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