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-109       
     In the Matter of                                    
                         )   NAL/Acct. No. 200832100020  
     CTC Telecom, Inc.                                   
                         )   FRN # 0005769302            
                                                         
                         )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: March 7, 2008 Released: March 11, 2008

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that CTC Telecom, Inc. ("CTC"), a Code Division Multiple Access-based
       ("CDMA-based") carrier serving rural Idaho, 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
       CTC'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.

    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, CTC 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
       Kyocera) and requested a waiver of this requirement. CTC 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. In its April 2, 2007 report, CTC
       stated that it was now offering the Motorola V323i, Motorola RAZR V3m,
       and the Kyocera K132 models of U3T/T3 compliant phones. On June 7,
       2007, CTC clarified that it first began offering the Motorola V323i
       and RAZR V3m models on March 13, 2007.

    5. 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 CTC, 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. In its waiver request, CTC sought an open-ended waiver
       until inductive coupling-compliant handsets became available, citing
       its inability, as a Tier III carrier, to obtain compliant handsets
       from its distributors. CTC stated that it checked with its
       distributors on at least a monthly basis and ordered the Motorola
       V323i and RAZR V3m handsets as soon as it learned of their
       availability in early March 2007. Further, CTC noted that it had not
       received any requests for hearing-aid compatible handsets as of April
       2, 2007.

    6. The Commission found that CTC did not meet the requirements to justify
       a waiver under the rules. Specifically, the Commission stated that CTC
       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 CTC 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. Given that the great
       majority of Tier III carriers were able to achieve compliance within a
       few months of the deadline, the Commission did not consider it
       sufficient for CTC, after January 1, 2007, to simply contact its
       existing vendors on a monthly basis or to limit its efforts to testing
       those existing vendors' handsets for system compatibility. 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 CTC
       and referred its apparent violation to the Enforcement Bureau.

   III. DISCUSSION

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

    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 by September 18, 2006. CTC admits that it did not offer for
       sale the required two models of inductive coupling-compliant handsets
       until March 13, 2007. Accordingly, we conclude that CTC 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 CTC 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. We note that in a recent decision, 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.

   13. CTC did not offer any handsets that met the T3 rating for inductive
       coupling by September 18, 2006. CTC did not come into compliance with
       the inductive coupling compatibility requirements until March 13,
       2007, when it began offering two compliant handsets. Further, while
       CTC 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 CTC'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 CTC is a Tier III carrier, i.e., a wireless
       radio service provider with 500,000 or fewer subscribers. Accordingly,
       CTC is apparently liable for a $30,000 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, CTC Telecom, Inc. 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.

   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, CTC Telecom, Inc. 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. 

   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 Richard Wiggins, CTC Telecom, Inc., P.O.
       Box 69, 85 N. Superior St., Cambridge, ID 83610, and to its counsel,
       Timothy E. Welch, Esq., Hill & Welch, 1330 New Hampshire Ave. NW,
       Suite 113, Washington, DC 20036.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kris Anne Monteith

   Chief, 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, applicants for certification may 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 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; 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, among other things,: (a) modifies the requirement,
   presently stayed until April 18, 2008, 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, (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,
   FCC 08-68 at P:P: 6-13, 34 (released February 28, 2008) ("Hearing Aid
   Compatibility First Report and Order").

   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, FCC 08-68 at
   P: 13. Manufacturers will report on January 15, 2009, and then annually
   beginning July 15, 2009. Id. at P:P: 13, 101.

   CTC Telecom, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report at 2, WT Docket No.
   01-309, Sept. 18, 2006 ("CTC September 18, 2006 Report").

   Id.

   CTC Telecom, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report at 2, WT Docket No.
   01-309, April 2, 2007 ("CTC April 2, 2007 Report"). CTC also withdrew its
   September 18, 2006 request for a waiver of the Section 20.19(d)(2)
   requirement. Id. at 2.

   CTC Telecom, Inc. Hearing Aid Compatibility Report at 2, WT Docket No.
   01-309, June 7, 2007 ("CTC June 7, 2007 Report"). CTC also requested
   reinstatement of its September 18, 2006 waiver request, at staff's
   recommendation. Id. at 1, n. 2.

   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, FCC 08-67 (released February 27,
   2008) ("February 2008 Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order").

   CTC September 18, 2006 Report at 2.

   CTC June 7, 2007 Report at 2.

   CTC April 2, 2007 Report at 2.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.925(b)(3).

   See February 2008 Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order, FCC 08-67
   at P: 22.

   See id. at P:P: 11-17.

   Id. at P: 8.

   Id. at P: 22.

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

   CTC stated that it began offering Motorola Models V323i and RAZR V3m on
   March 13, 2007 and that it began offering Kyocera Model K132 on April 30,
   2007.

   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.

   See 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 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").

   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; Pine
   Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22
   FCC Rcd 9205, 9210 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response pending;
   IT&E Overseas, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
   Rcd 7660, 7665 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), response pending.

   South Canaan, 23 FCC Rcd at 24.

   CTC September 18, 2006 Report at 2.

   February 2008 Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order at P: 22. See
   also supra P: 6.

   We caution CTC 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 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
   CTC'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 to CTC's apparent violations that
   have occurred within the past year.

   (Continued from previous page ...)

   (continued ...)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-535

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-535