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-07-SE-327       
     In the Matter of                    )                               
                                             NAL/Acct. No. 200832100064  
     Corr Wireless Communications, LLC   )                               
                                             FRN # 0003804101            
                                         )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: July 31, 2008 Released: July 31, 2008

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Corr Wireless Communications, LLC ("Corr") 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 September 18, 2006. For
       Corr's apparent violations, and for the reasons discussed below, we
       propose a forfeiture in the amount of thirty thousand dollars
       ($30,000).

   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. 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.

    3. 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 November 10, 2006 Status Report, Corr indicated that it had
       available for sale several handset models that complied with the
       standard for radio frequency interference set forth in Section
       20.19(b)(1) of the Rules, but did not address its compliance with the
       inductive coupling compatibility requirements in the report.
       Subsequently, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau referred the
       matter to the Enforcement Bureau for investigation into whether Corr
       was in compliance with the inductive coupling compatibility
       requirements.

    5. On September 10, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division")
       of the Enforcement Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Corr.
       In its response, Corr asserted that it began offering for sale one
       inductive coupling-compliant handset, the Motorola V3i, on October 23,
       2006. Corr further asserted that it began offering for sale two
       additional inductive coupling-compliant handsets, Nokia models 6085
       and 6126h, in August 2007.

   III. DISCUSSION

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

    6. Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules requires digital wireless service
       providers to begin offering for sale at least two handsets models for
       each air interface that meet at least a T3 rating for inductive
       coupling by September 18, 2006. According to its response, Corr did
       not begin offering for sale two inductive coupling-compliant handsets
       prior to the September 18, 2006 deadline. Corr began offering one
       inductive coupling-compliant handset model on October 23, 2006. Corr
       did not offer for sale a second inductive coupling-compliant handset
       until August 2007. Accordingly, we conclude that Corr apparently
       willfully and repeatedly failed to comply with Section 20.19(d)(2) of
       the Rules.

   B. Proposed Forfeiture

    7. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by
       the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
       any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
       the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
       penalty. 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 Corr is apparently liable for forfeiture for
       its apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 20.19(d)(2) of
       the Rules.

    8. 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."

    9. 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.

   10. 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.

   11. We note that in recent decisions, a base forfeiture amount of $15,000
       per handset was established for violations of the hearing aid
       compatibility handset requirements. This base forfeiture amount was
       based on a determination that a significantly higher base forfeiture
       amount is warranted for violations of the hearing aid compatibility
       handset requirements than for violations of the labeling requirements
       for wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets. In reaching this
       determination, 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. Further, because providers were required to offer at
       least two handset models that meet at least a T3 rating for inductive
       coupling, we determined that a proposed forfeiture for violation of
       these requirements should be applied on a per handset basis.
       Accordingly, we impose a base forfeiture amount of $15,000 per handset
       for violation of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements.

   12. Corr did not offer any handsets that met the T3 rating for inductive
       coupling by September 18, 2006. Corr began offering one inductive
       coupling-compliant handset on October 23, 2006, and did not come into
       full compliance by offering a second inductive coupling-compliant
       handset until August 2007. Although Corr'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.

   13. As explained above, we have determined that a proposed forfeiture for
       violation of the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements should
       be applied on a per handset basis. Because Corr began offering for
       sale the first inductive coupling-compliant handset model on October
       23, 2006, we note that the statute of limitations for proposing a
       forfeiture for the first handset model has expired. We also note that
       although Corr is a Tier III carrier, i.e., a wireless radio service
       provider with 500,000 or fewer subscribers, it is not a typical Tier
       III carrier. Specifically, Corr has over 300,000 subscribers in a
       three state area which has a population count of about two million,
       with annual revenues of approximately 28.8 million dollars. As such,
       we take into account Corr's size and ability to pay a forfeiture in
       determining the appropriate forfeiture amount. As the Commission made
       clear in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, large or highly profitable
       communications entities could expect forfeitures significantly higher
       than those reflected in the base amounts. In view of Corr's
       comparative size and ability to pay, and the fact that Corr was in
       violation of Section 20.19(d)(2) until August 2007, almost a year
       after the September 18, 2006 deadline, we believe that an upward
       adjustment of the base forfeiture in the amount of $15,000 is
       appropriate. Accordingly, we find Corr is apparently liable for a
       $30,000 forfeiture for failing to fully comply with the inductive
       coupling compatibility requirements in willful and repeated violation
       of Section 20.19(d)(2).

   14. Corr asserts in its LOI response that, in addition to the inductive
       coupling-compliant Motorola V3i, it carried and offered for sale in
       the fall of 2006 two Nokia handsets which, when used in conjunction
       with a Nokia loop set accessory it offered, complied with ANSI
       standards for inductive coupling. According to Corr, it had assumed
       that these handsets met FCC requirements but it was recently advised
       that the necessary functionality must be internal to the handset in
       order to qualify for a T3 rating. Corr states that it regrets that its
       product line, which it believed exceeded FCC requirements, may have
       fallen short due to the external nature of the hearing aid
       compatibility enhancement. As a Commission licensee, however, Corr is
       charged with the responsibility of knowing and complying with the Act
       and the Rules. The Commission has long held that mitigation of a
       forfeiture is not justified where violators claim their actions or
       omissions were due to inadvertent errors or unfamiliarity with the
       statutory or regulatory requirements. Corr also notes that most of the
       interest in hearing aid-compatible products, to the extent there has
       been any interest at all, has actually been in the loop set accessory,
       which customers want to use in conjunction with their existing phones
       and that it has not received any complaints from the public or the
       Alabama PSC. It is well-established, however, that the absence of harm
       is not a mitigating factor and does not warrant a downward adjustment
       of a forfeiture. 

