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-07-SE-327       
     In the Matter of                                                     
                                         )   NAL/Acct. No.: 200832100064  
     Corr Wireless Communications, LLC                                    
                                         )   FRN: 0003804101              
                                                                          
                                         )                                


                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: July 6, 2012 Released: July 6, 2012

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Forfeiture Order (Order), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
       the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to Corr Wireless
       Communications, LLC (Corr) for willfully and repeatedly violating
       former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Federal Communications Commission's
       (Commission or FCC) rules (Rules) by failing to include in its digital
       wireless handset offerings at least two handset models that met the
       inductive coupling standard for hearing aid compatibility by the
       applicable deadline. 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 individuals 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 (formerly the U3 rating, now the M3 rating) to enable
       acoustic coupling between digital wireless phones and hearing aids
       operating in acoustic coupling mode,  and a separate standard
       (formerly the U3T rating, now the T3 rating) to enable inductive
       coupling with hearing aids operating in telecoil mode. The Commission
       further established, for each standard, deadlines by which handset
       manufacturers and digital wireless service providers were required to
       offer specified numbers of digital wireless handset models rated
       hearing aid-compatible. Specifically, by September 16, 2005,
       manufacturers and service providers were required to offer at least
       two handset models per air interface that met the M3 rating for radio
       frequency interference. In addition, by September 18, 2006,
       manufacturers and service providers were required to offer at least
       two handset models per air interface that met the T3 rating for
       inductive coupling. These handset deployment requirements apply to
       each air interface over which service providers offer service.

    3. Corr is a Tier III wireless carrier that offers service over the GSM
       air interface. In its November 10, 2006, Status Report on Hearing Aid
       Compatibility, Corr reported that it offered for sale several handset
       models that met the M3 rating for radio frequency interference.
       However, Corr's 2006 Report did not address its handset model
       offerings that were rated T3 for inductive coupling. The Wireless
       Telecommunications Bureau referred the matter to the Enforcement
       Bureau (Bureau) for investigation and possible enforcement action.

    4. Subsequently, the Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division (Division)
       issued a letter of inquiry (LOI) to Corr, directing the company to
       submit a sworn written response to a series of questions related to
       its compliance with the hearing aid compatibility requirements. Corr
       responded to the LOI on September 21, 2007. In its LOI Response, Corr
       asserted that it began offering for sale one T3-rated handset model,
       the Motorola V3i, on October 23, 2006. Corr further asserted that it
       began offering for sale two additional T3-rated handset models, the
       Nokia 6085 and the Nokia 6126h, in August 2007.

    5. On July 31, 2008, the Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture (NAL) against Corr, finding that Corr apparently
       willfully and repeatedly violated former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the
       Rules by failing to offer to consumers at least two T3-rated handset
       models by September 18, 2006. The Division noted in the NAL that Corr
       began offering its first T3-rated handset model on October 23, 2006,
       and that Corr did not come into full compliance by offering a second
       T3-rated handset model until August 2007, nearly a full year after the
       deadline. The Division also found that Corr's atypical size for a Tier
       III carrier, its ability to pay a forfeiture, and the duration of the
       violation warranted an upward adjustment of the $15,000 base
       forfeiture. Accordingly, the Division found Corr apparently liable for
       a forfeiture in the amount of $30,000.

    6. On August 29, 2008, Corr filed a response to the NAL requesting that
       the proposed forfeiture be reduced or canceled. In its NAL Response,
       Corr first argues that the proposed forfeiture should be canceled
       because two of the handset models it offered prior to the applicable
       deadline_the Nokia 6101h and 6102h handset models_would qualify for a
       T3 rating if used in conjunction with an external add-on component,
       the Nokia LPS-4 loop set attachment. In support, Corr asserts that
       former Section 20.19(b) of the Rules is silent on whether a handset
       model's hearing aid compatibility function must be internal to the
       handset and that language in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order
       indicating that a handset model's hearing aid compatibility function
       "must be provided as an integral part of the phone" is not
       controlling. In the alternative, Corr argues that the Hearing Aid
       Compatibility Order expressly permits the use of external add-ons that
       do not "significantly enlarge or alter the shape or weight of the
       phone as compared to other phones offered by the manufacturer." Corr
       therefore claims that because the Nokia LPS-4 Loop set attachment did
       not alter the shape, size, or weight of the handset models with which
       it was used, the Nokia handset models it offered were compliant with
       former Section 20.19(d)(2).

