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-143  
     In the Matter of                                                        
                                                  )   NAL/Acct. No.          
     American Samoa Telecommunications                200932100005           
     Authority                                    )                          
                                                      FRN # 0001726488       
                                                  )                          


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: November 3, 2008 Released: November 5, 2008

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

     1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
        that American Samoa Telecommunications Authority ("ASTCA") apparently
        willfully and repeatedly violated the hearing aid compatibility
        status report filing requirements set forth in the Commission's 2003
        Hearing Aid Compatibility Order. For these apparent violations, we
        propose a forfeiture in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000).
        We also admonish ASTCA for failing to include in its digital wireless
        handset offerings at least two handset models that meet the hearing
        aid compatibility requirements for radio frequency interference and
        two handset models that meet the hearing aid compatibility
        requirements for inductive coupling capability by the compliance
        deadlines in apparent violation of former Sections
        20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) and 20.19(d)(2) of the Commission's Rules
        ("Rules").

   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 (May 17, 2004, November 17, 2004, May 17,
        2005, November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006 and November 17, 2006), and
        then annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation
        (November 19, 2007 and November 17, 2008). In its 2008 Hearing Aid
        Compatibility First Report and Order, the Commission extended these
        reporting requirements with certain modifications on an open ended
        basis, beginning January 15, 2009.

     4. In March 2008, the Enforcement Bureau received a complaint alleging
        that ASTCA had failed to file the required hearing aid compatibility
        status reports and therefore may not be in compliance with the
        hearing aid compatibility requirements. On March 24, 2008, the
        Division issued ASTCA a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI").

     5. In its May 9, 2008 response, ASTCA explained that it failed to file
        the required reports because it was not aware of the Hearing Aid
        Compatibility Order or its subsequent amendments. ASTCA also provided
        a list of all digital wireless models it offered since September of
        2005. Based on this list, ASTCA apparently offered its first digital
        wireless handset model meeting the Commission's standards for RF
        interference, the Motorola v265, on October 27, 2005, and its second,
        the Motorola v266, on April 10, 2006. In addition, ASTCA apparently
        offered its first inductive coupling-compliant handset model, the
        Motorola v323i, on March 21, 2007, and its second, the Motorola Razr
        v3m, on May 3, 2007.

   III. DISCUSSION

   A. Failure to File Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Reports

     6. The 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order required digital wireless
        service providers to file hearing aid compatibility status reports
        every sixth months for the first three years of implementation, and
        annually thereafter. ASTCA admits that it failed to file seven status
        reports between May 2004 and November 2007. Accordingly, we find that
        ASTCA failed to file the hearing aid compatibility status reports in
        apparent willful and repeated violation of the requirements set forth
        in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order.

   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 ASTCA is
        apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to file the required
        hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and
        repeated violation of the requirements set forth in the Commission's
        Hearing Aid Compatibility Order.

     8. At the time of ASTCA's apparent violations, we were authorized under
        Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act to 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(b) of
        the Rules set a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for the failure to
        file required forms or information. While the base forfeiture
        requirements are guidelines lending some predictability to the
        forfeiture process, the Commission retains the discretion to depart
        from these guidelines and issue forfeitures  on a case-by-case basis,
        under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of
        the Act. Having considered the statutory factors, as explained below,
        we exercise our discretionary authority and establish a base
        forfeiture amount of $6,000 for failure to file hearing aid
        compatibility reports.

    10. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we take into
        account that the status reports are essential to the implementation
        and enforcement of the hearing aid compatibility rules. The
        Commission relies on these reports to provide consumers with
        information regarding the technical specifications and commercial
        availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets and
        to hold the digital wireless industry accountable to the increasing
        number of hearing impaired individuals. We note that when setting an
        $8,000 base forfeiture for violations of the hearing aid compatible
        handset labeling requirements, the Commission emphasized that
        individuals with hearing impairments could only take advantage of
        critically important public safety benefits of digital wireless
        services if they had access to accurate information regarding hearing
        aid compatibility features of handsets. We also note that the
        Commission has upwardly adjusted the base forfeiture when
        noncompliance with filing requirements interferes with the accurate
        administration and enforcement of Commission rules. Because the
        failure to file hearing aid compatibility status reports implicates
        similar public safety and enforcement concerns, we upwardly adjust
        the base forfeiture for the failure to file hearing aid compatibility
        reports to $6,000.

