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-11-SE-044       
     In the Matter of                  )                                
                                           NAL/Acct. No.: 201232100008  
     Affordable Phone Services, Inc.   )                                
                                           FRN: 0017950569              
                                       )                                
                                                                        
                                       )                                


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: December 23, 2011 Released: December 23, 2011

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we
       propose a forfeiture in the amount of thirty thousand dollars
       ($30,000) against Affordable Phone Services, Inc. ("Affordable
       Phone"). As detailed herein, we find that Affordable Phone apparently
       willfully and repeatedly violated sections 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and
       20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules ("Rules"). Specifically,
       Affordable Phone apparently failed to offer to consumers the required
       number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible digital wireless
       handset models as set forth in the Rules. These hearing aid
       compatibility requirements serve to ensure that consumers with hearing
       loss have access to advanced telecommunications services.

   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 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 "M3" rating) to enable acoustic coupling between
       digital wireless phones and hearing aids operating in acoustic
       coupling mode, and a separate standard (the "T3" rating) to enable
       inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in telecoil mode.

    3. In the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the
       Commission established several deadlines between 2008 and 2011 by
       which manufacturers and service providers must offer specified numbers
       or percentages of digital wireless handset models that are rated as
       hearing aid-compatible. The number or percentage of digital wireless
       handset models required to be offered to consumers by each deadline
       depends on the applicable compatibility standard ("M" rating or "T"
       rating), and the deployment schedule is tailored to the size of the
       service provider as measured by its number of subscribers.
       Specifically, between May 15, 2009 and May 14, 2010, non-Tier I
       service providers were required to ensure that at least nine handset
       models per digital air interface, or at least 50% of the models
       offered per digital air interface, met or exceeded the M3 rating, and
       that at least five handset models per digital air interface, or at
       least one-third of the models offered per digital air interface, met
       or exceeded the T3 rating. Beginning May 15, 2010, 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.
       Similarly, between May 15, 2010 and May 14, 2011, non-Tier I service
       providers were required to offer 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.

    4. On January 18, 2011, Affordable Phone submitted a Hearing Aid
       Compatibility Status Report covering January 1, 2010 to December 31,
       2010. Affordable Phone identified each handset model it offered to
       consumers, and specified the model's FCC Identification ("FCC ID") as
       well as the hearing aid compatibility rating, if any. After a careful
       review of Affordable Phone's submission, the Wireless
       Telecommunications Bureau referred this matter to the Enforcement
       Bureau ("Bureau") for investigation. As part of its investigation, the
       Bureau consulted the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET")
       Equipment Authorization System to independently confirm the hearing
       aid compatibility rating of each handset model as established in the
       grant of equipment authorization issued by the Commission for that
       handset. Taking into account the manufacturer-reported information in
       the OET database, we conclude that Affordable Phone apparently failed
       to offer to consumers the required number or percentage of handset
       models that met or exceeded the M3 rating and the T3 rating for three
       consecutive months during the 2010 calendar year.

   III. DISCUSSION

   A. Failure to Comply with Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment
   Requirements

    5. Acoustic Coupling ("M3" or higher rating). We find that Affordable
       Phone apparently failed to offer to consumers the required number or
       percentage of hearing aid-compatible handset models that met or
       exceeded the M3 rating. As noted above, the Commission has imposed
       varying benchmarks for the deployment of hearing aid-compatible
       handsets. Between October and December 2010, Affordable Phone was
       required to offer at least two handset models with a minimum M3 rating
       per air interface. As set forth in greater detail in the Appendix,
       Affordable Phone apparently failed to meet this standard, repeatedly
       falling short by one handset model. Accordingly, we find that
       Affordable Phone apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section
       20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules by failing to offer to consumers the
       required number or percentage of digital wireless handset models that
       met or exceeded the M3 rating from October through December 2010.

    6. Inductive Coupling ("T3" or higher rating). We also find that
       Affordable Phone apparently failed to offer to consumers the required
       number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible handset models that met
       or exceeded the T3 rating. Between October and December 2010,
       Affordable Phone was required to offer at least two handset models
       with a minimum T3 rating per digital air interface. As set forth in
       greater detail in the Appendix, Affordable Phone also apparently
       failed to meet this standard, offering only one handset model with a
       minimum T3 rating. Accordingly, we find that Affordable Phone
       apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 20.19(d)(3)(ii)
       of the Rules by failing to offer to consumers the required number or
       percentage of digital wireless handset models that met or exceeded the
       T3 rating from October through December 2010.

