[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25566-25591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9855]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 20, 68

[WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 08-68; FCC 08-117]


Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American 
National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) 
ANSI ASC C63\TM\

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts 
various proposals to amend its hearing aid compatibility policies and 
requirements pertaining to wireless services, including modifications 
and other requirements along the framework proposed in a consensus plan 
(Joint Consensus Plan) developed jointly by industry and 
representatives for the deaf and hard of hearing community. The 
Commission anticipates that these rule changes, taken together and 
largely supported by manufacturers, service providers, and consumers 
with hearing loss, will meet statutory obligations to ensure reasonable 
access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing. These 
requirements are intended to benefit wireless users in the deaf and 
hard of hearing community, including the most disadvantaged who are 
more likely to rely on telecoil-equipped hearing aids, as well as to 
ensure that these consumers have a variety of handsets available to 
them, including handsets with innovative features.

DATES: Effective June 6, 2008, except for Sec. Sec.  20.19(f)(2), 
20.19(h), and 20.19(i) which contains information collection 
requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections. The 
Commission will send a copy of the First Report & Order and Order on 
Reconsideration and Erratum in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of June 6, 2008. Public and agency comments on 
Information Collection Requirements are due on or before July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Office of 
the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to Judith Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-
B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet 
to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McCudden, Room 6118, Michael 
Rowan, Room 6603, or Peter Trachtenberg, Spectrum & Competition Policy 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6119, Washington, DC 
20554. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained in this document, 
contact Judith Boley, (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First 
Report & Order (R&O) in WT Docket No. 07-250 released February 28, 
2008, and the Commission's Order on Reconsideration and Erratum (Recon) 
in WT Docket No. 07-250 released April 17, 2008. The complete text of 
the R&O and Recon are available for public inspection and copying from 
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 
a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. [The R&O and 
Recon may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-
5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: 
http://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please 
provide the appropriate FCC document number, FCC 08-68 for the R&O, and 
FCC 08-117 for the Recon. The R&O and Recon are also available on the 
Internet at the Commission's Web site through its Electronic Document 
Management System (EDOCS): http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/SilverStream/Pages/edocs.html.]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains new and modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget

[[Page 25567]]

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or 
modified information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding.
    In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on 
how it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' In this present 
document, the Commission has assessed the effects of the reporting 
requirements that it has imposed on manufacturers and service 
providers, and finds that the information required should be readily 
available even to businesses with fewer than 25 employees, and that it 
is important to obtain this information in order to monitor compliance 
with the hearing aid compatibility requirements and to provide 
consumers with adequate information regarding the handsets available 
from particular service providers. Similarly, the Commission has 
assessed the effects of requiring manufacturers and service providers 
to post certain information regarding the hearing aid-compatible 
handsets they offer on their Web sites. The Commission notes that this 
requirement would apply only to entities that maintain a public Web 
site and is further subject to the de minimis exception. Both 
restrictions should limit, to some extent, the application of the 
requirement to small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Moreover, 
the Commission has concluded that maintaining the limited information 
required, primarily a list of currently offered hearing aid-compatible 
handsets along with the associated ratings, will not be unduly 
burdensome, and that this requirement will significantly benefit 
consumers by ensuring convenient access to up-to-date information 
regarding compliant handset availability. Finally, the Commission has 
determined that requiring manufacturers to provide hearing aid 
compatibility contact information directly to the Commission will 
impose little if any additional burden on businesses with fewer than 25 
employees. This requirement may even decrease these burdens, to the 
extent that it will allow consumers wishing to file a complaint to 
obtain that information from the Commission's Web site rather than 
contacting the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachment to obtain 
it from the service provider.
    Public and agency comments on Information Collection Requirements 
are due on or before July 7, 2008. Comments should address: (a) Whether 
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198 (see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' The Commission notes, 
however, that section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, 
Public Law 106-113, provides that rules governing frequencies in the 
746-806 MHz Band become effective immediately upon publication in the 
Federal Register without regard to certain sections of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. The Commission is therefore not inviting comment on any 
information collections that concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz 
Band.

I. Introduction

    1. In the R&O, the Commission revises the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements applicable to providers of public mobile services and 
manufacturers of digital wireless handsets used in the delivery of 
those services. Specifically, the Commission adopts benchmark 
requirements for future deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets, 
and related requirements, based on the proposals in a Joint Consensus 
Plan developed by an Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions 
(ATIS) working group that included nationwide (Tier I) carriers, 
handset manufacturers, and several organizations representing the 
interests of consumers with hearing loss. The Commission also adopts 
certain other rule changes to better promote the accessibility of 
hearing aid-compatible handsets to deaf and hard of hearing consumers, 
including rules for the approval of future versions of the hearing aid 
compatibility technical standard. In the Recon, the Commission revises 
the procedures adopted in the R&O for approval of the use of future 
versions of the hearing aid compatibility technical standard that do 
not raise major compliance issues. The Commission intends to address 
other issues raised in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 72 FR 
65494, November 21, 2007, in this proceeding but not addressed here in 
a subsequent report and order.
    2. As a preliminary matter, the Commission takes this opportunity 
to express its deep appreciation for the efforts of the many parties 
involved in the development of the Joint Consensus Plan, whose 
recommendations the Commission substantially adopts today. The broad 
support for the Plan among both industry and consumer advocacy groups, 
as reflected in the record of this proceeding, testifies to the success 
of the proffered proposals in meeting the goals of the Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Act, and in addressing the concerns of manufacturers and 
service providers while still advancing the interests of consumers with 
hearing loss in having greater access to advanced digital wireless 
communications. The Commission strongly encourages the wireless 
industry, including new entrants, and consumer groups to continue their 
collaborative efforts in order to ensure the successful implementation 
of the measures adopted.
    3. The changes the Commission adopts to the handset deployment 
requirements include (1) modifying the requirement, presently stayed 
until April 18, 2008, that manufacturers and service providers ensure 
that 50 percent of their digital wireless handset models meet 
established standards for radio frequency (RF) interference reduction, 
and (2) increasing the obligation on manufacturers and service 
providers to offer handset models that meet an established standard for 
inductive coupling capability. The Commission adopts a handset 
``refresh'' requirement for manufacturers, obligating manufacturers to 
ensure annually that a certain percentage of their hearing aid-
compatible handset models are newly issued that year, and it requires 
service providers to offer hearing aid-compatible handsets with 
different levels of functionality.
    4. In addition to these modifications to the handset deployment 
requirements, the Commission adopts an updated version of the technical 
standard for measuring hearing aid compatibility in both acoustic 
coupling and inductive coupling modes, provides a phase-in period for 
its application as the exclusive standard, and creates a streamlined 
mechanism for adopting

[[Page 25568]]

future revisions of the standard. Because the Commission finds that the 
established technical standard, including the most recent version of 
that standard adopted, provides tests for measuring hearing aid 
compatibility for wireless services operating over a broader range of 
frequencies than is currently subject to hearing aid compatibility 
requirements, the Commission extends the scope of these requirements to 
the full range of frequencies covered by the established standard. To 
assist the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the new 
requirements and to provide information to the public, the Commission 
also requires manufacturers and service providers to continue to file 
annual reports on the status of their compliance with these 
requirements, and the Commission requires manufacturers and service 
providers to publish up-to-date information on their Web sites 
regarding their hearing aid-compatible handset models.
    5. The Commission anticipates that these inter-related changes, 
taken together and largely supported by manufacturers, service 
providers, and consumers with hearing loss, will further ``ensure 
reasonable access to telephone service by persons with impaired 
hearing'' as required by the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 610(a). The 
increased requirements to offer handsets with inductive coupling 
capability will particularly benefit the most disadvantaged wireless 
users in the deaf and hard of hearing community, who are more likely to 
rely on telecoil-equipped hearing aids. The Commission also anticipates 
that the requirements that manufacturers refresh their products 
annually and that service providers offer handset models at differing 
functionality levels will help to ensure that consumers with hearing 
loss have a variety of handsets available to them, including handsets 
with innovative features, a goal that the Commission has sought to 
encourage since 2003. At the same time, the Commission concludes that 
the level of obligations and the flexibility provided in the new 
benchmarks satisfy its obligation to ``ensure that regulations adopted 
to implement [the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act] encourage the use of 
currently available technology and do not discourage or impair the 
development of improved technology.'' 47 U.S.C. 610(e). In particular, 
these changes help to resolve the technical issues that have been 
raised regarding the difficulty of producing a wide variety of Global 
System for Mobile Communications (GSM) handsets that both meet the 
requisite rating for acoustic coupling capability and include certain 
popular features, and thereby ensure that the impact of the rules 
remains as technology-impartial as possible while also ensuring the 
availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to consumers.

