules.

    9. Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we may assess a common carrier
       a forfeiture of up to $130,000 for each violation, or for each day of
       a continuing violation up to a maximum of $1,325,000 for a single act
       or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to
       take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
       the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
       culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
       other matters as justice may require."

   10. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement  and Section 1.80 of the
       Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the
       hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in Section 20.19
       of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not
       specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be
       imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "... any omission
       of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ...
       should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation
       as nonexistent or unimportant. 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.

   11. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the
       hearing aid compatibility handset requirements, we take into account
       that these requirements serve to ensure that individuals with hearing
       disabilities have access to digital wireless telecommunications
       services. In adopting the hearing aid compatibility rules, the
       Commission underscored the strong and immediate need for such access,
       stressing that individuals with hearing impairments should not be
       denied the public safety and convenience benefits of digital wireless
       telephony. 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.

   12. Our recent decisions established a base forfeiture amount of $15,000
       per handset for violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset
       requirements. In establishing this base forfeiture amount, we
       determined that violations of the hearing aid compatibility handset
       requirements warranted a significantly higher forfeiture than for
       violations of the labeling requirements for wireless hearing
       aid-compatible handsets. We found that a violation of the labeling
       requirements, while serious because it deprives hearing aid users from
       making informed choices, is less egregious than a violation of the
       handset requirements because failure to make compliant handsets
       available actually deprives hearing aid users from accessing digital
       wireless communications. We also found that the handset requirements
       require providers to offer at least two handset models that meet at
       least a T3 rating for inductive coupling, and thus determined that a
       proposed forfeiture for violation of these requirements should be
       applied on a per handset basis.

   13. The record establishes Blanca did not offer any handsets that meet the
       T3 rating for inductive coupling by September 18, 2006. Because Blanca
       began offering for sale the first inductive coupling-compliant handset
       model on September 22, 2006, the statute of limitations for proposing
       a forfeiture for the first handset model has expired. The record
       further establishes Blanca did not come into compliance with the
       inductive coupling compatibility requirements until June 20, 2007 when
       it began offering the second compliant handset. Also, while Blanca
       sought a waiver of the September 18, 2006 deadline, it did not make a
       showing of good faith, diligent efforts to come into compliance even
       by January 1, 2007, as other Tier III carriers did, and the
       Commission, therefore, denied the waiver request. Although Blanca's
       failure to offer two handsets that meet the FCC's inductive coupling
       compatibility requirements is a continuing violation for purposes of
       determining an appropriate forfeiture, we exercise our prosecutorial
       discretion in light of the limited period of time of the violation and
       decline to assess a forfeiture on a continuing violation basis in this
       case. We also note that Blanca is a Tier III carrier, i.e., a wireless
       radio service provider with 500,000 or fewer subscribers. Accordingly,
       Blanca is apparently liable for a $15,000 forfeiture for failing to
       comply with the inductive coupling compatibility requirements in
       willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(d)(2).

   IV. ORDERING clauses

   14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Blanca Telephone Company IS
       NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
       fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for willful and repeated violation
       of Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.

   15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
       within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture, Blanca Telephone Company SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   16. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
       payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
       payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
       above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
       Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
       Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
       Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
       63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
       credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
       When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
       block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
       block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
       an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial
       Officer-Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C.  20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group
       Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: arinquiries@fcc.gov with any
       questions regarding payment procedures.  Blanca will also send
       electronic notification on the date said payment is made to JoAnn
       Lucanik at JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov and Jennifer.Burton@fcc.gov.

   17. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
       Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
       D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

   18. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
       response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
       (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
       financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
       accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective
       documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
       financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
       identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
       documentation submitted.

   19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture  shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
       return receipt requested to Alan Wehe, Blanca Telephone Company, 129
       Santa Fe, Alamosa, CO 81101, and to its counsel, Timothy E. Welch,
       Esq., Hill & Welch, 1330 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Suite 113, Washington,
       DC 20036.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(2).

   Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Telephones, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd
   18047 (2003) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility Order");  Order on
   Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
   11221 (2005) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order"). The
   Commission adopted these requirements for digital wireless telephones
   under the authority of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, codified
   at Section 710(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
   U.S.C. S: 610(b)(2)(C).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,  18 FCC Rcd at 16777; 47 C.F.R. S:
   20.19(b)(1), (2). The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order described the
   acoustic coupling and the inductive (telecoil) coupling modes as follows:

   In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding sounds,
   desired and undesired, and converts them into electrical signals. The
   electrical signals are amplified as needed and then converted back into
   electrical signals. In telecoil mode, with the microphone turned off, the
   telecoil picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field generated by the
   voice coil of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible telephones,
   audio loop systems, or powered neck loops. The hearing aid converts the
   magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies them as needed, and
   converts them back into sound via the speaker. Using a telecoil avoids the
   feedback that often results from putting a hearing aid up against a
   telephone earpiece, can help prevent exposure to over amplification, and
   eliminates background noise, providing improved access to the telephone.