    7. Corr also argues that the proposed forfeiture should be reduced
       because it is excessive, arbitrary, and capricious. In this regard,
       Corr asserts that Section 1.80 of the Rules does not establish a base
       forfeiture amount for failure to comply with the hearing aid
       compatibility requirements and that the Commission may not establish
       and impose such a fine ex post facto. Corr also asserts that the
       $15,000 base forfeiture is excessive in light of the small number of
       Corr's subscribers who were potentially affected and in comparison to
       other forfeitures specified in Section 1.80.

    8. Corr further contends that the Division's assessment of a $15,000
       upward adjustment of the base forfeiture is inconsistent with prior
       precedent involving violations of the hearing aid-compatible handset
       deployment requirements by other Tier III carriers and is not
       reconcilable with similar upward adjustments assessed against much
       larger and more profitable carriers. In this regard, Corr claims that
       the Division's characterization of Corr as an atypical Tier III
       carrier with over 300,000 subscribers was inaccurate, and that Corr is
       not the type of "mega-conglomerate" for which ability to pay upward
       adjustments were intended. Finally, Corr raises several arguments that
       it contends justify a reduction of the proposed forfeiture, including
       a claim that it "voluntary disclosed" the handsets it listed in the
       2006 Report; that the company has a history of overall compliance; and
       that the company made good faith efforts to comply much like parties
       that had received waivers of the hearing aid compatibility requirement
       in the past.

   III. DISCUSSION

    9. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture
       Policy Statement. In examining Corr's NAL Response, Section
       503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we 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. As discussed below, we are unpersuaded by Corr's legal and
       equitable arguments and find that a forfeiture was validly proposed
       for Corr's continuing violation of former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the
       Rules during nearly an entire calendar year. However, we conclude that
       a reduction of the forfeiture to $20,000 is warranted in light of
       additional information provided by Corr in its NAL Response concerning
       its actual size.

   10. At the outset, we reject Corr's contention that former Section
       20.19(b) and the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order permit the use of
       add-on components to achieve a handset model's hearing aid
       compatibility. The statutory mandate on this point is clear: the
       Hearing Aid Compatibility Act expressly states that telephones must
       "provide internal means for effective use with hearing aids that are
       designed to be compatible with telephones which meet established
       technical standards for hearing aid compatibility." We therefore
       reject Corr's argument that former Section 20.19(b) could or should be
       construed in a manner inconsistent with the plain language of the
       Hearing Aid Compatibility Act.

   11. In addition, Corr's argument misses the fundamental point of the
       Commission's action_to transition from the use of add-on components,
       an acceptable approach prior to the effective date of the Hearing Aid
       Compatibility Order, to requiring hearing aid compatibility as an
       internal function of the phone. Specifically, the Hearing Aid
       Compatibility Order makes clear that "[u]ntil hearing aid
       compatibility is provided internally in digital wireless handsets in
       accordance with this Order, consumers can reduce or even eliminate the
       interference to their hearing aids by increasing the distance between
       the hearing aid and the wireless phone through the use of accessory
       devices such as neck loops or hands-free headsets." Thus, by September
       18, 2006_the deadline by which manufacturers and service providers
       were required to offer at least two handset models per air interface
       that met the T3 rating for inductive coupling in accordance with the
       Hearing Aid Compatibility Order_the Rules required that a handset's
       hearing aid compatibility function be internal to the handset.

   12. Corr acknowledges that the handset manufacturer itself confirmed,
       after Corr received the Division's LOI, that coupling the Nokia 6101h
       and 6102h handset models with the Nokia LPS-4 loop set attachment did
       not, in fact, render these handset models hearing aid-compatible. We
       are not persuaded by Corr's argument that it was entitled to rely on
       initial advice from a Nokia representative that the Nokia 6101h and
       6102h handset models qualified for a T3 rating when used in
       conjunction with the Nokia LPS-4 loop set attachment. As a Commission
       licensee, Corr is charged with the responsibility of knowing and
       complying with the Act and the Rules. The Commission has long held
       that mitigation of a forfeiture is not justified where violators claim
       their actions or omissions were due to inadvertent errors or
       unfamiliarity with the statutory or regulatory requirements.

   13. We also reject Corr's argument that the Commission is precluded from
       assessing a forfeiture for violations of the hearing aid-compatible
       handset deployment requirements and that the $15,000 base forfeiture
       is excessive. As we have repeatedly noted, the fact that 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 deployment requirements set forth in
       Section 20.19 of the Rules in no way suggests that a forfeiture should
       not be imposed for such violations. 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.