II. Background

    6. Comments were due December 21, 2007, and reply comments were due 
January 7, 2008. The Commission received 19 comments and 16 reply 
comments. Comments came from a wide range of interests, including 
handset manufacturers, national, regional and small service providers, 
hearing loss advocacy groups, retail interests, and hearing aid 
manufacturers. While commenters generally support adoption of the Joint 
Consensus Plan, the record reveals differences regarding certain 
aspects of its implementation, as well as issues that are not addressed 
in the Plan.

III. Discussion

A. Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment Requirements

    7. In order to promote its objective of furthering the availability 
of hearing aid-compatible handsets to the deaf and hard-of-hearing 
community, the Commission adopts several interrelated benchmarks, 
deadlines, and other requirements governing the deployment of hearing 
aid-compatible handsets. These actions, which are based largely on the 
Joint Consensus Plan and the proposals in the NPRM, balance several 
different approaches to improving wireless services for deaf and hard-
of-hearing consumers. Based on the record, the Commission concludes 
that these requirements, as a whole, will offer great benefits to those 
consumers with hearing loss, without imposing undue costs on handset 
manufacturers, service providers, or consumers generally.
    8. As proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan and the NPRM, the 
Commission first adopts new benchmarks and deadlines for 2008 through 
2011 regarding deployment of handsets rated M3 (or higher) under 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard C63.19 for RF 
interference reduction and handsets rated T3 (or higher) under ANSI 
Standard C63.19 for inductive coupling capability. As regards the 
requirements for RF interference reduction, the Commission recognizes 
the difficulties that handset manufacturers and service providers with 
large product lines face with respect to the 50 percent benchmark 
originally scheduled to go into effect on February 18, 2008, and the 
Commission modifies the benchmark in the near term while at the same 
time ensuring that consumers will have significant and increasing 
choices of acoustic coupling-compatible models over the next several 
years. At the same time, the Commission increases the upcoming 
benchmarks for handset models that have inductive coupling capability. 
In this regard, to ensure that all consumers will have options 
regardless of where they reside or from which carrier they obtain 
service, the Commission adopts the same deployment benchmarks for all 
service providers, although the Commission extends the compliance 
deadlines for service providers other than Tier I carriers in 
recognition of their more limited handset options and their difficulty 
obtaining the newest offerings. Second, as an integral part of the 
handset deployment objectives the Commission sets forth, the Commission 
adopts requirements to ensure the availability of not just more handset 
models, but also a range of compatible handset models throughout the 
manufacturer-to-consumer supply and distribution channels. The 
Commission thus requires all manufacturers to ``refresh'' their hearing 
aid-compatible handset product offerings annually, and all service 
providers to offer consumers handset models with differing levels of 
functionality. Third, the Commission addresses several implementation 
issues, including the definition of what constitutes a distinct model, 
the treatment of handset models that operate over multiple frequency 
bands and/or air interfaces, and the application of the de minimis 
rule. Finally, while the Commission encourages manufacturers and 
service providers, including new entrants, to deploy handset models 
that meet the higher hearing aid compatibility standards denoted by M4 
and T4 ratings, the Commission determines consistent with the record 
not to adopt any requirements in this regard at this time.
1. M3 / T3 Standards
    9. The parties in this proceeding are nearly unanimous in 
supporting the NPRM's tentative conclusions on the appropriate M3 and 
T3 benchmarks and deadlines insofar as they apply to manufacturers and 
Tier I carriers offering nationwide services, referencing the 
compromise and agreement that culminated in the Joint Consensus Plan. 
However, six commenting parties representing regional or smaller 
service providers that are not Tier I carriers--MetroPCS

[[Page 25569]]

Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS), SouthernLINC Wireless (SouthernLINC), 
Virgin Mobile, USA, L.P. (Virgin Mobile), Rural Cellular Association 
(RCA), Chinook Wireless (Chinook), and Iowa Wireless Services, LLC (i 
wireless)--argue that they should not be subject to the same benchmarks 
or any new requirements beyond the existing mandates to offer two M3- 
and T3-rated (or higher) handset models per air interface. If any new 
requirements must apply, they argue that the benchmarks in these 
provisions should be reduced, proposing levels that would be 
approximately one-half of the Tier I levels. These commenters state 
that they would be forced to reduce their total product lines in order 
to meet the Tier I percentage benchmarks. They further contend that 
they have less access to hearing aid-compatible handsets than Tier I 
carriers, and that as a practical matter they would essentially be 
subject to more difficult requirements than Tier I carriers under the 
Joint Consensus Plan. On the other side of this issue, two advocates 
for the deaf and hard-of-hearing disagree, and argue that these service 
providers should be held to the same compatible handset deployment 
benchmarks as Tier I carriers because, with proper planning, these 
service providers can meet these benchmarks in the same, or perhaps 
slightly extended, timeframes.
    10. For both RF interference reduction and inductive coupling 
capability, the Commission adopts the tentative conclusions in the NPRM 
for manufacturers and Tier I carriers, and hereby amends Sec.  20.19(c) 
and (d) of the Commission's rules to adopt the benchmarks and deadlines 
proposed in the NPRM. For service providers that are not Tier I 
carriers, the Commission adopts these same benchmarks, but the 
Commission extends their deadlines for compliance by three months in 
order to afford these entities additional flexibility to obtain and 
deploy the requisite numbers of compatible handset models. In 
consideration of the need for certainty, and in order to provide 
appropriate notification to manufacturers and service providers as 
regards the hearing aid compatibility obligations, the Commission had 
stayed enforcement of the 50 percent benchmark for deployment of 
handsets meeting an M3 (or higher) rating for RF interference reduction 
that would have become effective on February 18, 2008, for 60 days, 
until April 18, 2008. However, given the rule changes adopted in the 
R&O, the need for a stay is moot and it need not be extended.
    11. In terms of RF interference reduction for acoustic coupling 
compatibility, manufacturers as of the effective date of this rule will 
have to meet a rating of M3 (or higher) for a minimum of one-third of 
their non-de minimis portfolio models offered to service providers per 
air interface in the United States. If one-third of the total number of 
models offered over an air interface is a fraction, manufacturers may 
round this number down, except that manufacturers offering four or five 
handset models over an air interface must offer at least two models 
meeting an M3 (or higher) rating. Tier I carriers, as of the effective 
date of this rule, will have to meet an M3 rating (or higher) for the 
lesser of 50 percent of their handset models per air interface 
(rounding fractions up) or a specific number of handset models pursuant 
to a schedule. For both manufacturers and service providers, these 
percentage and numerical obligations will remain in effect until such 
time as they may be changed by future Commission rulemaking action. 
This schedule requires Tier I carriers to provide an increasing number 
of handset models per air interface over which they offer service by 
future dates as follows: Before February 15, 2009: eight M3-rated (or 
higher) handset models; beginning February 15, 2009: nine M3-rated (or 
higher) handset models; and beginning February 15, 2010: ten M3-rated 
(or higher) handset models. The Joint Consensus Plan proposed that 
these and other deadlines would fall on the 18th of the month. For ease 
of administration, the Commission changes these deadlines to the 15th. 
Service providers not in Tier I will be subject to the same 
requirements, but only beginning three months after the effective date 
of the rules. As a result, the aforementioned requirements will take 
effect for such service providers as of May 15 of the respective year, 
rather than February 15. The Commission notes that under the revisions 
that it is adopting to Sec.  20.19 of the Commission's rules, these 
service providers remain required to offer two handset models per air 
interface rated M3 or higher until the new requirements become 
effective to them.
    12. With respect to inductive coupling capability, the new 
requirements establish benchmarks for both manufacturers and service 
providers that combine percentage and numerical measures. For both 
manufacturers and service providers, these percentage and numerical 
obligations will remain in effect until such time as they may be 
changed by future Commission rulemaking action. First, manufacturers 
will be required to meet the greater of two measures for each air 
interface for which they offer handsets beginning February 15, 2009: 
(1) A minimum of two T3-rated (or higher) models for each air interface 
for which the manufacturer offers four or more handset models to 
service providers; or (2) at least 20 percent / 25 percent / one-third 
of models that the manufacturer offers to service providers over each 
air interface rated T3 (or higher) beginning February 15, 2009 / 2010 / 
2011 respectively. These percentage calculations will be rounded down 
to the nearest whole number in determining the minimum number of 
handsets to be produced. Each manufacturer that is not subject to the 
de minimis exception (discussed later in this summary) will thus still 
be required to maintain production of at least two or more T3-rated (or 
higher) handset models per air interface for which it offers handsets. 
Prior to February 15, 2009, manufacturers remain subject to the current 
requirement to offer at least two models rated T3 or higher per air 
interface.
    13. Second, as of the effective date of this rule, Tier I carriers 
must meet the lesser of the two following measures for each air 
interface over which they offer service: (1) One-third of digital 
wireless handset models are T3-rated (or higher) (rounding fractions 
up); or (2) a schedule as follows: before February 15, 2009: three T3-
rated (or higher) handsets; beginning February 15, 2009: five T3-rated 
(or higher) handsets; beginning February 15, 2010: seven T3-rated (or 
higher) handsets; and beginning February 15, 2011: ten T3-rated (or 
higher) handsets.
    14. Third, service providers other than Tier I carriers will also 
be required to meet the same benchmarks as Tier I carriers, but only 
beginning three months after the effective date of these rules. Again, 
the scheduled rollout dates will be May 15 of the respective years, 
rather than February 15. The Commission notes that under the revisions 
that it is adopting to Sec.  20.19, these service providers remain 
required to offer two handset models per air interface rated T3 or 
higher until the new requirements become effective to them.
    15. Given the unanimous support in the record, the Commission finds 
that these benchmarks for both equipment manufacturers and Tier I 
carriers to deploy M3-rated and T3-rated handsets are in the public 
interest. The combination, two-option approach for deploying M3-rated 
handsets provides needed flexibility for Tier I carriers with large 
product lines to deploy new and additional models over time while still 
ensuring that substantial numbers of