   IV. ORDERING clauses

   15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
       and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, IS
       NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
       thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for willful and repeated violation
       of Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.

   16. 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, Corr Wireless 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.

   17. 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.  Corr Wireless will also send electronic
       notification on the date said payment is made to Katherine Power at
       Katherine.Power@fcc.gov and to Ricardo Durham at
       Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov.

   18. 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.

   19. 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.

   20. 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 Tom Buchanan, Corr Wireless
       Communications, P. O. Box 1500, Oneonta, AL 35121, and to its counsel,
       Donald J. Evans, Esq., Fletcher, Heald &Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 North
       17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209.

   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 P: 56; 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 P: 22.

   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 P: 33.

   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),
   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 P: 65; 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 P: 65; 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 P:P: 83, 85-86;
   see also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(f).

   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 P: 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). 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.

   Corr Wireless Communications Status Report on Hearing Aid Compatibility,
   WT Docket No. 01-309, November 10, 2006 ("November 10, 2006 Report"), at
   1.

   Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Tom Buchanan,
   Corr Wireless Communications, LLC (September 10, 2007).

   Letter from Donald J. Evans, Esq., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C.,
   counsel to Corr, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
   Commission (September 21, 2007) ("LOI Response"), at 3.

   Id. at 4.

   Corr clarified in its LOI response that its November 10, 2006 Report
   specified an incorrect FCC ID number for the Motorola RAZR V3i handset
   that it offered. Corr indicated that the correct FCC ID number for the
   Motorola V3i handset that it offered was IHDT56GW1. Id. Motorola obtained
   a grant of equipment certification for the Motorola V3i under FCC ID
   IHDT56GW1 on August 3, 2006.

   Corr stated in its response that it began offering two compliant Nokia
   models, the 6126h and the 6085, in August 2007. Id. Nokia obtained a grant
   of equipment certification for the 6126h model under FCC ID PPIRM-126H on
   September 5, 2006, and for the 6085 model under FCC ID LJPRM-198H on
   October 4, 2006.

   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 P: 5 (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 P: 9 (2001);
   Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 P: 5.

   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 P: 4 (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, Report and
   Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999)
   ("Forfeiture Policy Statement").

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P: 22.

   See id.

   Id. at 16755 P: 4.

   Id. at 16786 P: 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 P: 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").

   See South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P.,  Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 20, 24-25 (Enf. Bur.,
   Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) ("South Canaan"), response pending; AST Telecom,
   LLC d/b/a Blue Sky Communications,  Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 2836, 2840 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008).

   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 P: 10 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response pending; IT&E
   Overseas, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd
   7660, 7665 P: 10 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response pending.

   South Canaan, 23 FCC Rcd at 24.

   We caution Corr and other carriers that future enforcement actions may
   consider all failures to comply with our hearing aid compatibility rules,
   including the inductive coupling requirements, as continuing violations
   for purposes of calculating appropriate forfeiture amounts.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3).

   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 P:P:
   22-24 (2002).

   See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., Duns Number 84-737-7579 (March 26, 2008); see
   also
   http://www.interoptechnologies.com/news/2007/07_08-30_Corrwireless.php.

   Specifically, the Commission stated:

   [O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we recognize
   that for large or highly profitable communication entities, the base
   forfeiture amounts ... are generally low. In this regard, we are mindful
   that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an effective
   deterrent against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high
   level .... For this reason, we caution all entities and individuals that,
   independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts ..., we intend to
   take into account the subsequent violator's ability to pay in determining
   the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures issued against
   large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an
   affordable cost of doing business. Such large or highly profitable
   entities should expect in this regard that the forfeiture amount set out
   in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many cases be above,
   or even well above, the relevant base amount.

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100.

   See Iowa Wireless Services, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 4735 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008)
   (increasing forfeiture from $15,000 to $22,500 based on carrier's size and
   ability to pay).

   Although Section 503(b)(6) of the Act,  47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6), id.,
   prohibits us 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 bar us from considering Corr'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 P: 20 (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 P: 23(2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd
   4710 (2006); Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd
   9669, 9671-71 P: 8 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion
   and Order, 60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 P: 7 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37, 37-38 P: 3 (1967) recon.
   denied, 11 FCC 2d 193, 195 P: 6 (1967). Accordingly, while we take into
   account the continuous nature of the violations in determining the
   appropriate forfeiture amount, our proposed forfeiture relates only to
   Corr's apparent violations that have occurred within the past year.

   See Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of
   Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 7433, 7437 P: 12 (2004).

   See e.g., Emery Telephone, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 13
   FCC Rcd 23854, 23859 P: 12 (1998), recon. dismissed in part and denied in
   part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999); Profit
   Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 P: 5 (1993);
   Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387 P: 3; Lakewood Broadcasting
   Service, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 2d 437, 438 P: 6
   (1972).

   See, e.g., Liberty Cable Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd
   16105, 16113 P: 25 (2001); Pacific Western Broadcasters, Inc., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 50 FCC 2d 819 P: 4 (1975); Abocom Systems, Inc.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 7448, 7451 P: 9 (Enf. Bur.,
   2007).

   (Continued from previous page ...)

   (continued ...)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1828