   14. We are similarly unpersuaded by Corr's claim that the forfeiture is
       excessive. As noted in the NAL, in determining the appropriate
       forfeiture amount for violation of the hearing aid-compatible handset
       deployment requirements, we have taken 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. As the Commission has
       explained, 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. In addition, the
       Commission has repeatedly emphasized that violations of the hearing
       aid-compatible handset deployment requirements are serious in nature
       because "the 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).

   15. Corr further argues that the proposed forfeiture should be canceled or
       reduced on equitable grounds because the Commission had previously
       granted requests for waiver of a different hearing aid-compatible
       handset deployment deadline. We disagree. The extensions of time to
       which Corr refers were granted to companies that timely sought waiver
       of the hearing aid compatibility rules. In contrast, Corr did not seek
       such a waiver or request an extension of the deployment deadline.

   16. Corr's claimed downward adjustment for a "voluntary disclosure" is
       also without merit. In T-Mobile Northeast, the Bureau found that a
       downward adjustment was appropriate based on the company's voluntary
       disclosure of the violation to Commission staff "prior to the
       Commission's initiation of an investigation." In this case, however,
       Corr did not disclose to the Commission its hearing aid-compatible
       handset deployment violations prior to filing its 2006 Report. In
       fact, Corr submitted its 2006 Report identifying its handset model
       offerings in response to a Commission requirement. Consequently, we
       decline to reduce the forfeiture amount on that basis.

   17. Although Corr claims to have a history of overall compliance with the
       Commission's rules, we note that on May 11, 2009, Corr was issued a
       Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for its violation of
       Section 1.903(a) of the Rules for operating Common Carrier Fixed
       Point-to-Point Microwave stations on unauthorized frequencies. Based
       on the record in that proceeding, Corr discovered that it was in
       violation of Section 1.903 on June 16, 2008, shortly before the
       release of the NAL. We therefore find that Corr did not have a history
       of compliance and decline to reduce the forfeiture amount on that
       basis.

   18. After considering all the facts and circumstances, including Corr's
       annual revenues of approximately $28.8 million at the time the NAL was
       issued,   the duration of the violation which continued for nearly one
       year after the September 18, 2006, deployment deadline, and more
       accurate information about Corr's size, we conclude that a modest
       downward adjustment of the forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL is
       warranted.

   19. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we conclude that Corr
       willfully and repeatedly violated former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the
       Rules, but reduce the proposed $30,000 forfeiture to $20,000.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Corr
       Wireless Communications, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in
       the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for willful and
       repeated violation of former Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.

   21. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the
       release date of this Forfeiture Order.  If the forfeiture is not paid
       within the period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S.
       Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to
       Section 504(a) of the Act.  Corr Wireless Communications, LLC shall
       send electronic notification of payment to Pamera Hairston at
       Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov, Kathy Harvey at Kathy.Harvey@fcc.gov, and
       Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date said payment is
       made.

   22. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
       transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and
       FRN referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed
       FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing
       the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
       sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
       (payment type code).   Below are additional instructions you should
       follow based on the form of payment you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. 

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. 

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101. 

   23. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
       to:  Chief Financial Officer-Financial Operations, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C.  20554.  If you have questions regarding payment
       procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
       phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov. 

   24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order  shall be sent by
       first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Tom
       Buchanan, Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, P. O. Box 1500, Oneonta,
       AL 35121, and to Donald J. Evans, Esq., counsel for Corr Wireless
       Communications, LLC, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 North
       17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(2) (2006).

   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, 11174, para. 18 (2010)
   (2010 Policy Statement).

   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) (Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order). The
   Commission adopted these requirements for digital wireless telephones
   under the authority of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, codified
   at Section 710(b)(2)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
   U.S.C. S: 610(b)(2)(C) (Hearing Aid Compatibility Act).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777, para. 56; see
   also 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, para. 22.