[[Page 25570]]

compatible handset models will be available to consumers. These rule 
changes are supported by consumer advocates, and the Commission agrees 
that the balance they achieved with industry representatives in the 
Joint Consensus Plan represents a beneficial compromise between 
technological constraints and the needs of hard-of-hearing consumers. 
No commenting party has argued that these benchmarks for manufacturers 
and Tier I carriers would be detrimental to consumers. This approach 
also is more technology-impartial than a single 50 percent requirement, 
reflecting the uncontroverted technological impediments to meeting the 
M3 rating standard for many handset models that employ a GSM air 
interface. Moreover, the Commission adopts this modification in 
conjunction with new rules requiring manufacturers to ``refresh'' their 
compatible offerings with new products annually and requiring service 
providers to make hearing aid-compatible models available with 
different levels of functionality. These requirements will directly 
benefit consumers needing handsets with acoustic coupling capabilities.
    16. The Commission also makes its decisions regarding the 
benchmarks for RF interference reduction and inductive coupling 
capability as an integrated whole. The Commission agrees with Hearing 
Loss Association of America and Telecommunications for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing, Inc. (HLAA/TDI) that increased requirements for 
deployment of T3-rated handset models comprise a beneficial trade-off 
for reducing, in certain circumstances, the thresholds for deploying 
M3-rated handset models that would have taken effect under the existing 
Sec.  20.19(c). The record supports the conclusion that customers' 
options for handsets that enable inductive coupling with hearing aids' 
telecoils have been more limited than for acoustic coupling 
compatibility. The current two-model rule for these entities was set in 
2003 and has become out-dated, as it does not provide for an expansion 
of T3-rated handset options. Expanded requirements of this nature 
should benefit some of the most disadvantaged wireless users in the 
deaf and hard-of-hearing community, who are more likely to rely on 
telecoil-equipped hearing aids. The Commission agrees with HLAA/TDI 
that it is generally in the public interest to increase the benchmarks 
for manufacturers' and Tier I carriers' deployment of handsets meeting 
a T3 rating for inductive coupling capability. The Commission agrees as 
well with Gallaudet University Technology Access program and 
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access 
(Gallaudet/RERC) that additional requirements of this nature will 
``significantly benefit individuals with severe to profound hearing 
loss.'' Thus, the Commission finds that an additional focus of its 
resources should be on making available additional T3-rated handset 
models.
    17. The Commission also concludes that the same deadlines are 
appropriate for manufacturers and Tier I carriers. The Commission 
agrees with ATIS that a single, unified deadline as proposed in the 
NPRM and Joint Consensus Plan will improve compliance and make the 
rules simpler to administer. Moreover, unlike service providers not in 
Tier I, Tier I carriers have in the past not submitted waiver requests 
stating that they have experienced significant problems meeting 
deployment deadlines in the same time frame as manufacturers. 
Furthermore, unlike the initial deployment deadlines where 
manufacturers may have had no models certified as hearing aid-
compatible until shortly before the date, Tier I carriers now need only 
to increase their selection from among available stock. Although AT&T, 
Inc. (AT&T) states that it prefers a staggering of the compliance 
deadlines after 2008, AT&T only cites generally the lag time for 
service providers to obtain handsets from manufacturers and does not 
provide more specific support evidencing a problem (current or past) 
with a unified date. The Commission also notes that ATIS, while 
supporting a unified deadline, states that it ``would not be opposed'' 
to a six week interval between deadlines for manufacturers and service 
providers. ATIS Comments at 6. The Commission therefore declines to 
extend the compliance deadlines for Tier I carriers.
    18. The record raises separate questions regarding whether to apply 
the same handset deployment benchmarks to service providers other than 
Tier I carriers. As stated in the NPRM, the Joint Consensus Plan's 
proposals consider appropriate modifications only to the rules for 
manufacturers and nationwide, Tier I carriers, and they do not address 
the Commission's hearing aid compatibility benchmarks for regional or 
smaller service providers, including Tier II and Tier III carriers, or 
other service providers like resellers and mobile virtual network 
operators (MVNOs). In addition, none of the equipment manufacturers or 
Tier I carriers that have participated in this proceeding submitted 
comments on this issue. The only record the Commission has before it is 
comprised of the comments of six parties representing regional or 
smaller service providers not in Tier I--MetroPCS, SouthernLINC, Virgin 
Mobile, RCA, Chinook and i wireless--and two consumer advocate 
representatives, each group disagreeing with the other on this 
question.
    19. After carefully considering this record in light of its past 
experience with non-nationwide service providers, and the costs and 
benefits of several possible rule change proposals, the Commission 
concludes that the same deployment benchmark alternatives should apply 
to all service providers, but it delays the compliance deadlines by 
three months for service providers that are not Tier I carriers. The 
Commission is not persuaded that service providers with small product 
lines will be unable to meet the 50 percent and one-third targets for 
handset models meeting RF interference reduction and inductive coupling 
capability targets, respectively. Moreover, the Commission finds that 
any burdens these requirements impose are necessary to ensure 
reasonable handset options for all hearing-impaired consumers 
regardless of where they reside or who they may receive service from, 
not just the 90 or so percent that may receive their service from Tier 
I carriers. Nonetheless, in recognition of the stated difficulties 
smaller service providers face in obtaining the latest handset models, 
the Commission delays each of their compliance deadlines by three 
months.
    20. The Commission rejects the argument that the proposed 
benchmarks impose a ``greater'' burden on smaller carriers because they 
offer too few handset models to take advantage of the numerical 
alternatives, and will therefore be forced to meet the percentage 
benchmarks. The Commission does not accept that smaller service 
providers are subject to greater burdens simply because their 
percentages are higher: service providers with smaller product lines 
will be required to offer fewer hearing aid-compatible handset models 
than service providers with larger product lines. The alternative of 
offering eight to 10 handset models per air interface that meet an M3 
or higher rating for RF interference reduction recognizes that carriers 
with large product lines may have difficulty obtaining sufficient 
compatible handset models to meet a 50 percent requirement, 
particularly since the manufacturer production benchmark is one-third 
going forward. In addition, the Commission finds that the