   B. Proposed Forfeiture

    7. Under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by
       the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
       any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
       the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
       penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must
       issue a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture 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 Affordable
       Phone is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful
       and repeated violations of sections 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and
       20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules.

    8. 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."

    9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the
       Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the
       hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19
       of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not
       specify a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be
       imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission of
       a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ...
       should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation
       as nonexistent or unimportant." The Commission retains the discretion,
       moreover, to depart from the Forfeiture Policy Statement and issue
       forfeitures  on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture
       authority contained in section 503 of the Act.

   10. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the
       hearing aid-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.

   11. 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. Accordingly, 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). We also impose separate
       base forfeitures for the apparent M3-related and T3-related
       violations.

   12. For purposes of calculating the base forfeiture amount for the
       M3-related violations, we focus on Affordable Phone's apparent failure
       to offer to consumers the requisite number or percentage of handset
       models with a minimum M3 rating in December 2010, when Affordable
       Phone missed the benchmark by one handset model. Accordingly, and
       consistent with section 503(b)(6) of the Act, Affordable Phone is
       apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $15,000 for failure to
       offer to consumers the required number or percentage of M3-rated
       handset models in willful and repeated violation of section
       20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules.

   13. Similarly, the record establishes that Affordable Phone apparently
       failed to offer to consumers the requisite number or percentage of
       handset models with a minimum T3 rating in December 2010, missing the
       benchmark by one handset model. Accordingly, and consistent with
       section 503(b)(6) of the Act, Affordable Phone is apparently liable
       for a base forfeiture of $15,000 for failure to offer to consumers the
       required number or percentage of T3-rated handset models in willful
       and repeated violation of section 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules.

   14. We therefore find that Affordable Phone is apparently liable for a
       total forfeiture of $30,000 for apparently willfully and repeatedly
       failing to comply with the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment
       requirements set forth in sections 20.19(c)(3)(ii) and 20.19(d)(3)(ii)
       of the Rules.

   IV. ORDERING clauses

   15. 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, Affordable
       Phone Services, Inc. IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
       FORFEITURE in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for
       apparent willful and repeated violation of sections 20.19(c)(3)(ii)
       and 20.19(d)(3)(ii) of the Rules.

   16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules, 
       within thirty (30) calendar days after the release date of this Notice
       of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Affordable Phone Services, Inc.
       SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
       written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture.

   17. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
       payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
       payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.
       Payment by check or money order may be mailed to the 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. Affordable Phone Services, Inc. must
       also send electronic notification to Samantha Peoples at
       Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov and to Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov
       on the date said payment is made.

   18. 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. This statement also
       must be emailed to Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov and Pamera
       Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov.

   19. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
       response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
       (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
       financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
       accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and
       objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
       current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
       specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
       financial documentation submitted.

   20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
       return receipt requested to Joseph Fernandez, President, Affordable
       Phone Services, Inc., 4962 SE 35th Avenue, Ocala, FL 34480.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief

   Enforcement Bureau

                                    APPENDIX

    Affordable Phone Services, Inc. Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Offerings

   M3 or higher rating


                  Total   M3-rated                             M3            
       Period    Handsets Handset  M3-rated Handset Models                   
                 Offered   Models         Required         Compliance?       
                          Offered                                            

      January                                                                
     -September    n/a      n/a             None"              n/a           
        2010                                                                 

    October 2010    4        1       At least 50% of the       No            

    November        4        1      models offered or at               No    
    2010                           least 10 handset models                   

    December        4        1       (5/15/10-12/31/10)                   No 
    2010                                                                     


   T3 or higher rating


                  Total   T3-rated                             T3            
       Period    Handsets Handset  T3-rated Handset Models                   
                 Offered   Models         Required         Compliance?       
                          Offered                                            

      January                                                                
     -September    n/a      n/a             None*              n/a           
        2010                                                                 

    October 2010    4        1       At least 1/3 of the       No            

      November      4        1      models offered or at               No    
        2010                       least 7 handset models                    

      December      4        1       (5/15/10-12/31/10)                   No 
        2010                                                                 


   Affordable Phone is a Code Division Multiple Access-based ("CDMA-based")
   Tier III carrier serving Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, and
   South Carolina. 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: 22-23 (2002).

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii), (d) (3) (ii).

   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). 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)(B) of the Communications Act of
   1934, as amended ("Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 610(b)(2)(B).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,  18 FCC Rcd at 16777 P: 56; 47 C.F.R.
   S: 20.19(b)(1), (2). The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order described the
   acoustic coupling and the inductive coupling (telecoil) 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
   sound by the hearing aid speaker. 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.