    11. ASTCA failed to file seven hearing aid compatibility status reports
        between May 2004 and November 2007. Although the reports were due on
        specific dates, ASTCA's failure to file the reports had a continued
        adverse impact on the Commission's ability to ensure the commercial
        availability of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handsets.
        Accordingly, we find that each of ASTCA's failures to file
        constitutes a separate violation that continues until the violation
        is cured. Nevertheless, because the Commission has previously
        suggested that the statute of limitations under Section 503(b)(6)(B)
        bars a forfeiture for failure to file more than one year beyond the
        deadline, we exercise our prosecutorial discretion here and decline
        to propose forfeitures for ASTCA's failure to file hearing aid
        compatibility status reports more than one year prior to the date of
        this NAL. We caution ASTCA and other wireless providers that future
        enforcement actions may consider all failures to file hearing aid
        compatibility status reports as continuing violations subject to
        forfeiture action. Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $6,000
        against ASTCA for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to file
        its November 19, 2007 hearing aid compatibility status report.

   C. Failure to Comply with the Hearing Aid Compatibility Deployment
   Requirements

    12. Former Section 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) of the Rules required digital
        wireless service providers to begin offering for sale at least two
        handsets models for each air interface that meet at least a U3-rating
        for radio frequency interference by September 16, 2005. Former
        Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules required 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 capability by September 18, 2006. ASTCA did not offer two
        digital wireless handset models with reduced emissions levels meeting
        the Commission's RF requirements until April 10, 2006, approximately
        seven months after the September 16, 2005 compliance deadline, and
        did not offer two digital wireless handset models meeting the
        Commission's standards for inductive coupling until May 3, 2007,
        approximately eight months after the September 18, 2006 compliance
        deadline. Accordingly, we conclude that ASTCA apparently violated
        former Sections 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B) and 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules by
        failing to comply with hearing aid compatibility requirements by the
        applicable deadline.

    13. Although we believe that a monetary forfeiture would be warranted for
        these violations, we note that the statute of limitations for
        proposing a forfeiture is one year from the date of violation.
        Accordingly, based upon our review of the facts and circumstances in
        this case, and because we are barred by the one-year statute of
        limitations from proposing a forfeiture for these violations, we
        admonish ASTCA for these violations.

   IV. ORDERING clauses

    14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
        Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, American Samoa Telecommunications
        Authority IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in
        the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for failing to file its
        hearing aid compatibility status reports in apparent willful and
        repeated violation of the requirements set forth in the Commission's
        Hearing Aid Compatibility Order.

    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, American Samoa Telecommunications Authority
        SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
        written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
        forfeiture.

    16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that American Samoa Telecommunications
        Authority IS ADMONISHED for failing to comply with the acoustic
        coupling and inductive coupling compatibility requirements on its
        network by the compliance deadlines in violation of former Sections
        20.19(c)(2)(i)(B) and 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.

    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.
        ASTCA will also send electronic notification on the date said payment
        is made to Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov and Nissa.Laughner@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 Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde,
        Esq., Legal Counsel, American Samoa Telecommunications Authority,
        P.O. Box M, Pago Pago, AS 96799.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Telephones, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16787 P: 89 (2003);
   Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility Order"); 
   Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC
   Rcd 11221 (2005) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order").

   47 C.F.R. S: S: 20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1) (2007); 20.19(d)(2) (2007). In
   February 2008, as part of a comprehensive reconsideration of the
   effectiveness of the hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission, made
   several changes the these rules, including, inter alia, the continuation
   and expansion of hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements, and the
   phasing in of new technical standards for hearing aid compatibility. See
   Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3408-11, 3418 at
   P:P: 6-13, 34 (2008) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order"),
   Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008). See also
   infra note 9. These revised rules, however, do not govern ASTCA's conduct
   prior to the effective date of the revisions, June 6, 2008. See 73 Fed.
   Reg. 25,566 (May 7, 2008). Accordingly, we assess ASTCA's conduct in this
   NAL under the former version of the rules.

   Id. 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) (2007). 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.