[[Page 25571]]

availability of eight to 10 M3-rated models will provide substantial 
choice to hard-of-hearing consumers, especially in light of its other 
requirements, and therefore the Commission is not requiring service 
providers with large product lines to offer more models. The 
incremental benefits to consumers of requiring more than eight to 10 
compatible models are diminished, and are outweighed by the burdens on 
the service provider.
    21. The Commission finds that the availability of percentage 
benchmarks is necessary to ensure that smaller service providers are 
not overly burdened. Even though eight to 10 M3-rated models provide 
consumers with substantial choice, the Commission does not believe it 
reasonable to require that eight to 10 compatible models be offered by 
service providers with smaller product lines, including many non-
nationwide service providers. Therefore, the Commission permits these 
service providers instead to meet the compatibility standard for 50 
percent of their product lines, ranging from two to seven models per 
air interface depending on the total number of models offered. Similar 
reasoning underlies the alternative benchmarks for inductive coupling 
capability. The rule is designed to permit each service provider to 
meet the benchmark that is less burdensome for it depending on its 
particular situation, while providing consumers with significant choice 
no matter which service provider they may use.
    22. The Commission is also not persuaded by arguments that service 
providers other than Tier I carriers will be unable to obtain 
sufficient hearing aid-compatible handset models to meet the benchmark 
percentages and therefore will have to reduce their product lines. 
These service providers argue that they have less access to hearing 
aid-compatible models than Tier I carriers, among other reasons because 
they must purchase handsets through third-party vendors and because the 
larger carriers sometimes have exclusive arrangements to obtain certain 
handset models. The Commission notes, however, that the number of 
hearing aid-compatible models these service providers must obtain to 
meet the percentage benchmarks is not large. For example, a service 
provider that offers 10 handset models over an air interface would need 
to offer five that meet an M3 (or higher) rating and four that meet a 
T3 (or higher) rating. Moreover, the percentage requirement for T3-
rated (or higher) models would not become effective for such a provider 
until May 2009. Until then, the service provider could satisfy the rule 
by offering the numerical alternative of three models meeting this 
standard. The Commission acknowledges that many smaller service 
providers' offerings of compatible handsets may currently fall short of 
these levels. Given the substantial and increasing number of hearing 
aid-compatible models that are currently available, however, the 
Commission is convinced that, with reasonable effort, even the smallest 
non-de minimis providers can obtain enough compatible models to satisfy 
the particular benchmarks that are applicable to them. Commenters offer 
no evidence that so many hearing aid-compatible models are subject to 
exclusivity arrangements as to significantly diminish the number that 
they are able to obtain, or that large numbers of compatible models are 
unavailable through vendors. As it has stated in the past, the 
Commission expects that, if a service provider's usual vendors cannot 
supply appropriate handset models, it will make arrangements with other 
suppliers. The Commission also remains unpersuaded by Virgin Mobile's 
general argument that few hearing aid-compatible models are available 
in the lower price ranges that its customers demand. Although Virgin 
Mobile may reasonably select the hearing aid-compatible models that are 
most likely to appeal to its customer base, the Commission continues to 
believe it should not be relieved of its duty to make hearing aid-
compatible options available to its customers simply due to its 
prediction that customers will not choose to purchase these models. In 
addition, the Commission anticipates that in the future, manufacturers 
may produce more hearing aid-compatible models in lower price ranges in 
order to facilitate carriers' fulfillment of their obligation to offer 
phones with multiple levels of functionality.
    23. Moreover, to the extent the deployment benchmarks that the 
Commission adopts do impose increased burdens on small carriers, these 
burdens are outweighed by the benefits to consumers. Commenters 
representing people with hearing loss support the universal application 
of these benchmarks, stating that this would assist a great number of 
hearing aid users. These additional benchmarks, especially the new 
benchmarks for inductive coupling capability, should provide valuable 
benefits to affected consumers with profound hearing loss. Regardless 
of size and product line, every service provider has customers who need 
hearing aid-compatible phones, and it is incumbent upon each wireless 
service provider to make arrangements and allocate the resources that 
are necessary to meet their needs.
    24. The Commission concludes that a three-month extension of 
deadlines for meeting these benchmarks, however, is appropriate with 
regard to service providers that are not Tier I nationwide providers, 
including regional and smaller providers, such as Tier II and Tier III 
carriers, and other service providers such as resellers and MVNOs. Five 
non-Tier I commenting parties argue that if they are subjected to new 
deployment benchmarks, they should receive extended deadlines of six 
months to one year following Tier I carriers' deadlines. The Commission 
agrees with the position of consumer advocate groups, however, that a 
three-month delay is more appropriate. While the Commission recognizes 
that smaller service providers may reasonably require some additional 
time to obtain up-to-date compliant products through vendors, the 
Commission is concerned that a longer delay would unnecessarily and 
unacceptably deny the benefits of its rules to consumers. Moreover, a 
three-month delay is consistent with past instances where the 
Commission has recognized that waivers of up to approximately three 
months for non-Tier I service providers have often been justified, but 
has generally denied requests for longer periods. The Commission finds 
that an extension beyond three months may only serve to excuse poor 
planning, inferior oversight, or some other factor within a service 
provider's control. Indeed, given that service providers have known for 
years that they would likely become subject to a 50 percent benchmark 
for handset models with RF interference reduction, which will remain 
the operative requirement for many of them, and at most they will have 
to obtain one additional handset model to satisfy the first new 
benchmark for inductive coupling capability, the Commission would 
arguably be justified, at least for the 2008 benchmarks, to afford no 
extension at all beyond that granted Tier I service providers. The 
Commission therefore concludes that a three-month delay will provide 
ample time for service providers not in Tier I to obtain the compliant 
handset models that they need to satisfy both the 2008 and future 
benchmarks.
2. New Requirements for Handset Deployment
    25. As an integral part of the handset deployment objectives the 
Commission sets forth today, the Commission also adopts two new rules 
that together will

[[Page 25572]]