   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16763 P: 22.

   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 C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) ("ANSI C63.19-2007"), 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 set forth in ANSI
   C63.19-2007, 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).

   6 These requirements apply to each air interface over which service
   providers offer service. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing
   Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd
   3406, 3419 P:P: 35-36 (2008) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and
   Order"), Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008)
   (stating that the hearing aid-compatible handset requirements apply on a
   per air interface basis). However, the handset deployment benchmarks do
   not apply to service providers and manufacturers that meet the de minimis
   exception. Id. at 3413 P: 20. See also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e). 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). Effective September 10, 2012, the de minimis
   exception will not be available to manufacturers or mobile 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
   also 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, 11180-89 P:P: 35-59
   (2010).

   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 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 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: 35; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).

   See supra note 8.

   See supra note 9.

   See Affordable Phone Services, Inc., Hearing Aid Compatibility Status
   Report (filed Jan. 18, 2011), available at
   http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/110210/5950756_310.PDF ("2010
   Report").

   The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Equipment Authorization
   System is an electronic database of all equipment certified under FCC
   authority. The database identifies the hearing aid compatibility rating of
   each device by FCC ID, as reported by the handset manufacturer in test
   reports submitted to the Commission at the time of an equipment
   authorization or of any modifications to such authorization. See
   http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/.

   See 2010 Report. The 2010 Report indicates that Affordable Phone commenced
   offering digital wireless handsets to consumers in October 2010. Thus,
   Affordable Phone has been out of compliance with the Commission's wireless
   hearing aid compatibility rules since the company first began offering
   digital wireless handsets to consumers.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii) (requiring non-Tier I digital wireless
   service providers to ensure that beginning May 15, 2010, either at least
   50% of the handset models offered, or at least ten handset models, met or
   exceeded the M3 rating for radio frequency interference). All of
   Affordable Phone's handset models for the 2010 reporting period operated
   on the CDMA air interface.

   See Appendix, Affordable Phone Services, Inc. Hearing Aid-Compatible
   Handset Offerings (M3 or higher rating) (indicating that between October
   1, 2010 and December 31, 2010, Affordable Phone offered four handset
   models, only one of which had a minimum M3 rating).

   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 clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both
   sections 312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-765 (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); 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 Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P: 9
   (2001), Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626 (2002); Southern California, 6
   FCC Rcd at 4388 P: 5.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii) (requiring non-Tier I digital wireless
   service providers to ensure that between May 15, 2010 and May 14, 2011,
   either at least one-third of the handset models they offered, or at least
   seven handset models, met or exceeded the T3 rating for inductive
   coupling).

   See Appendix, Affordable Phone Services Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset
   offerings (T3 or higher rating) (indicating that between October 1, 2010
   and December 31, 2010, Affordable Phone repeatedly fell short of the
   hearing aid-compatible handset requirements by one handset model).

   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)(4); 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)(2)
   of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2), three times to increase the maximum
   forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment
   requirements contained in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment
   Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection
   Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. S: 3701 note. 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(b) of the
   Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
   Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the maximum statutory
   amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,325,000 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)(5), Note to
   paragraph (b)(5): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
   Forfeitures.

   See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
   1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,  Report and
   Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 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 P: 22.

   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 Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's
   Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report on the Status of
   Implementation of the Commission's Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements,
   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 people--with that number expected to reach
   approximately 40 million people at the end of [2010]").

   See South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 20, 24 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
   Enf. Div. 2008) (forfeiture paid) ("South Canaan") (finding 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."). See also, e.g., NEP Cellcorp, Inc.,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 8, 13 P: 11 (Enf.
   Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009) (forfeiture paid) ("NEP Cellcorp");
   Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23
   FCC Rcd 9290, 9295 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), consent
   decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 24 FCC Rcd 2951 (Enf. Bur.,
   Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009) ("Pinpoint Wireless"); Smith Bagley, Inc., Notice
   of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 14113, 14118 P: 11 (Enf.
   Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009), response pending ("Smith Bagley").

   See, e.g., NEP Cellcorp, 24 FCC Rcd at 13 P: 11; Pinpoint Wireless, 23 FCC
   Rcd at 9295 P: 11; Smith Bagley, 24 FCC Rcd at 14118 P: 11; South Canaan,
   23 FCC Rcd at 24 P: 11.

   See supra note 32.

   See supra para. 5.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6).

   See supra para. 6.

   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(c)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(ii).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.

   *Affordable Phone Services reported that it commenced offering digital
   wireless handsets to consumers in October 2010. See 2010 Report.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-2035

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-2035