   Former Section 20.19(b)(1) provided that a wireless handset is deemed
   hearing aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, at minimum, it
   receives a U3 rating as set forth in "American National Standard for
   Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communications
   Devices and Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19-2001." 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(1)
   (2006). Former Section 20.19(b)(2) provided that a wireless handset is
   deemed hearing aid-compatible for inductive coupling if, at minimum, it
   receives a U3T rating as set forth in ANSI C63.19-2001. 47 C.F.R. S:
   20.19(b)(2) (2006). On April 25, 2005, the Commission's Office of
   Engineering and Technology (OET) announced that it would also certify
   handsets as hearing aid-compatible based on the revised version of the
   standard, ANSI C63.19-2005. See OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless
   Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard Measurement Procedures and Rating
   Nomenclature, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005). On June 6, 2006,
   the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and OET
   announced that the Commission would also certify handsets as hearing
   aid-compatible based on the revised version of the standard, ANSI
   C63.19-2006. Thus, during the time period relevant here, applicants for
   certification could rely on either the 2001 version, the 2005 version, or
   the 2006 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard. See Wireless
   Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Clarify
   Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard, Public
   Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6384 (WTB/OET 2006). In addition, because the 2001 and
   2005 versions of the ANSI C63.19 technical standard used the same
   technical criteria to determine the hearing aid compatibility and the
   inductive coupling capability of a wireless phone, to avoid confusion, the
   "M" and "T" labeling system associated with the 2005 and 2006 versions of
   the standard may be used for compatibility testing performed under any of
   these versions. See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order, 20
   FCC Rcd at 11238, n.118.

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780, para. 65; see
   also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c), (d) (2006). These requirements did not apply
   to service providers and manufacturers that met the de minimis exception.
   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16775-76, para. 53. In
   order to monitor the availability of these handsets, the Commission also
   required manufacturers and service providers to report every six months on
   efforts toward compliance with the hearing aid compatibility requirements
   for the first three years of implementation, and then annually thereafter
   through the fifth year of implementation. See Hearing Aid Compatibility
   Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787, para. 89; see also Wireless Telecommunications
   Bureau Announces Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless
   Carriers and Handset Manufacturers, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (WTB
   2004).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780, para. 65; see
   also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780, para. 65; see
   also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d).

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780, para. 65. 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. At the time the Hearing Aid
   Compatibility Order was released, the leading air interfaces included Code
   Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Time Digital Multiple Access (TDMA),
   Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), and Integrated Dispatch
   Enhanced Network (iDEN). See id. at n.127.

   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, paras. 22-23 (2002).

   See Corr Wireless Communications Status Report on Hearing Aid
   Compatibility, WT Docket No. 01-309 (Nov. 10, 2006) (2006 Report), at 1.

   See id.

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Tom Buchanan, Corr Wireless Communications, LLC
   (Sept. 10, 2007) (on file in EB-07-SE-327).

   See Letter from Donald J. Evans, Esq., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C.,
   Counsel to Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, to Marlene Dortch,
   Secretary, FCC Office of the Secretary (Sept. 21, 2007) (on file in
   EB-07-SE-327) (LOI Response).

   See id. at 3.

   See id. at 4.

   See Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 11567 (Enf. Bur. 2008).

   See id. at 11567, para. 1.

   See id. at 11572, para. 12. We note that given the Division's analysis at
   the time, a monetary forfeiture was not imposed for Corr's failure to
   offer its first T3-rated handset model after the September 18, 2006
   deadline. See id. at 11572-73, paras. 12-13.

   See id. at 11572-73, para. 13.

   See id. at 11573, para. 13.

   See Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, Response to Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture (Aug. 29, 2008) (NAL Response).

   See id. at 1.

   See id. at 3-4.

   See id. at 4 (quoting Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at
   16778, para. 61).

   Id.

   See id. at 4-5. In this regard, Corr also notes that a Nokia
   representative initially advised Corr that the Nokia LPS-4 loop set
   attachment, when coupled with the Nokia handsets, met the T3 standard. See
   id. at 3. But see infra para. 12.

   See id. at 1.

   See id. at 5.

   See id. at 5-6. Corr claims that "of its almost 40,000 subscribers, only
   about 880 people might have a use for the HAC products mandated by the
   Commission's rules." Id. at 5. Corr provides this estimate based on data
   that it contends indicate that approximately 10% of the American
   population is hearing impaired to some extent, although only 22% of that
   number are sufficiently impaired to use a hearing aid. See id. (citing
   http://www.americanhearingbenefits.com/hearing_losshtml (2008)).

   See id. at 6 (citing Blanca Telephone Company, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9398 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (response
   pending)).

   See id. at 6-7 (citing T-Mobile Northeast, L.L.C., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 11799, 11806-07, para. 19 (Enf. Bur.
   2006) (T-Mobile Northeast)  (upwardly adjusting a $7,000 base forfeiture
   to $14,000 based on the company's size and ability to pay, and downwardly
   adjusting the proposed forfeiture based on the company's voluntary
   disclosures), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 24 FCC Rcd
   160 (Enf. Bur. 2009); SunCom Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 8681, 8688-89, paras. 17-18 (Enf. Bur. 2008)
   (forfeiture paid) (upwardly adjusting a $30,000 base forfeiture to $60,000
   based on a finding, inter alia, that it is "appropriate to set the
   forfeiture amount at a higher level for larger entities, such as Tier II
   carriers")).