facilitate the offering of not just more handsets, but also a range of 
compatible handset models throughout the manufacturer-to-consumer 
supply and distribution channels. The annual product refresh rule for 
manufacturers and the requirement that service providers offer handset 
models with different functionality levels should provide consumers 
with access to hearing aid-compatible handsets with the newest 
features, as well as more economical models. These proposals are an 
essential part of the Joint Consensus Plan, and they are broadly 
supported in the record. Indeed, the record demonstrates that hard-of-
hearing consumers demand an increased selection of popular and 
innovative handsets. While requirements to deploy minimum numbers or 
percentages of hearing aid-compatible handset models are essential to 
ensure that such phones will be available to consumers, the Commission 
finds, based on the record and experience under the existing rules, 
that these additional requirements are necessary to enable consumers to 
select a wireless phone that is not only compatible with a given 
hearing aid, but that also meets their other needs as a consumer, such 
as offering the latest features. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the 
product refresh rule for manufacturers and the functionality level rule 
for service providers.
a. Product Refresh Rule for Manufacturers
    26. Every commenter to address the issue supports adoption of the 
proposed product refresh requirement without modification. The 
Commission therefore adopts this rule as set forth in Sec.  
20.19(c)(1)(ii) of the rules (set forth at the end of this summary). 
The Commission finds that this rule is necessary to ensure that service 
providers will be able to offer to consumers a selection of hearing 
aid-compatible models including those with the latest features. The 
Commission further finds that the rule will not cause undue costs to 
manufacturers. Indeed, all commenters representing equipment 
manufacturers supported the rule on grounds that it would permit them 
to provide consumers with a variety of devices. The Commission also 
corrects an apparent typographical error in the rule as proposed in the 
Joint Consensus Plan. As reproduced in the NPRM, the Joint Consensus 
Plan states that the number of new models to be produced is to be 
determined by ``multiplying the total number of new [hearing aid-
compatible] models offered in the United States by fifty percent.'' 22 
FCC Rcd 19670, 19712 App. B (2007). The Commission corrects this to 
clarify that the relevant figure is 50 percent of the total required 
number of hearing aid-compatible models.
b. Rule Requiring Service Providers To Offer Models With Differing 
Levels of Functionality
    27. Upon consideration of the record, the Commission adopts the 
handset functionality rule as proposed and applies it to all service 
providers. As applied to Tier I carriers, all commenters representing 
Tier I carriers support a handset functionality rule. The Commission 
therefore adopts the rule in order to ensure that hearing aid users can 
select from a variety of compliant handset models, with varying 
features and prices. Moreover, these commenters agree that service 
providers should have flexibility to define their product levels 
because, as ATIS states, ``[i]t is not feasible to identify a uniform 
set of `tiers' for all carriers that will appropriately apply to each 
carrier's unique set of product offerings.'' ATIS Comments at 7-8. The 
Commission concurs that given the great variety and continual 
development in handset features, any effort on its part to define 
criteria of functionality would be infeasible and might deter 
innovation, and the Commission therefore prescribes no criteria. The 
Commission does, however, stand by its guidance that a handset's level 
of functionality may include its capability to operate over multiple 
frequency bands. While Research in Motion Limited (RIM) objects that 
the availability or unavailability of a particular frequency band does 
not represent anything of value to a consumer, the Commission disagrees 
on the ground that the ability to access additional frequency bands may 
increase the circumstances under which the consumer can use the phone. 
The Commission clarifies that no service provider is required to offer 
phones that operate over multiple bands, and that this is simply one 
factor a service provider may use to distinguish the functionality of 
its handset models. In addition, the Commission adopts Gallaudet/RERC's 
suggestion to require service providers to disclose their functionality 
criteria in their reports to the Commission and on their Web sites, in 
order that both the Commission and the public may understand the basis 
for their distinctions.
    28. Finally, the Commission determines to apply the rule to all 
service providers, not only nationwide Tier I carriers. Several 
regional and smaller service providers do not support such a 
requirement, arguing, for example, that such a requirement would be 
intrusive and that the statute does not require the Commission to 
ensure that hearing aid users have feature-rich phones. Other 
commenters, however, contend that the functionality level rule should 
be applied universally. For the same reasons discussed with respect to 
the handset deployment benchmarks, the Commission concludes that 
consumers with hearing loss should not be deprived of a choice of 
handset features based simply on their place of residence or their 
service provider. Moreover, given flexibility to define levels, even 
service providers with relatively small product lines should be able to 
distinguish among their handset models in a manner that permits them to 
define levels of functionality appropriate to their situation. The 
Commission does not expect a provider with four hearing aid-compatible 
models, for example, necessarily to offer as many levels of 
functionality or as broad a range of product offerings as a Tier I 
carrier with eight or more models, but the Commission does expect such 
a provider to draw some distinctions.
3. Implementation Issues
a. Definition of a Model
    29. RIM supports the proposal to accept a manufacturer's 
determination of whether a device is a distinct model. PerrineCrest 
Radio Consulting (PerrineCrest Radio) asserts that the Commission 
should further define a model, or that at a minimum, manufacturers 
should explain how they distinguish their models. PerrineCrest Radio 
argues that this would help in monitoring the effectiveness of its 
requirements. It does not offer any suggestion regarding how the 
Commission should define a model, however.
    30. The Commission concludes that its proposal represents the right 
approach to determinations of what constitutes a ``model'' under its 
rule. Consistent with its proposal, the Commission determines that, for 
purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules, a manufacturer may not 
characterize as separate models any devices that do not in fact possess 
any distinguishing variation in form, features, or capabilities. Thus, 
under some circumstances, handsets assigned different model numbers by 
the manufacturer may count as a single model under the rules, such as 
where multiple model numbers are assigned to the same handset to 
distinguish units sold to different carriers, or are used to designate 
other distinctions that do not relate to either form, features, or

[[Page 25573]]

capabilities. Otherwise, the Commission finds it appropriate to defer 
to manufacturers regarding which devices constitute distinct models, 
consistent with how those devices are marketed to the public, because 
manufacturers are best positioned to determine when and how to market 
their own devices as distinct models. The Commission notes that it has, 
to date, deferred to manufacturer designation of distinct model lines 
and has not come across any instance in which such designations were 
made in bad faith to escape hearing aid compatibility obligations or 
did not otherwise reflect legitimate differences between devices. The 
Commission has no reason to believe that manufacturers will not 
continue to act in good faith in this regard. Accordingly, the 
Commission will accept manufacturers' determination of whether a device 
is a distinct model, subject only to these aforementioned restrictions.
    31. While the Commission does not generally establish specific 
requirements regarding model distinctions, the Commission specifies one 
circumstance in which the Commission requires a device to be given a 
distinct model designation. Specifically, where changes are made to a 
device that result in a change in the hearing aid compatibility rating, 
the Commission requires manufacturers, and service providers down the 
distribution chain, to provide the altered device a model name/number 
that is distinct from the original device's designation. Based on its 
previous experience and the need for service providers and consumers to 
determine easily the compatibility of particular handset models, 
manufacturers and service providers should not be simultaneously 
offering two or more identically designated models with different 
hearing aid compatibility ratings.
    32. The Commission will not require a new model designation where a 
change in rating is not the product of a change in the device but is 
simply the result of certifying for hearing aid compatibility a model 
that was not previously so certified. The Commission further clarifies 
that in such an instance, once the model has been certified, service 
providers offering that model may offer it to satisfy their deployment 
obligations, even if the particular units they offer were obtained from 
the manufacturer prior to date of certification. They must, however, 
ensure that such models comply with hearing aid compatibility labeling 
obligations, if necessary by contacting the manufacturer and requesting 
appropriate external labeling and inserts. Further, they may not count 
any model as hearing aid-compatible for periods prior to the date on 
which the model was certified for hearing aid compatibility.
b. Multi-Mode and Multi-Band Handsets
    33. Commenters generally support the proposal that a handset be 
considered hearing aid-compatible only if it is compatible in all 
frequency bands and modes over which it operates and for which there 
are established standards. RCA, however, opposes the proposal, arguing 
that it will reduce availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets, 
and will particularly harm small service providers whose access to such 
handsets is already limited.
    34. In addition, although most manufacturers and service providers 
support the basic multi-band/mode proposal where hearing aid 
compatibility technical standards already exist, they oppose the 
proposal in the NPRM to automatically treat multi-band and multi-mode 
handsets as non-compatible if they operate over frequency bands or 
modes without established standards. They assert that the proposal may 
inhibit or delay deployment of new technologies and converged devices, 
and that there is no evidence that new frequency bands or air 
interfaces will cause interference problems. In particular, some 
commenters express concerns regarding the effect of such a rule on 
deployment of multi-mode handsets that offer Wi-Fi capability. 
Commenters further assert that the proposal will mislead consumers with 
hearing loss into concluding that all handsets operating over new 
frequency bands or using new technology are incompatible with hearing 
aid use, even if the handsets can be certified compatible in all 
operating modes and frequency bands that have established standards. 
Finally, they argue that the proposal violates the Commission's 
statutory obligation to ``ensure that regulations adopted to implement 
this section encourage the use of currently available technology and do 
not discourage or impair the development of improved technology,'' 47 
U.S.C. 610(e), and would also exceed its statutory authority by 
effectively imposing hearing aid compatibility requirements in the 
absence of established standards for such compatibility. Instead of the 
proposed rule, they recommend that the Commission provide ANSI time to 
identify actual interference concerns and offer specific standards or 
recommendations, and otherwise permit handsets to be designated hearing 
aid-compatible so long as they have been certified to meet hearing aid 
compatibility standards in all frequency bands and operating modes that 
have established standards.
    35. Gallaudet/RERC supports the proposal in the NPRM, arguing that 
consumers who purchase handsets labeled hearing aid-compatible have an 
expectation that such phones are compatible in all of their operations, 
and that the proposed rule will therefore prevent consumer confusion 
regarding hearing aid compatibility when the phone is operating over 
frequency bands or air interfaces that do not have standards. 
Gallaudet/RERC further argues that the rule will provide incentives to 
the wireless industry to establish standards in a timely fashion. 
Commenters in opposition respond that the Commission can address 
confusion concerns with disclosure requirements, and that there is no 
reason to believe that the rule will hasten development of standards. 
These commenters also disagree that the rule is justified to induce 
more rapid adoption of new standards.
    36. A filing on behalf of both industry and consumer group 
representatives asked that the Commission hold the record open to 
enable them to develop a consensus proposal regarding multi-mode and 
multi-band phones that operate in part over air interfaces or frequency 
bands for which no hearing aid compatibility standards exist. As set 
forth in this filing, members of ATIS' Incubator Solutions 4 
(AISP.4-HAC) state that they have agreed with representatives of 
consumers with hearing loss to develop such a proposal. The filing also 
states that AISP.4-HAC anticipates filing general principles regarding 
this consensus plan within three months of the release of the 
Commission's Order, with more specific information regarding this 
proposal to be filed within six months of the release of the Order. 
ATIS states that, with the exception of devices incorporating Wi-Fi 
capability, it is unaware of any phones currently available that 
operate over multiple air interfaces or frequency bands, some of which 
have hearing aid compatibility standards and some of which do not. 
Finally, with regard to devices that incorporate Wi-Fi capability, the 
filing states that the members of AISP.4-HAC support allowing such 
devices to be labeled as hearing aid-compatible if they satisfy hearing 
aid compatibility standards for all other frequency bands and air 
interfaces over which they operate.
    37. In order to both protect consumers and provide clarity to 
industry with respect to handset offerings that already