   Id. at 16763.

   Section 20.19(b)(1) provides that a wireless handset is deemed hearing
   aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, at minimum, it
   receives a U3 rating as set forth in "American National Standard for
   Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications
   Devices and Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19-2001." 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1).
   Section 20.19(b)(2) provides that a wireless handset is deemed hearing
   aid-compatible for inductive coupling if, at minimum, it receives a U3T
   rating as set forth in ANSI C63.19-2001. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(2). On
   April 25, 2005, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
   announced that it would also certify handsets as hearing aid-compatible
   based on the revised version of the standard, ANSI C63.19-2005. See OET
   Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard
   Measurement Procedures and Rating Nomenclature, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd
   8188 (OET 2005). On June 6, 2006, the Commission's Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology
   announced that the Commission would also certify handsets as hearing
   aid-compatible based on the revised version of the standard, ANSI
   C63.19-2006. Thus, during the time period relevant here, applicants for
   certification could rely on either the 2001 version, the 2005 version, or
   the 2006 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard. See Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Clarify
   Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard, Public
   Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6384 (WTB/OET 2006). In addition, since the 2005
   version, the ANSI C63.19 technical standard has used an "M" nomenclature
   for the radio frequency interference rating rather than a "U," and a "T"
   nomenclature for the handset's inductive coupling rating, rather than a
   "UT." The Commission has approved the use of the "M" and "T" nomenclature
   and considers the M/T and U/UT nomenclatures as synonymous. See Hearing
   Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11238.

   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 CDMA, Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM),
   Integrated Digital Enhanced Network (iDEN), Time Division Multiple Access
   (TDMA) and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) a/k/a Universal
   Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,  18 FCC Rcd at 16780; 47 C.F.R. S:S:
   20.19(c), (d). The de minimis exception  provides that manufacturers or
   mobile service providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset
   models per air interface are exempt from the hearing aid compatibility
   requirements and manufacturers or service providers that offer three
   digital wireless handset models per air interface must offer at least one
   compliant model. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780; see also 47
   C.F.R. S: 20.19(c).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780; see also 47
   C.F.R. S: 20.19(d). In addition, on February 28, 2008, the Commission
   released an order that, as modified on reconsideration, among other
   things: (a) modifies the obligation on manufacturers and service providers
   to offer handset models that meet the U3/M3 (radio frequency) standard,
   (b) increases the obligation on manufacturers and service providers to
   offer handset models that meet the U3T/T3 (inductive coupling) standard,
   (c) allows service providers other than Tier I carriers an additional
   three months to meet the new handset deployment benchmarks, (d) adopts a
   technology "refresh" requirement for manufacturers, (e) requires service
   providers to offer hearing aid-compatible handsets with different levels
   of functionality, (f) adopts an updated version of the technical standard
   for measuring hearing aid compatibility, and (g) requires manufacturers
   and service providers to submit annual reports on an open ended basis,
   beginning January 15, 2009. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules
   Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order,
   23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3408-3411, 3418 (2008) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility First
   Report and Order"), Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249
   (2008). The effective date of the new rules was June 6, 2008. See 73 Fed.
   Reg. 25,566 (May 7, 2008).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785; see also 47
   C.F.R. S: 20.19(f).

   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787; see also Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau Announces Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting
   Dates for Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, Public Notice, 19
   FCC Rcd 4097 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 2004). The Commission will now require
   service providers to submit annual status reports beginning January 15,
   2009. See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at
   3410. Manufacturers will report on January 15, 2009, and then annually
   beginning July 15, 2009. Id. at 3410.

   Blanca Telephone Company Report and Request for Waiver -- 47 C.F.R. S:
   20.19(d)(2) Hearing Aid Compatibility -- Inductive Coupling Report at 2,
   WT Docket No. 01-309, Sept. 18, 2006 ("Blanca September 18, 2006 Report").

   Id.

   Id.

   Blanca Telephone Company Report and Request for Waiver -- 47 C.F.R. S:
   20.19(d)(2) Hearing Aid Compatibility -- Inductive Coupling Report at 2,
   WT Docket No. 01-309, March 29, 2007 ("Blanca March 29, 2007 Report").
   Blanca also withdrew its September 18, 2006 request for a waiver of the
   Section 20.19(d)(2) requirement. Id.