   Former Section 20.19(b)(1) of the Rules provided 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) (2007). Former Section 20.19(b)(2) of the Rules provided 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) (2007). 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) (2007). 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 mobile 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) (2007).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 P: 65; see also
   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d) (2007). In addition, on February 28, 2008, the
   Commission released an order that, as modified on reconsideration, among
   other things: (a) modified the requirement that manufacturers and service
   providers ensure that 50 percent of their digital wireless handset models
   per air interface meet the U3/M3 (radio frequency) standard and stayed
   enforcement of that requirement until the new rules took effect, (b)
   increased the obligation on manufacturers and service providers to offer
   handset models that meet the U3T/T3 (inductive coupling) standard, (c)
   allowed service providers other than Tier I carriers an additional three
   months to meet the new handset deployment benchmarks, (d) adopted a
   technology "refresh" requirement for manufacturers, (e) required service
   providers to offer hearing aid-compatible handsets with different levels
   of functionality, (f) adopted an updated version of the technical standard
   for measuring hearing aid compatibility, and (g) required manufacturers
   and service providers to submit annual reports on an open ended basis,
   beginning January 15, 2009. See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and
   Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3408-11, 3418 P:P: 6-13, 34. The effective date of
   the revised 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).

   See Hearing Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3445-46
   P:P: 97-99. The Commission also made clear that these reporting
   requirements apply to carriers that fit within the de minimus exception.
   Id. at P: 99.

   Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Aliki Sene,
   Executive Director, American Samoa Telecommunications Authority (March 24,
   2008).

   Letter from Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde, Esq., Legal Counsel, American Samoa
   Telecommunications Authority to Nissa Laughner, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum
   Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
   Commission (May 9, 2008).

   Id. at Attachment A.

   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 P: 89.

   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 has amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
   of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3), three times to increase the maximum
   forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment
   requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28
   U.S.C. 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 for common
   carriers 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 for common carriers from $120,000/$1,200,000 to
   $130,000/$1,325,000); 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 for common
   carriers from $130,000/$1,325,000 to $150,000/$1,500,000). The most recent
   inflation adjustment took effect September 2, 2008 and applies to
   violations that occur after that date. See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.

   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.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b).

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd  at 17099 P: 22, 17101 P: 29.
   See also 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(b)(4) ("The Commission and its staff may use
   these guidelines in particular cases [, and] retain the discretion to
   issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to
   issue no forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or additional
   sanctions as permitted by the statute.") (emphasis added).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 P: 89.

   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, 23 FCC Rcd 4485 (2008);
   IT&E Overseas, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
   Rcd 7660, 7665 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), consent decree
   ordered, 23 FCC Rcd 11161. See also Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18
   FCC Rcd at 16757 ("as wireless service has evolved to become increasingly
   more important to Americans' safety and quality of life, the need for
   persons with hearing disabilities to have access to wireless services has
   become critical").

   See, e.g., InPhonics, Inc., Order of Forfeiture and Further Notice of
   Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 8689, 8769 (2007) (upwardly adjusting base
   forfeiture for the failure to file in recognition of the potential harm to
   the administration of the universal service fund); Local Phone Services,
   Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 9974 (2006),
   forfeiture ordered, 23 FCC Rcd 89520  (2008) (same); Globcom, Inc., Notice
   of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19905
   (2003), forfeiture ordered, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006) (same); R & G
   Distributors, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC
   Rcd 8665, 8667 (Enf. Bur., 2001), forfeiture ordered, 17 FCC Rcd 10934
   (Enf. Bur. 2002) (upwardly adjusting the base forfeiture for the failure
   to file in recognition of the potential harm to the Commission's numbering
   administration and optimization).

   See Telrite Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
   Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7244-45 (2008) (determining that the failure to
   file Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets was a continuing violation)
   ("Telrite"); Compass Global, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6125, 6138 (2008) (same) ("Compass Global"); VCI
   Company, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 22 FCC Rcd
   15933, 15940 (2007) (determining that the failure to file Lifeline and
   Linkup Worksheets was a continuing violation) ("VCI").

   See Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order,
   18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19905 (2003), forfeiture ordered, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006)
   ("Globcom"). See also Telrite, 23 FCC Rcd at 7245 (reconsidering the
   position stated in Globcom that the statute of limitations under Section
   503(b)(6)(B) bars a forfeiture for the failure to file a
   Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet more than one year beyond the
   filing deadline); Compass Global, 23 FCC Rcd at 6138 (same); VCI, 22 FCC
   Rcd at 15940 (same).

   Because the revised rules grandfathered in handsets certified as hearing
   aid compatible prior to the effective date of the new rules, June 6, 2008,
   any handsets offered by ATSCA under the former version of the rules remain
   valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R. S:
   20.19(c)(2)(i)(B)(1)(i) and (B)(2)(i).

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

   (Continued from previous page ...)

   (continued ...)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2451

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2451