**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No. EB-07-SE-284        |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Epic Touch Company, Inc.         | ) | NAL/Acct. No. 200832100016   |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * | FRN \# 0005599634            |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

**Adopted: February 26, 2008 Released: February 28, 2008**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

# I. introduction {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}

1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
    that Epic Touch Company, Inc. ("Epic Touch") apparently willfully
    and repeatedly violated Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Commission's
    Rules ("Rules")[^1] by failing to include in its digital wireless
    handset offerings at least two handset models that meet the
    inductive coupling standard for hearing aid compatibility by
    September 18, 2006. For Epic Touch's apparent violations, we propose
    a forfeiture in the amount of thirty thousand dollars (\$30,000).

    **II. BACKGROUND**

2.  In the 2003 *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, the Commission
    adopted several measures to enhance the ability of individuals with
    hearing disabilities to access digital wireless
    telecommunications.[^2] 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.[^3] Specifically, the
    Commission adopted a standard for radio frequency interference (the
    "U3" or "M3" rating) to enable acoustic coupling between digital
    wireless phones and hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling
    mode, and a separate standard (the "U3T" or "T3" rating) to enable
    inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in telecoil mode.[^4]
    The Commission further established, for each standard, deadlines by
    which manufacturers and service providers were required to offer
    specified numbers or percentages of digital wireless handsets per
    air interface[^5] that are compliant with the relevant standard if
    they did not come under the *de minimis* exception.[^6] The
    Commission required that manufacturers and service providers begin
    making commercially available at least two handset models per air
    interface that meet the U3 or M3 rating for radio frequency
    interference by September 16, 2005.[^7] The Commission also required
    that manufacturers and service providers make commercially available
    at least two handset models per air interface that meet the U3T or
    T3 rating for inductive coupling by September 18, 2006.[^8] In
    connection with the offer of hearing aid-compatible handset models,
    the Commission also required entities to label the handsets with the
    appropriate technical rating, and to explain the technical rating
    system in the owner's manual or as part of the packaging material
    for the handset.[^9]

3.  In order to monitor efforts to make compliant handsets available,
    the Commission required manufacturers and digital wireless 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.[^10] Accordingly, entities were
    required to file their sixth semi-annual reports by November 17,
    2006.

4.  In its November 17, 2006 hearing aid compatibility report,[^11] Epic
    Touch listed five handset models that it offered.[^12] Because Epic
    Touch's five handsets did not meet the T3 rating for inductive
    coupling , the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau referred the
    matter to the Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division for
    investigation.[^13]

5.  On August 13, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued Epic
    Touch a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI").[^14] In its Response to the LOI,
    Epic Touch did not deny that it failed to offer at least two handset
    models that meet the T3 rating for inductive coupling by September
    18, 2006, as required under Section 20.19(d)(2).[^15] Epic Touch
    stated that it began offering one inductive coupling-compliant
    handset model in March of 2007, a second compliant handset model in
    July of 2007, and a third compliant handset model in September of
    2007.[^16] Epic Touch claimed that, as a Tier III carrier, it was
    "extremely hard ... to acquire and release updated Handsets in a
    timely manner" because new handsets are the subject of exclusive
    arrangements between manufacturers and larger carriers.

    **III. DISCUSSION**

## Failure to Offer for Sale Two Hearing Aid-Compatible Handsets

6.  Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules requires digital wireless service
    providers to begin offering for sale at least two handset models for
    each air interface that meet at least a T3 rating for inductive
    coupling by September 18, 2006. Epic Touch admits that it did not
    meet the September 18, 2006 deployment benchmark date. Specifically,
    Epic Touch admits that it did not offer at least two handsets that
    meet the T3 rating for inductive coupling until sometime in July
    2007 \-- approximately ten months after September 18, 2006. We thus
    find that Epic Touch apparently willfully[^17] and repeatedly[^18]
    failed to comply with the hearing aid compatibility requirements of
    Section 20.19(d)(2).

## 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.[^19] 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.[^20] 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.[^21] We conclude under this
    standard that Epic Touch is apparently liable for forfeiture for its
    apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 20.19(d)(2) of
    the Rules.