   Blanca Telephone Company Supplemental Report Hearing Aid Compatibility --
   Inductive Coupling Report at 2, WT Docket No. 01-309, June 21, 2007
   ("Blanca June 21, 2007 Report"). Blanca also requested reinstatement of
   its September 18, 2006 waiver request, at staff's recommendation. Id. at
   1, n. 2.

   Blanca stated that it began offering the Motorola V3c handset on September
   22, 2006. Id. at 2.

   Id. at 2.

   Id. at 3.

   Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Telephones, Petitions for Waiver of Section 20.19 of the Commission's
   Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3352 (2008) ("February
   2008 Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order"), petitions for
   reconsideration pending. On March 27, 2008, Blanca filed a petition for
   reconsideration of that Order. On May 7, 2008, the Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau placed Blanca's petition, along with six other
   petitions for reconsideration, on public notice and established a pleading
   cycle for comments and reply comments. See Wireless Telecommunications
   Bureau Seeks Comment on Petitions for Reconsideration Filed in Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Docket, Public Notice, DA 08-1087 (rel. May 7, 2008).

   February 2008 Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order, 23 FCC Rcd at
   3364. See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.925(b)(3).

   See February 2008 Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order, 23 FCC
   Rcd at 3365.

   See id. at 3365.

   Id. at 3357.

   Id., citing 47 U.S.C. S: 610(a) (directing Commission to "ensure
   reasonable access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing").

   Blanca June 21, 2007 Report at 2.

   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. S: 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").

   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. S: 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.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f).

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591 (2002).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
   of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3), to increase the maxima forfeiture
   amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements
   contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S:
   2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
   Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order,  15 FCC Rcd
   18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from
   $100,000/$1,000,000 to $120,000/$1,200,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of
   the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory
   amounts from $120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,325,000); see also 47
   C.F.R. S: 1.80(c).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4), Note to
   paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
   Forfeitures.

   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").

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.

   Id.

   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755.

   Id. at 16756 (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 (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").

   See, e.g., Iowa Wireless Services, LLC d/b/a i Wireless, Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 4735 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
   Enf. Div. 2008) ("i Wireless"); South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company
   d/b/a South Slope Wireless,  Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   23 FCC Rcd 4706 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008); SLO Cellular, Inc.
   d/b/a Cellular One of San Luis Obispo, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 3990 (Enf. Bur., 2008); Epic Touch Company, Notice
   of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 2831, 2835 (Enf. Bur.,
   2008) ("EpicTouch").

   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 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response pending; Pine
   Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22
   FCC Rcd 9205, 9210 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), consent decree
   ordered, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4495 (Enf. Bur., 2008).

   See supra note 38.

   Blanca June 21, 2007 Report at 2.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3). We also decline to
   admonish Blanca for not offering this T3-rated handset by the September
   18, 2006, deadline in view of the fact that the handset was made available
   within four days of the compliance date.

   Blanca June 21, 2007 Report at 2.

   Blanca September 18, 2006 Report at 2.

   February 2008 Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order, 23 FCC Rcd at
   3364-65. See also supra P: 6.

   See, e.g., i Wireless, 23 FCC Rcd at 4735; EpicTouch, 23 FCC Rcd at
   2835-36 (cautioning carriers that future enforcement actions may consider
   all failures to comply with the hearing aid compatibility rules, including
   the inductive coupling requirements, as continuing violations for purposes
   of calculating appropriate forfeiture amounts).

   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
   (2002).

   Under Section 503(b)(6) of the Act,  47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6), we are
   prohibited from assessing a forfeiture for a violation that occurred more
   than a year before the issuance of a notice of apparent liability for
   forfeiture. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar us from considering
   Blanca's prior conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount
   for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period. See
   Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
   Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1827 (2006), forfeiture ordered, 22 FCC Rcd 10451
   (2007) (forfeiture paid); Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global
   Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd
   19893, 19903 (2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4710
   (2006); Roadrunner Transportation, Inc.,  Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd
   9669, 9671-71 (2000); Cate Communications Corp.,  Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp.,  Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37, 37-38 (1967) recon. denied, 11 FCC 2d
   193, 195 (1967). Accordingly, while we take into account the continuous
   nature of the violations in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount,
   our proposed forfeiture relates only Blanca's apparent violations that
   have occurred within the past year.

   (Continued from previous page ...)

   (continued ...)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1423

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1423