FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 19, Pages 14991 to 15893, October 24 - November 10, 2011 Page: 15,216
viii, 14991-15893 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
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.3'
I 1. 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.3 As
such, we generally apply a base forfeiture amount of $15,000 to reflect the gravity of these violations.3"
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).'9 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 Keystone Wireless's apparent failure to offer to consumers the requisite number or percentage of
handset models with a minimum M3 rating in October 2010, where Keystone missed the benchmark by
one handset model.)" Accordingly, and consistent with section 503(b)(6) of the Act, Keystone Wireless is
apparently liable for a base forfeiture of $15,000 for failing 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 Keystone Wireless apparently failed to offer the
requisite number or percentage of handset models with a minimum T3 rating from October through
35 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Red at 16755 4.
36 A. at 16756 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 Stattts of ImplenenIation f 1the Commi.s io n sV Hearing Aid
Compatibility Requirements, Report, 22 FCC Red 17709, 17719 1 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 [2010]").
37 See Sooth Canaan Cellular Communications Company. L.P, 23 FCC Red 20, 24 1 1(Enf Bur., Spectrum Enft
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 I I (Entf Bur., Spectrum Enf Div. 2009) (forfeiture paid) ("NiEP Cellcorp"):
Pinpoint Wireles. Inc. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Red 9290, 9295 1 I1 (En Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), consent decree ordered. Order and Consent Decree, 24 FCC Red 2951 (En: Bur.,
Spectrum Enf Div. 2009) ("Pinpoint Wireless"); Smith Bagler. Inc., 24 FCC Red 14113. 14118 II (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009), response pending ("Smith Baglev"').
;s See, e g.. NEP Cellcorp, 24 FCC Red at 13 1 1 1; Pinpoint Wireless, 23 FCC Red at 9295 '1 I1: Smtth BTglev, 24
FCC Red at 1411 I I I; Sotlh C~maan, 23 FCC Red at 24 I1.
SSee suqra note 38.
44 See su ra para. 515216
Federal Communications Commission
DA 11-1809
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 19, Pages 14991 to 15893, October 24 - November 10, 2011, book, November 2011; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc133013/m1/240/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.