[[Page 25574]]

exist, while allowing further consideration of the longer-term issues, 
the Commission takes the following steps at this time. First, the 
Commission adopts the Joint Consensus Plan's proposal to clarify that, 
to be counted as compatible, a handset model must be hearing aid-
compatible for each air interface and frequency band it uses as long as 
standards exist for each of those bands and interfaces. Second, the 
Commission leaves the record open for further submissions in the near 
term, including an anticipated consensus proposal, regarding whether a 
phone that operates in part in bands or air interfaces for which no 
standards exist should be counted as compatible, if it is compatible in 
all bands and air interfaces for which hearing aid compatibility 
standards exist. Finally, because there already exist a large number of 
handset models that operate over the Wi-Fi air interface as well as in 
bands and air interfaces for which there are hearing aid compatibility 
standards, the Commission will allow such phones on an interim basis to 
be counted as hearing aid-compatible if they otherwise qualify as 
hearing aid-compatible under its rules, but will require consumers to 
be informed that those phones have not been rated for hearing aid 
compatibility with respect to their Wi-Fi operations.
    38. The Commission first adopts the Joint Consensus Plan's proposal 
and establishes that, to be offered as hearing aid-compatible, a 
handset must be hearing aid-compatible for every frequency band and air 
interface that it uses for which standards have been adopted by the 
Commission. As indicated in the NPRM, the Commission finds that 
requiring a hearing aid-compatible handset to be hearing aid-compatible 
in all such frequencies and modes of operation will better conform to 
the expectations of consumers that purchase such handsets. Conversely, 
allowing manufacturers and carriers to satisfy their deployment 
requirements with partially-compatible handsets where hearing aid 
compatibility standards exist, would likely cause significant confusion 
to consumers who purchase handsets that are labeled and offered as 
hearing aid-compatible, and who perhaps experience compatibility when 
the handset is tested in-store, only to discover later that the 
handset's compatibility varies depending on which of its frequency 
bands or air interfaces is in use at any particular moment. The 
Commission notes that it emphasized the benefits to hard-of-hearing 
consumers of being able to rely on a full range of functionality in 
their hearing aid-compatible handsets and of not having to learn all 
the technical details, such as the frequencies on which their phones 
operate. Further, although RCA expresses concern that the rule will 
discourage the manufacture of hearing aid-compatible multi-mode 
handsets, the Commission notes that those manufacturers to comment on 
the issue all support the rule as proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, 
some expressly indicating that the rule will not impede the development 
of technology.
    39. Second, except for its interim ruling with respect to the Wi-Fi 
air interface, the Commission does not here resolve whether, or to what 
extent, multi-band and multi-mode handsets should be counted as hearing 
aid-compatible if they operate in part over frequency bands or air 
interfaces for which technical standards have not yet been established. 
The record contains arguments both in favor of and against treating 
such handsets as hearing aid-compatible. Moreover, according to 
industry representatives, no such handsets currently exist, with the 
exception of devices incorporating Wi-Fi capability. The Commission 
accepts the proposal endorsed by both industry and consumer 
representatives to leave the record open so that they may develop a 
consensus plan on this issue in the near term. When the Commission 
subsequently addresses the application of hearing aid compatibility 
requirements to Wi-Fi operations, it will consider an appropriate 
transition regime to bring any requirements into effect.
    40. Finally, the Commission adopts an interim rule to allow 
handsets with Wi-Fi capability that otherwise meet hearing aid 
compatibility standards to be certified as hearing aid-compatible. 
Unlike the situation with future air interfaces and anticipated 
frequencies (e.g., the 700 MHz band), many handset models are already 
being produced and offered to consumers with Wi-Fi capability, 
including a significant proportion of the newest handset models. 
Moreover, the Commission has not yet addressed the extent to which 
hearing aid compatibility requirements should apply to handset models 
in various configurations incorporating Wi-Fi capability (which was not 
originally developed for voice transmissions), an issue on which the 
Commission sought comment in the NPRM. Therefore, the Commission adopts 
an interim measure to provide certainty and avoid discouraging the use 
of currently-available Wi-Fi technology during the period until the 
Commission addresses the status of Wi-Fi. Specifically, the Commission 
will not at present preclude a handset model that incorporates a Wi-Fi 
air interface from being offered as hearing aid-compatible so long as 
the handset otherwise qualifies as hearing aid-compatible under its 
rules.
    41. To reduce consumer confusion as much as possible, however, the 
Commission also will require manufacturers and service providers, where 
they provide hearing aid compatibility ratings for handset models that 
incorporate operations using a Wi-Fi air interface, to clearly disclose 
to consumers that the handset has not been rated for hearing aid 
compatibility with respect to its Wi-Fi operation. This includes phones 
that may be used to provide Voice over Internet Protocol using a Wi-Fi 
air interface. The Commission recognizes that such disclosure is not 
likely to fully relieve potential customer confusion regarding handsets 
that meet established hearing aid compatibility standards for all of 
their operations except Wi-Fi. Given the current circumstances, 
however, the Commission believes the better course is to require 
disclosure of the lack of a hearing aid compatibility rating over the 
Wi-Fi air interface rather than preclude handset models that 
incorporate a Wi-Fi air interface from being considered hearing aid-
compatible. In addition, the Commission expects service providers to 
train the sales staff at their owned or operated retail outlets 
regarding the lack of a rating for Wi-Fi operations and its 
implications. To give manufacturers and service providers sufficient 
time to develop and implement effective means to disclose this 
information (e.g., inclusion of call-out cards or other media, 
revisions to their packaging materials, supplying of information on Web 
sites) where hearing aid compatibility ratings are provided, this 
requirement will become effective six months after the effective date 
of the rules adopted in the R&O. The Commission also notes that Working 
Group 6 of the ATIS incubator is developing language to inform 
consumers when otherwise hearing aid-compatible phones operate in part 
over frequency bands or air interfaces that do not have hearing aid 
compatibility standards.
c. De minimis Rule
    42. Most commenters addressing the issue support the Joint 
Consensus Plan proposal to retain the de minimis exception to hearing 
aid compatibility requirements and to codify that the exception applies 
on a per air interface basis. HLAA/TDI and Gallaudet/RERC propose, 
however, that the exception be modified so that it not apply on a

[[Page 25575]]