8.  Under Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act,[^22] we may assess a common
    carrier a forfeiture of up to \$130,000 for each violation, or for
    each day of a continuing violation up to a maximum of \$1,325,000
    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."[^23]

9.  The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement*[^24] 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.[^25] 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.[^26]

10. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of
    the hearing aid compatibility handset requirements, we take into
    account that these requirements serve to ensure that individuals
    with hearing disabilities have access to digital wireless
    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 impairments should not be denied the public safety and
    convenience benefits of digital wireless telephony.[^27] Moreover,
    as the Commission has noted, the demand for hearing aid-compatible
    handsets is likely to increase with the growing reliance on wireless
    technology and with the increasing median age of our
    population.[^28]

11. We note that the Enforcement Bureau has established a base
    forfeiture amount of \$8,000 for violation of the labeling
    requirements for wireless hearing aid-compatible handsets.[^29] We
    find 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. Therefore, we believe that a significantly higher
    base forfeiture amount is warranted for violations of the hearing
    aid compatibility handset requirements. Further, because providers
    were required to offer at least two handset models that meet at
    least a T3 rating for inductive coupling, we think that a proposed
    forfeiture for violation of these requirements should be applied on
    a per handset basis. Accordingly, we recently concluded that a base
    forfeiture amount of \$15,000 per handset is appropriate for
    violation of the hearing aid compatibility handset
    requirements.[^30]

12. Epic Touch did not offer any handsets that met a T3 rating for
    inductive coupling by September 18, 2006. Epic Touch did not offer a
    compliant handset until March of 2007, and did not come into
    compliance with the inductive coupling compatibility requirements by
    offering a second compliant handset until July of 2007. Although
    Epic Touch's failure to offer two handsets that meet the FCC's
    inductive coupling compatibility requirements is a continuing
    violation for purposes of determining an appropriate forfeiture, we
    exercise our prosecutorial discretion and decline to assess a
    forfeiture on a continuing violation basis in this case.[^31] We
    also note that Epic Touch is a Tier III carrier, i.e., a
    non-nationwide wireless radio service provider with 500,000 or fewer
    subscribers.[^32] Accordingly, Epic Touch is apparently liable for a
    \$30,000 forfeiture for failing to comply with the inductive
    coupling compatibility requirements in willful and repeated
    violation of Section 20.19(d)(2).[^33]

13. Finally, we consider Epic Touch's claim that, as a Tier III carrier,
    it was difficult for it to timely acquire and offer compliant
    hearing aid-compatible handsets. We recognize that the Commission's
    Office of Engineering and Technology received and approved very few
    applications to certify inductive coupling-compliant handsets until
    two months or less prior to the September 18, 2006 deadline, leaving
    carriers little time to purchase and begin offering such handsets in
    time to comply with the rules. Further, we recognize that Tier III
    carriers typically experience significant delays in obtaining
    shipping commitments from their handset suppliers because handset
    manufacturers fill orders first for larger carriers.[^34] Epic
    Touch, however, did not seek a waiver of the September 18, 2006
    deadline to begin offering at least two inductive coupling-compliant
    handsets, nor did it make a showing of good faith, diligent efforts
    to come into compliance. Moreover, many other Tier III carriers
    achieved full compliance within a few months of the September 18,
    2006 deadline. Epic Touch, by contrast, did not offer even one
    compliant handset until March 2007 and did not come into full
    compliance until July 2007. Under the circumstances, Epic Touch has
    not presented mitigating circumstances that would warrant a downward
    adjustment of the proposed forfeiture amount.

14. In sum, we find that Epic Touch apparently willfully and repeatedly
    violated Section 20.19(d)(2) by failing to offer two inductive
    coupling-compliant handsets until approximately ten months after the
    deployment deadline. For Epic Touch's apparent violations, we
    propose an aggregate forfeiture of \$30,000.

# iV. ordering clauses {#iv.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

15. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of
    the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Epic Touch Company, Inc. is
    **NOTIFIED** of its **APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE** in the
    amount of thirty thousand dollars (\$30,000) for willful and
    repeated violation of Section 20.19(d)(2) of the Rules.

16. **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, Epic Touch Company, 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
    Number 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.

18. The response, if any, 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/Acct. No. referenced
    in the caption.

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; 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 Troy Barnett, Network
    Services Manager, Epic Touch Company, Inc., 610 South Cosmos,
    Elkhart, Kansas 67950.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Kris Anne Monteith

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d)(2).

[^2]: *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. § 610(b)(2)(C).

[^3]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 16777 ¶ 56;
    47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1), (2). The *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*
    described the acoustic coupling and the inductive (telecoil)
    coupling 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 electrical signals. 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.

    *Id.* at 16763 ¶ 22.

[^4]: Section 20.19(b)(1) provides 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. § 20.19(b)(1). Section 20.19(b)(2) provides 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. § 20.19(b)(2). On April 25, 2005, the
    Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology 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 and Office of
    Engineering and Technology 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, applicants for
    certification may 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, since the 2005 version, the ANSI C63.19 technical standard
    has used an "M" nomenclature for the radio frequency interference
    rating rather than a "U," and a "T" nomenclature for the handset's
    inductive coupling rating, rather than a "UT." The Commission has
    approved the use of the "M" and "T" nomenclature and considers the
    M/T and U/UT nomenclatures as synonymous. *See* *Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Reconsideration Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11238.

[^5]: 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 Time Division Multiple Access
    (TDMA).

