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
)
)
In the Matter of File No.: EB-11-SE-052
)
Kaplan Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a NAL/Acct. No.: 201132100036
)
Pace Communications FRN: 0001714146
)
)
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: September 28, 2011 Released: September 28, 2011
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we
propose a forfeiture of nineteen thousand five hundred dollars
($19,500) against Kaplan Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Pace
Communications ("Pace"), a Global System for Mobile
Communications-based ("GSM-based") Tier III carrier, serving Vermilion
Parish, Louisiana. As detailed herein, we find that Pace apparently
willfully and repeatedly violated section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the
Commission's rules ("Rules") by failing to offer to consumers the
required number or percentage of digital wireless handset models that
met or exceeded the radio frequency interference standards for hearing
aid compatibility set forth in section 20.19(b)(1) of the Rules, and
that this apparent misconduct continued for seven consecutive months
in 2010.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted
several measures to enhance the ability of consumers with hearing loss
to access digital wireless telecommunications. The Commission
established technical standards for radio frequency interference (the
"M" rating) and inductive coupling (the "T" rating) that digital
wireless handsets must meet to be considered compatible with hearing
aids operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil)
modes, respectively. For each of these standards, the Commission
further established 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 unless the de minimis exception applies.
3. In February 2008, as part of a comprehensive reconsideration of the
effectiveness of the hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission
released an order that, among other things, adopted new hearing
aid-compatible handset deployment deadlines by which manufacturers and
service providers were required to offer specified numbers or
percentages of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless handset models
beginning in 2008. The number or percentage of digital wireless
handset models required to be offered to consumers by each deadline is
based on several factors, including the applicable interference
standard and air interface, and is tailored to the size of the
provider and the number of subscribers. Under this standard, smaller
providers are required to offer fewer compatible handsets than larger
carriers. Specifically, between May 15, 2009 and May 14, 2010,
non-Tier I service providers were required to offer to consumers at
least nine handset models per digital air interface, or at least 50%
of the models offered per digital air interface, that met or exceeded
the M3 rating, and at least five handset models per digital air
interface, or at least one-third of the models offered per digital air
interface, that met or exceeded the T3 rating. Between May 15, 2010
and May 14, 2011, non-Tier I service providers were required to offer
to consumers at least ten handset models per digital air interface, or
at least 50% of the models offered per digital air interface, that met
or exceeded the M3 rating, and at least seven handset models per
digital air interface, or at least one-third of the models offered per
digital air interface, that met or exceeded the T3 rating. The
Commission also adopted reporting requirements to ensure that the
Commission can accurately monitor the availability of these handsets,
and to provide valuable information to the public concerning the
technical testing and commercial availability of hearing
aid-compatible handsets.
4. On January 12, 2011, Pace submitted its hearing aid compatibility
status report for the 2010 reporting period. After a careful review of
the 2010 Report, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB")
referred this matter to the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for
investigation. As part of its investigation, the Bureau compared the
handset models Pace listed in its 2010 Report with the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology Equipment Authorization database, which
identifies the ratings of each wireless handset, as reported by the
handset manufacturer in test reports submitted to the Commission at
the time of the equipment authorization. This review revealed apparent
inconsistencies between the hearing aid compatibility ratings for
certain handsets listed in Pace's 2010 Report and the ratings
specified in the Commission's equipment authorizations for those
handsets. Taking these apparent inconsistencies into account, and
after coordinating the Bureau's findings with WTB, we conclude that
Pace's 2010 Report reflects an apparent failure to offer the required
number or percentage of handsets with a minimum T3 rating between
March 1, 2010 and September 30, 2010.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Comply with Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment
Requirements
5. We find that Pace apparently failed to ensure that it offered to
consumers the required number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible
handsets that met or exceeded the T3 rating for seven months during
the 2010 reporting period. As noted above, the Commission has imposed
varying benchmarks for the deployment of hearing aid-compatible
handsets. As set forth in greater detail in the Appendix, between
March and September 2010, Pace offered its consumers three handset
models. Therefore, Pace was obligated, at a minimum, to offer at least
one handset model that met or exceeded the T3 rating. Pace apparently
failed to meet this standard because it did not offer any hearing
aid-compatible handsets with a minimum T3 rating during this period.
Accordingly, we conclude that Pace apparently willfully and repeatedly
violated section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules by failing to make
available any wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets that met or
exceeded the T3 rating. We also find that this apparent misconduct
continued for seven months of the 12-month reporting period.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
6. 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 Pace is apparently liable for a forfeiture
for its apparent willful and repeated violations of section
20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
7. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes a forfeiture assessment
against a common carrier up to $150,000 for each violation, or for
each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $1,500,000 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."
8. 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.
9. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the
hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements, we take into
account that these requirements serve to ensure that consumers with
hearing loss have access to advanced 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 loss 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 public's
growing reliance on wireless technology and with the increasing median
age of our population.