   See id. Specifically, Corr asserts that it is a small Tier III rural
   cellular telephone company that operates outside of any top 100 market and
   that Corr's 2007 Form 477 (Local Telephone Competition and Broadband
   Reporting) indicates that it had only 39,481 subscribers. See id. Corr
   further argues that the forfeiture proposed in the NAL "creates the
   appearance" that the Division simply doubled the $15,000 forfeiture for
   the violation that was within the statute of limitations because no
   forfeiture could be assessed for the violation that was outside the
   statute of limitations. See id. at 7.

   See id. at 6-7.

   See id.

   See id.

   See id. at 1-3. Corr explains that the Commission's earlier approval of
   several requests for waiver of a different hearing aid-compatible handset
   deployment deadline was prompted by the fact that there was widespread
   confusion within the industry concerning which handset models were hearing
   aid-compatible. Corr then appears to reason that similar leniency should
   be afforded to Corr on the basis of its good faith efforts to comply. See
   id. (citing Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
   Aid-Compatible Telephones, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20459,
   20472, para. 30 (2007) (Hearing Aid Compatibility GSM Waivers Extension
   Order) (granting seven petitioners extensions of an earlier deployment
   deadline and relying on "the difficulty they had in obtaining the correct
   compatibility information created unique and unusual circumstances.")).

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   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, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture
   Policy Statement).

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   See NAL Response at 3-5.

   47 U.S.C. S: 610(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added).

   Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16778, para. 61.

   See id. at 16780, para. 65. The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order required
   manufacturers and service providers to offer at least two handset models
   per air interface that met the T3 rating for inductive coupling by three
   years after the date the rule changes were published in the Federal
   Register. See id. at 16802. These rule changes were published in the
   Federal Register on September 16, 2003. See 68 Fed. Reg. 54,173 (Sept. 16,
   2003).

   See NAL Response at 3.

   See id.

   See Discussion Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of
   Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 7433, 7437, para. 12 (2004).

   See, e.g., Emery Telephone, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   13 FCC Rcd 23854, 23859, para. 12 (1998), recon. dismissed in part and
   denied in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999);
   Profit Enterprises, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846, para. 5
   (1993); Southern California Broadcasting Company, Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 3 (1991); Lakewood Broadcasting
   Service, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 2d 437, 438, para. 6
   (1972). Moreover, the Commission has consistently "refused to excuse
   licensees from forfeiture penalties where the actions of employees or
   independent contractors have resulted in violations." See also Eure Family
   Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861,
   21863-64, para. 7 (2002); Triad Broadcasting Company, Inc., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 96 FCC 2d 1235, 1244, para. 21 (1984).

   See NAL Response at 5-6.

   See, e.g., Farmers Cellular Telephone, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 8622, 8627, paras. 10, 13 (Enf. Bur. 2008),
   (response pending) (proposing a forfeiture of $30,000 for failure to offer
   two handset models that met the T3 rating for inductive coupling by the
   applicable deadline); South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company d/b/a
   South Slope Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC
   Rcd 4706, 4710, paras. 9, 12 (Enf. Bur. 2008), (response pending)
   (proposing a $15,000 forfeiture for failure to offer two handset models
   that met the T3 rating for inductive coupling by the applicable deadline);
   see also Panhandle Telecommunications Systems, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 11788,
   11794-95, paras. 16-18 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (forfeiture paid) (establishing a
   $7,000 base forfeiture for constructing a facility prior to completing
   historic preservation or other environmental reviews required under
   Section 1.1307(a) of the Rules).

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099, para. 22.

   See id.

   See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755, para. 4.

   See id. at 16756, para. 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, para. 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 T-Mobile USA, Inc., File No. EB-10-SE-127, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 12-39, 2012 WL 1305323, at *5, para. 18
   (Apr. 13, 2012) (T-Mobile USA); see also, South Canaan Cellular
   Communications Company, L.P., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   23 FCC Rcd 20, 24, para. 11 (Enf. Bur. 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, para. 11 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (forfeiture paid)
   (NEP Cellcorp); Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 9290, 9295, para. 11 (Enf. Bur. 2008), consent
   decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 24 FCC Rcd 2951 (Enf. Bur. 2009)
   (Pinpoint Wireless); Smith Bagley, Inc., 24 FCC Rcd 14113, 14118, para. 11
   (Enf. Bur. 2009) (response pending) (Smith Bagley).