[^6]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65;
    47 C.F.R. §§ 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 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.
    § 20.19(e).

[^7]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65;
    *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c).

[^8]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65;
    *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d).

[^9]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16785 ¶¶ 83,
    85-86; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(f).

[^10]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 ¶¶
    89-91; *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).

[^11]: The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions filed the
    report on behalf of Epic Touch.

[^12]: The five handsets included the following models: Motorola v555,
    Nokia 6230, Nokia 3100, Motorola v3 and Nokia 6061.

[^13]: *See Report on the Status of Implementation of the Commission's
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements*, Report, 22 FCC Rcd 17703 ¶
    33 (October 5, 2007) (recommending that the Commission "vigilantly
    monitor compliance with its hearing aid compatibility rules, and
    take appropriate enforcement action against parties that violate the
    rules) ("*2007 Report*").

[^14]: *See* Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
    Division, Enforcement Bureau to Troy Barnett, Epic Touch (August 13,
    2007).

[^15]: *See* Letter from Troy Barnett, Epic Touch to Kathryn S. Berthot,
    Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (September
    12, 2007) ("LOI Response").

[^16]: According to Epic Touch, it began offering the Motorola v3i in
    March of 2007, the Nokia 6085 in July of 2007, and the Nokia 6126h
    in September of 2007. LOI Response at 1.

[^17]: 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. § 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, 97^th^ 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 ¶ 5 (1991), *recon. denied,*
    7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("*Southern California*").

[^18]: 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. § 312(f)(2). *See
    Callais Cablevision, Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 ¶ 9 (2001); *Southern California*,
    6 FCC Rcd at 4388 ¶ 5.

[^19]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^21]: *See, e.g.,* *SBC Communications, Inc.*, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591 ¶ 4 (2002).

[^22]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission twice amended Section
    1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3), to increase the
    maxima forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation
    adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement
    Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2461. *See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
    Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
    Inflation,* Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum
    statutory amounts from \$100,000/\$1,000,000 to
    \$120,000/\$1,200,000); *Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
    Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
    Inflation,* Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum
    statutory amounts from \$120,000/\$1,200,000 to
    \$130,000/\$1,325,000); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(c).

[^23]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note
    to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
    Forfeitures.

[^24]: *See 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*").

[^25]: *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 ¶ 22.

[^26]: *See id.*

[^27]: *Id.* at 16755 ¶ 4.

[^28]: *Id.* at 16786 ¶ 5 (noting that approximately one in ten
    Americans, 28 million, 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 ¶ 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").

[^29]: *See e.g*., *South Central Utah Telephone Association, Inc.*,
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 19251 ¶ 10
    (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), *response pending*; *Pine
    Telephone Company, Inc*., Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 9205, 9210 ¶ 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf.
    Div. 2007), *response pending*; *IT&E Overseas, Inc*., Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 7660, 7665 ¶ 10 (Enf.
    Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2007), *response pending*.

[^30]: *See South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P.,* Notice
    of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 08-14 ¶ 11(Enf. Bur.,
    Spectrum Enf. Div. January 3, 2008).

[^31]: We caution Epic Touch and other carriers that future enforcement
    actions may consider all failures to comply with our hearing aid
    compatibility rules, including the inductive coupling requirements,
    as continuing violations for purposes of calculating appropriate
    forfeiture amounts.

[^32]: *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 ¶¶ 22-24 (2002).

[^33]: Under Section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6), we are
    prohibited from assessing a forfeiture for a violation that occurred
    more than a year before the issuance of a notice of apparent
    liability for forfeiture. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar
    us from considering Epic Touch's prior conduct in determining the
    appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within
    the one-year statutory period. *See Behringer USA, Inc.*, Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1827 ¶
    20 (2006), *forfeiture ordered*, 22 FCC Rcd 10451 (2007) (forfeiture
    paid); *Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications*, Notice
    of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19903 ¶
    23(2003), *forfeiture ordered*, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4710
    (2006); *Roadrunner Transportation, Inc.,* Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 9669, 9671-71 ¶ 8 (2000); *Cate Communications Corp.,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 ¶ 7 (1986);
    *Eastern Broadcasting Corp.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC
    2d 37, 37-38 ¶ 3 (1967) *recon. denied*, 11 FCC 2d 193, 195 ¶ 6
    (1967). Accordingly, while we take into account the continuous
    nature of the violations in determining the appropriate forfeiture
    amount, our proposed forfeiture relates only to Epic Touch's
    apparent violations that have occurred within the past year.

[^34]: The Commission has acknowledged that, "\[i\]n contrast to large
    carriers, smaller wireless carriers may be disadvantaged when they
    seek to acquire ... specialized handsets" because vendors treat the
    largest carriers, who place the largest orders for equipment, as
    priority customers. *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration
    Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11233 ¶ 22.