10. We have previously determined that violations of the hearing
aid-compatible handset deployment requirements are serious in nature
because failure to make compatible handsets available to consumers
actually prevents hearing aid users from accessing digital wireless
communications. As such, we generally apply a base forfeiture amount
of $15,000 to reflect the gravity of these violations. We have applied
the $15,000 base forfeiture on a per handset model basis (i.e., for
each handset model below the minimum number of hearing aid-compatible
models required by the Rules).
11. The record establishes that Pace was required to offer to consumers at
least one handset model with a minimum T3 rating between March and
September 2010, but apparently failed to do so. As a consequence,
during that time period Pace's wireless customers had no access
through their chosen wireless provider to telecoil-mode, hearing
aid-compatible phones. Accordingly, and consistent with section
503(b)(6) of the Act, Pace is apparently liable for a base forfeiture
of $15,000 for failing to offer to consumers the required number or
percentage of hearing aid-compatible handset models in willful and
repeated violation of section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
12. This base forfeiture amount is, however, subject to upward adjustment.
Given the totality of the circumstances, and consistent with the
Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that an upward adjustment of
the $15,000 base forfeiture is warranted. In this regard, we take into
account that Pace failed to offer to consumers the requisite number or
percentage of hearing aid-compatible handsets with a minimum T3 rating
for seven of the 12 months during the 2010 reporting period.
Therefore, based on all the factors and evidence, including the
duration of the deployment violation, we propose a $19,500 forfeiture
against Pace for apparently willfully and repeatedly failing to comply
with the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements set
forth in section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
1. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules, Pace IS
NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
nineteen thousand five hundred dollars ($19,500) for apparent willful
and repeated violation of section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
2. 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, Pace SHALL PAY the full amount of the
proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
3. 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
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.
Pace must also send electronic notification on the date said payment
is made to Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov and Katherine
Power at Katherine.Power@fcc.gov.
4. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual
statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits
pursuant to sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules. The written
statement 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/Account Number referenced in the caption. The
statement must also be emailed to Pamera Hairston at
Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov and Katherine Power at
Katherine.Power@fcc.gov
5. 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.
6. 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 Bryan Matthews, Kaplan
Telephone Company, Inc., d/b/a Pace Communications, 118 North Irving
Avenue, Kaplan, Louisiana, 70548.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
APPENDIX
Pace Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings (T3 Rating)
Hearing
Aid- Hearing
Total Compatible Aid-Compatible
Period Handsets Handsets Handsets Compliance?
Offered Offered Required
(T3 (T3 rating)
rating)
January Exempted
2010 1 per n/a
20.19(e)
Exempted
February 1 per n/a
2010
20.19(e)
March 3 0 No
2010 At least
April 3 0 the total No
2010 number of
May 2010 3 0 handset models No
June 2010 3 0 one-third No
July 2010 3 0 handset models total No
August 3 0 (January 1, handset No
2010 2010 - models
September 3 0 May 14, 2010) or No
2010
October 5 2 7 handset Yes
2010 models
November 7 3 (May 15, Yes
2010 2010 -
December 7 3 31, 2010) Yes
2010
The official website of the Louisiana Secretary of State indicates that
Kaplan Telephone Company, Inc. registered the trade name "Pace
Communications of Vermilion" on October 20, 1989. See www.sos.la.gov.
Although that trade name registration expired on October 20, 2009, the
evidence indicates that Pace remains a trade name of Kaplan Telephone
Company, Inc. and is not a separate entity. In this regard, we note that
Pace's hearing aid compatibility status report for the 2010 reporting
period was filed under the name "Kaplan Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Pace
Communications." See infra n.14.
Tier III carriers are non-Nationwide wireless radio service providers with
500,000 or fewer subscribers as of the end of 2001. See Revision of the
Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency
Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS
Carriers, Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14847-48 P:P: 22-24 (2002).
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).
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 (the
"Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 610(b)(2)(C). See Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's
Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report and Order, 18
FCC Rcd 16753 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) ("Hearing Aid
Compatibility Order"); Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11221 (2005).
As subsequently amended, section 20.19(b)(1) provides that, for the period
beginning January 1, 2010, a wireless handset is deemed hearing
aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, at a minimum, it meets
the M3 rating associated with the technical standard set forth in the
standard document "American National Standard Methods of Measurement of
Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,"
ANSI 63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) ("ANSI 63.19-2007"), except that grants of
certification issued before January 1, 2010 under earlier versions of ANSI
C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R. S:
20.19(b)(1). Section 20.19(b)(2) provides that, for the period beginning
January 1, 2010, a wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-compatible for
inductive coupling if, at minimum, it meets the T3 rating associated with
the technical standard as set forth in ANSI 63.19-2007, except that grants
of certification issued before January 1, 2010, under earlier versions of
ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R.
S: 20.19(b)(2).