   See e.g., NEP Cellcorp, 24 FCC Rcd at 13, para. 11; Pinpoint Wireless, 23
   FCC Rcd at 9295, para. 11; Smith Bagley, 24 FCC Rcd at 14118, para. 11;
   South Canaan, 23 FCC Rcd at 24, para. 11. See also, T-Mobile USA, 2012 WL
   1305323 at *6, para. 23 (stating that "[g]iven the potentially substantial
   and tangible impact on consumers with hearing loss, we will continue to
   apply the $15,000 per handset base amount"). In this regard, we also
   reject Corr's argument that the base forfeiture amount is excessive in
   light of Corr's estimation of the number of its subscribers who may
   require a hearing aid-compatible phone. Even assuming that Corr's estimate
   was accurate, we nevertheless conclude that Corr's violation was serious
   because its failure to offer the requisite number of hearing
   aid-compatible handset models may have prevented Corr's hearing disabled
   customers from accessing digital wireless communications.

   See supra note 57. We note that in T-Mobile USA, the Commission determined
   that the Bureau's prior decisions on delegated authority that applied the
   $15,000 per handset base forfeiture only with respect to the calendar
   month within the statute of limitations when the manufacturer or service
   provider fell the furthest short of the required deployment benchmark-the
   highest handset shortfall approach-"does not adequately reflect the nature
   and scope of the violations of hearing aid compatibility rules." T-Mobile
   USA, 2012 WL 1305323 at *5, para. 18. Accordingly, the Commission applied
   the $15,000 base forfeiture "to each failure to offer a hearing
   aid-compatible handset during each month of the calendar year, rather than
   a limited subset of such handset shortages as the Bureau did previously."
   Id. at *6, para. 23 (emphasis in original). The proposed forfeiture in
   this case predates the T-Mobile decision.

   See NAL Response at 3.

   We also note that Corr's reliance on the waivers granted in the Hearing
   Aid Compatibility GSM Waivers Extension Order is misplaced. That decision
   addressed petitions for extensions of previously granted limited waivers
   of former Section 20.19(c)(2)(i)(A), pertaining to the obligation to offer
   two M3-rated handset models. In the waiver decision, the Commission
   decided to accept a GSM dual-band handset's hearing aid compatibility
   rating in the 1900 MHz band as the rating for the handset overall. Hearing
   Aid Compatibility GSM Waivers Extension Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20459,
   20460-20461, para. 1. The Commission granted extensions of these waivers
   based on a record demonstrating widespread uncertainty regarding the
   circumstances under which these particular handsets would be considered to
   be hearing aid compatible. Therefore, the waivers granted in the Hearing
   Aid Compatibility GSM Waivers Extension Order are not analogous to this
   case.

   We also reject Corr's argument that the Division doubled the $15,000
   forfeiture for the violation that was within the statute of limitations
   because no forfeiture could be assessed for the violation that was outside
   the statute of limitations. After carefully considering all of the
   statutory factors outlined in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, and
   consistent with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, the Division proposed an
   upward adjustment of the $15,000 base forfeiture because Corr was in
   violation of former Section 20.19(d)(2) for almost a full year after the
   September 18, 2006 deadline, and because of the Division's determination
   that Corr was an atypical Tier III carrier. Thus, contrary to Corr's
   assertions, the NAL did not improperly assess a second $15,000 base
   forfeiture against Corr for the handset deployment violation that was
   beyond the statute of limitations.

   T-Mobile Northeast, 21 FCC Rcd at 11806-07, para. 19.

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

   See SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 10963, 10969,
   para. 16 (Enf. Bur. 2001) (finding that a carrier's disclosure of certain
   collocation violations in an audit report it was required to file did not
   constitute a voluntary disclosure, and thus did not warrant a reduction in
   the forfeiture).

   See Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 5419 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (forfeiture paid).

   See id. at 5419, para. 3.

   NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 11572-73, para. 13. We note that Corr does not
   challenge the accuracy of the revenue figure referenced in the NAL.

   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, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5; see also Telrite
   Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7231,
   7237, para. 12 (2008); San Jose Navigation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC
   Rcd 1040, 1042, para. 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, para. 9
   (2001), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626 (2002)
   (forfeiture paid); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5.

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

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

   Id. S: 20.19(d)(2) (2006).

   See id. S: 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).

   An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1049

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1049