permanent basis to large businesses that produce only one or two 
handsets with mass appeal, such as Apple's iPhone. Gallaudet/RERC 
argues that, if the exception applied to companies like Apple that do 
not routinely manufacture handsets, their handsets might be subject to 
the exception indefinitely, and consumers with hearing loss might never 
have the opportunity to use such devices. It further argues that the 
exception was not intended to permanently relieve large and prosperous 
companies whose handsets produce large profits from the obligations of 
Sec.  20.19. It therefore suggests that the exception be applicable in 
such cases only for a certain period of time. HLAA/TDI similarly argues 
that the exception was only intended to protect small businesses, and 
should therefore be limited in its application to large businesses like 
Apple. In response, several commenters oppose the limitations suggested 
by Gallaudet/RERC and HLAA/TDI, arguing that the exception was not 
intended to be limited to small businesses, and that the proposed 
limitations risk undermining the rule's objective of preserving 
competition and innovation from new entrants.
    43. The Commission adopts the proposal of the Joint Consensus Plan 
to retain the existing de minimis exception, which in most of its 
applications was not opposed in the record. The Commission further 
adopts the proposal to codify that the exception applies on a per air 
interface basis. No commenter has objected to applying the exception on 
a per air interface basis, and the Commission sees no reason to depart 
from an earlier decision that adopted that interpretation. As the 
Commission previously indicated, a per air interface approach to the de 
minimis exception to the handset deployment obligations follows from 
the deployment obligations themselves, which are also applied on a per 
air interface basis (i.e., manufacturers and service providers must 
offer the specified number of handsets for each air interface in their 
product lines). If the Commission were to apply the exception to the 
total number of handsets across a manufacturer's total product line 
while requiring the specified number or percentage of hearing aid-
compatible handsets for each air interface, a manufacturer that offered 
just one handset each for four different interfaces would fall outside 
the exception for each of the four interfaces. This result would force 
the manufacturer in question to either significantly increase the 
number of handsets in its product line to meet a multiple-handset 
deployment obligation for each air interface or else withdraw some of 
its existing products from the U.S. wireless market, which could retard 
technological progress and limit competition.
    44. While the Commission does not adopt at this time the new 
limitation proposed by HLAA/TDI and Gallaudet/RERC, the Commission 
leaves the record open for further comment. The Commission intends to 
address this issue further, taking into consideration any ex parte 
submissions it receives, in an upcoming Report and Order.
    45. In addition, regardless of whether or how the Commission 
subsequently modifies the application of the de minimis exception, the 
Commission strongly encourages all manufacturers, including those 
falling within the de minimis exception, to consider hearing aid 
compatibility as an integral and early part of their handset design 
process and to incorporate hearing aid compatibility into their new 
designs wherever feasible. The Commission also strongly encourages all 
manufacturers, including new entrants as well as established companies, 
to participate in the standards-setting process so as to keep abreast 
of developments in this area, and to incorporate any revisions in the 
hearing aid compatibility standard at an early stage when designing and 
testing their handsets.
4. M4/T4 Standards
    46. Most commenters that address this issue advise against the 
adoption of M4/T4 requirements, or state a preference to wait until the 
hearing aid compatibility rules are next reviewed in 2010 to consider 
any such standards. Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for 
Wireless Technologies (Wireless RERC) states, on the other hand, that 
``the FCC needs to expand the rules * * * to increase the number of 
models available with M4/T4 compatibility.'' Wireless RERC Comments at 
5. Hearing Industries Association (HIA) states generally that it 
supports mandating M4/T4 performance by handsets ``if and when such 
performance is reasonably achievable.''
    47. Given the weight of the record, especially the fact that no 
commenter submitted any specific proposals for new standards or rules, 
the Commission determines not to impose any additional benchmarks based 
on hearing aid compatibility standards more stringent than the M3/T3 
standards in its rules and in the Joint Consensus Plan. Without more, 
the Commission finds that technology and the market are not yet fully 
enough developed to support a specific requirement at this time. 
Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with Gallaudet/RERC that the matter 
of requirements to deploy M4- or T4-rated handsets should be considered 
in the rulemaking review that the Commission plans to initiate in 2010. 
In the meantime, given the surveys and studies submitted by Wireless 
RERC, and the comments of HIA, the Commission encourages manufacturers 
and service providers, including new entrants, to develop and deploy 
wireless phones that meet M4 and T4 standards in order to give greater 
options to consumers with hearing loss. In its 2010 review, the 
Commission will look closely at the extent to which these handsets are 
commercially available, whether achieving these standards is 
technically feasible for all interfaces and frequency bands, and the 
degree to which hearing aid technologies may have improved so as to 
make achieving such standards unnecessary.

B. 2007 ANSI C63.19 Technical Standard

1. Adoption of the 2007 Standard and Phase-in
    48. Consistent with the Joint Consensus Plan and the unanimous view 
of commenters, the Commission adopts the 2007 ANSI C63.19 standard as a 
replacement for the 2001, 2005, and 2006 versions of the standard. The 
Commission concludes that the use of the most current testing and 
rating techniques will best ensure that consumers with hearing loss can 
obtain wireless phones that meet their needs. The Commission also 
adopts the transition schedule set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan 
(under which use of either the 2007 or 2006 standard would be permitted 
immediately, and the 2007 standard would become mandatory for grants of 
equipment authorization beginning January 1, 2010), agreeing with 
commenters that this affords manufacturers appropriate time to begin 
producing phones to the new standard. The Commission further determines 
not to require recertification of handsets previously certified under 
one of the older standards, but instead to continue recognizing such 
phones as hearing aid-compatible even after the 2007 standard becomes 
mandatory for new certifications. As AT&T observes, older models are 
likely to be ``phased out of circulation through marketplace 
attrition,'' which should obviate the issue. AT&T Comments at 6. 
Finally, no commenter addressed whether the 2001 and 2005 versions of 
the standard should continue to be permissible for

[[Page 25576]]

new certifications during the transition period until 2010. To the 
contrary, the comments consistently assume that the choice during the 
transition period is between the 2006 and 2007 versions of the 
standard. As proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, therefore, the 
Commission does not provide for the continued use of earlier versions.
    49. In its comments, ANSI notes that the phase-in requirement 
contains an unspoken assumption, that ``this would require any given 
mobile phone handset to be qualified under a complete version of either 
the 2006 or 2007 standard.'' ANSI Technical Comment at 2. The 
Commission agrees. Accordingly, the Commission clarifies that a party 
can use either the 2006 or 2007 standard for new certifications through 
2009, but must use a single version for all certification tests and 
criteria for both the M and T ratings with respect to a given device. 
The particular version of the standard used should be specified in the 
party's application for equipment certification.
    50. To summarize, a newly-certified handset model or a handset 
model submitted for a permissive change relating to hearing aid 
compatibility will have to meet, at minimum, an M3 rating (for radio 
frequency interference reduction) or T3 rating (for inductive coupling 
capability) as set forth in either the 2006 or 2007 revision of the 
ANSI C63.19 standard to be considered compatible. Grants of equipment 
certification previously issued under earlier versions of the standard 
will remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes, and if a 
permissive change is submitted for a reason not related primarily to a 
handset model's hearing aid compatibility status, the analysis of the 
effect of that change on a phone's compliance status may use the 
version of the ANSI C63.19 standard under which the hearing aid 
compatibility certification for that model was first made. Consistent 
with the requirement to use a single version of the standard for all 
tests and criteria, however, if a permissive change is submitted for 
one of the hearing aid compatibility ratings, the manufacturer must 
also reevaluate the other hearing aid compatibility rating using the 
same version of the ANSI C63.19 standard. However, a manufacturer that 
is required to meet a T3 rating for 20 percent of its models under 
Sec.  20.19(d)(1)(i) will only be able to count toward this requirement 
one model manufactured after January 1, 2009, and certified under a 
pre-2007 standard. Then, beginning on January 1, 2010, the Commission 
will only permit use of the 2007 version of the standard for obtaining 
new grants of equipment certification, while continuing to recognize 
the validity of existing grants under previous versions of the 
standard.
2. Application to Services in the 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz Bands
    51. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that the 2007 version of 
the ANSI C63.19 standard includes target values for hearing aid 
compatibility procedures for operation over specific air interfaces at 
frequencies in the ranges of 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz, a broader 
range of frequencies than is currently covered by Sec.  20.19(a). The 
Commission adopts its proposal to revise the rule to include services 
over any frequency band within the range covered by the ANSI C63.19-
2007 standard, specifically, the 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz bands, to 
the extent that they employ air interfaces for which technical 
standards are established in that standard. The Commission notes that 
Wi-Fi technologies often operate in the 2.4 GHz band, within the 
frequency range addressed by the ANSI C63.19 standard. However, as 
noted elsewhere, the Commission has not yet determined the extent to 
which services and operations based on emerging technologies such as 
Wi-Fi should be subject to hearing aid compatibility obligations. The 
Commission notes that no commenter objects to this revision or 
indicates that any delay is necessary to meet hearing aid compatibility 
obligations within this frequency range. Accordingly, as of the 
effective date of the rules, providers of commercial mobile radio 
services that are operating over these frequency bands and are 
otherwise within the scope of Sec.  20.19, as well as manufacturers of 
wireless phones used in the delivery of such services, will be subject 
to the same benchmark requirements that providers of cellular, Personal 
Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
services have to deploy hearing aid-compatible handset models as 
determined using either the 2006 or 2007 version of ANSI standard 
C63.19. The Commission notes that the NPRM also requested comment on 
how the rules apply to mobile satellite service (MSS) providers and 
whether any rule revisions are necessary respecting such providers. The 
Commission defers these issues to a future Report and Order. The rules 
it adopts in the R&O do not apply to MSS unless they fall within the 
existing scope of Sec.  20.19(a).
3. Future Revisions and Extensions to the Technical Standard
a. Rules Adopted in R&O
    52. In the R&O, to help ensure that its rules continue to reflect 
the most current standard as ANSI adopts new revisions to the standard, 
the Commission, as it has previously done, delegates to the Chief, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), and the Chief, Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET), the authority to jointly adopt future 
versions of the ANSI C63.19 standard to the extent that the changes to 
the standard do not raise major compliance issues. In addition, the 
Commission expands its delegation to a limited extent, i.e., to allow 
Commission staff to administer a mechanism by which new frequency bands 
and air interfaces for which technical standards do not currently exist 
may be made subject to hearing aid compatibility obligations once such 
standards have been established. Specifically, where future versions of 
the ANSI C63.19 standard have been promulgated that provide technical 
standards for additional frequency bands or air interfaces not covered 
by previous versions, the Commission directs the Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), and the Chief, Office of Engineering 
and Technology (OET), to initiate a rulemaking proceeding, adopting the 
standards as established technical standards for the new frequency 
bands or air interfaces if they determine, based on the record, that 
the standards do not impose with respect to such frequency bands or air 
interfaces materially greater obligations than those imposed on 
services already subject to Sec.  20.19. To ensure that manufacturers 
and service providers have adequate time to comply with their 
obligations, the Commission further imposes a limitation that WTB and 
OET may not require manufacturers and Tier I carriers to meet 
deployment requirements for the relevant bands or air interfaces until 
at least one year after release of an order adopting standards for 
those bands or air interfaces, and may not require service providers 
other than Tier I carriers to meet such requirements sooner than 15 
months after release of such order. However, manufacturers will be able 
to obtain hearing aid compatibility certification of handsets that can 
operate over the new bands or air interfaces, consistent with the 
multi-band/multi-mode rule, immediately upon the effective date of the 
rules adopted in such order. In a Report and Order regarding the 700 
MHz Service, the Commission established a 24-month period for the