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 Digital Enhanced Network (iDEN),
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: 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
deployment 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). Effective
September 10, 2012, the de minimis exception will not be available to
manufacturers or service providers that do not meet the definition of a
"small entity" beginning two years after their initial offerings. 47
C.F.R. S: 20.19(e)(1)(ii); see Amendment of the Commission's Rules
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Policy Statement and
Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC
Rcd 11167, 11180-11189 P:P: 35-59 (2010) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility
Second Report and Order").
See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406 (2008) ("Hearing
Aid Compatibility First Report and Order"), Order on Reconsideration and
Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419
P: 35; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419
P: 36; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419
P: 35; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419
P: 36; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3443
P: 91. 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. Hearing
Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3445-46 P:P:
97-99. The Commission also made clear that the reporting requirements
apply to manufacturers and service providers that qualify for the de
minimis exception. Id. at 3446 P: 99; see also Hearing Aid Compatibility
Second Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 11180-11189 P:P: 35-59 (2010).
See Kaplan Telephone Company, Inc. d/b/a Pace Communications Hearing Aid
Compatibility Status Report (filed January 12, 2011), available at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents /110210/5927850_80.PDF ("2010
Report").
See http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/.
Specifically, Pace's 2010 Report listed both the Nokia E75 handset (FCC ID
PYARM-413) and the Samsung Omnia II handset (FCC ID A3LSCHI920) as M3/T3
rated, but Commission records indicate that the Nokia E75 has only an M3
rating, and the Samsung Omnia II has only an M4 rating for hearing aid
compatibility. Additionally, Pace's 2010 Report indicated that the Nokia
N97 Mini (FCC ID QVVRM-553) has an M3 rating, but Commission records do
not show any hearing aid compatibility rating for this handset. See 2010
Report.
Id.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii) (requiring non-Tier 1 digital wireless
service providers to ensure that between May 15, 2009 and May 14, 2010, at
least one-third of the handset models offered, or at least five handset
models, meet or exceed the T3 rating for inductive coupling capability,
and that between May 15, 2010 and May 14, 2011, at least one-third of the
handset models offered, or at least seven handset models, meet or exceed
the T3 rating for inductive coupling capability). These requirements
applied to each air interface for which service providers offered handsets
to consumers. All of Pace's handsets for the 2010 reporting period
operated only over the GSM air interface.
See Appendix.
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"); see also
Telrite Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC
Rcd 7231, 7237 P: 12 (2008); Regent USA, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523 P: 9 (2007); San Jose Navigation,
Inc., Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040, 1042 P: 9 (2007), consent decree
ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 25 FCC Rcd 1494 (2010).
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 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. The most recent inflation adjustment took effect September
2, 2008 and applies to violations that occur after that date. See
Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008)
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for common carriers from
$130,000/$1,300,000 to $150,000/$1,500,000); 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.
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"); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.80, 20.19.
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.
Id.
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755 P: 4.
Id. at 16756 P: 5 (noting that approximately one in ten Americans, or 28
million Americans, 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").
Compare, e.g., South Central Utah Telephone Association, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 19251, 19255-56 P: 10 (Enf.
Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007) (proposing a forfeiture of $8,000 for a
violation of the labeling requirements), response pending; Pine Telephone
Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd
9205, 9210 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007) (same), consent
decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 23 FCC Rcd 4485 (Enf. Bur.
2008).
See, e.g., Epic Touch Co., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture 25, FCC Rcd 17848,17854 P:12 (Enf. Bur. 2010), response
pending; Indigo Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 25 FCC 17821; Oklahoma Independent RSA 5 Partnership, Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 10-1654 P: 11 (Enf. Bur. rel.
August 30, 2010), response pending; OK-5 Licensee Co., LLC, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 10-1659 P: 11 (Enf. Bur. rel. August
30, 2010), response pending; TX-10 Licensee, LLC dba Cellular One, Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 10-1657 P: 11 (Enf. Bur. rel.
August 30, 2010), response pending; SLO Cellular, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 3990, 3996-97 P: 14 (Enf. Bur. 2008),
response pending; NEP Cellcorp, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 8, 13 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009);
Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 11567, 11571 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
2008), response pending; Blanca Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9398, 9403 P: 12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
Enf. Div. 2008), response pending; Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9290, 9295 P: 11 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008); Iowa Wireless Services, LLC d/b/a i Wireless,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 4735, 4739 P: 12
(Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response pending; South Slope
Cooperative Telephone Company d/b/a South Slope Wireless, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 4706, 4711-12 P: 12 (Enf.
Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response pending.
Id.
See supra paragraph 5.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6).
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).
While section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing a
forfeiture for violations that occurred more than a year prior to the
issuance of an NAL, we may consider the fact that Pace's misconduct
occurred over an extended period (from March to September 2010) to place
"the violations in context, thus establishing the licensee's degree of
culpability and the continuing nature of the violations." Roadrunner
Transportation Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72 (2000).
See also BASF Corporation NAL, 25 FCC Rcd 17300, 17302 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010); Call Mobile, 26 FCC Rcd 74, 76 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2011). The forfeiture amount we propose herein relates
only to Pace's apparent violations that have occurred within the past
year.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1641
3
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1641