[[Page 25577]]

development of standards for all of the frequencies listed in Sec.  
27.1(b) of the rules, and provided that, if such standards were 
promulgated within that period, the Commission would initiate ``a 
further proceeding at that time to establish a specific timetable for 
deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets for services in the 
relevant bands that meet the criteria discussed above.'' 22 FCC Rcd 
8064, 8120 (2007). Pursuant to the Commission's action in the R&O, this 
rulemaking proceeding referenced in the 700 MHz Report and Order may be 
undertaken by WTB and OET under delegated authority.
    53. The Commission's action in this regard is broadly supported by 
the record. In particular, every commenter that addresses the issue 
generally supports establishment of a streamlined mechanism for the 
approval of revised standards that provide tests for new frequency 
bands and air interfaces. Moreover, this process addresses concerns 
expressed by some commenters that the Commission should provide the 
public an opportunity to comment on the new standard before formally 
approving the standard in cases where the approval of the standard will 
result in extending hearing aid compatibility requirements to new bands 
or air interfaces. Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) 
advocates that the Commission allow at least a two-year period after 
adoption of a new standard before requiring compliance. The Commission 
finds, however, that a one-year interval is generally both sufficient 
for industry and necessary in order to bring the benefits of hearing 
aid-compatible handsets promptly to consumers. Because manufacturers 
are already on notice that new bands and air interfaces will be subject 
to hearing aid compatibility requirements upon the establishment of 
standards, and given that manufacturers will likely be involved 
themselves in the standards development process, the Commission expects 
that they will be in a position to at least begin the process of 
developing hearing aid-compatible handsets for the new bands and air 
interfaces even before the relevant standards are approved by ANSI, not 
to mention during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding. 
Furthermore, the industry's years of experience with hearing aid 
compatibility in other bands and air interfaces will enable them to 
achieve hearing aid-compatible designs more quickly than before. The 
Commission therefore adopts a minimum one-year period for manufacturers 
and Tier I carriers in order to ensure the offering of hearing aid-
compatible handsets for new bands and air interfaces as early as 
reasonably possible. Consistent with its recognition elsewhere of the 
difficulties smaller service providers may have in procuring up-to-date 
handsets, the Commission prescribes a 15-month minimum interval for 
service providers other than Tier I carriers to begin offering hearing 
aid-compatible handsets for new bands and/or air interfaces.
    54. Thus, in order to ensure that its rules continue to protect the 
ability of consumers with hearing loss to utilize services over all 
frequency bands and air interfaces for which standards exist, the 
Commission delegates authority to WTB and OET to implement rule changes 
to conform its rules to ANSI standards. The Commission takes this 
action pursuant to Section 5(c)(1) of the Communications Act, which 
grants the Commission authority to delegate any of its functions, with 
certain exceptions not relevant here. 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(1). The 
Commission finds that such rule changes do not involve novel questions 
of fact, law, or policy, and therefore are appropriately made under 
delegated authority. The Commission amends Sec. Sec.  0.241(a)(1), 
0.331(d), and 20.19 of its rules to provide the Chiefs of WTB and OET 
with this delegated authority. These amendments pertain to agency 
organization, procedure and practice. Consequently, the notice and 
comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act contained in 5 
U.S.C. 553(b) are inapplicable. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
b. Rules Adopted in Recon
    55. In the Recon, the Commission modifies the delegated authority 
and procedures adopted in the R&O by which WTB and OET may approve the 
use of future versions of the ANSI C63.19 standard to the extent that 
the changes to the standard do not raise major compliance issues. The 
Commission concludes, on further consideration, that approval by the 
Chiefs of new versions of the ANSI C63.19 standard that do not raise 
major compliance issues, and that are approved for use only as optional 
alternatives to the other approved versions of the standard, should be 
codified in the rules. Therefore, if the Chiefs determine that such a 
new version of the hearing aid compatibility technical standard should 
be approved, the Commission requires them to issue an order amending 
Sec.  20.19 as necessary to codify the approval of the new version for 
use in determining and certifying hearing aid compatibility of covered 
handsets, and the Commission delegates to the Chiefs the authority to 
conduct a notice-and-comment proceeding, to the extent required by 
statute or otherwise in the public interest, to adopt the requisite 
rule changes. The Commission does not, however, require adoption by 
notice-and-comment procedures if such procedures are not otherwise 
required by statute.
    56. As before, the Commission only authorizes the Chiefs to approve 
new versions of the ANSI C63.19 standard pursuant to this delegation of 
authority where changes in the new standard do not raise major 
compliance issues, and subject to the limitation that the Chiefs may 
only permit, not require, the use of such subsequent versions of ANSI 
C63.19 to establish hearing aid compatibility.

C. Reporting, Information, and Outreach

1. Reporting
    57. The Commission adopts substantially the reporting requirements 
proposed in the NPRM, along with certain additions and changes. First, 
the Commission elaborates on the required content of the reports in 
order to ensure that they will provide complete information to the 
Commission and to consumers. The Commission further determines to 
require the same content from all providers, regardless of size. 
Furthermore, the Commission clarifies that the reporting requirements 
apply to all manufacturers and service providers, including those that 
come under the de minimis exception to the deployment benchmarks. The 
Commission establishes new timelines for the filing of the reports. 
Finally, the Commission delegates authority to prescribe a template, 
including the authority to require electronic filing, to WTB.
    58. The Commission adopts the reporting content requirements 
proposed in the NPRM with certain elaborations and clarifications. 
These revised requirements will help ensure that the reports enable the 
Commission to fulfill its responsibilities in monitoring the status of 
access to hearing aid-compatible handsets and verifying compliance with 
its rules, and will ensure that the public has additional useful 
information on compatible handsets. Specifically, the Commission 
clarifies that manufacturers and service providers must provide the 
dates on which they began and ended offering specific models during the 
past 12 months in order to demonstrate compliance over time, instead of 
providing a once a year ``snapshot.'' The Commission further requires 
manufacturers to indicate if devices that

[[Page 25578]]

they market under separate model numbers constitute a single model for 
purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules. This information will 
enable the Commission to verify compliance with all of the hearing aid 
compatibility rules at all relevant times. Finally, the Commission 
requires each service provider to include an explanation of its 
methodology for dividing its hearing aid-compatible phones into 
different levels of functionality, which will help the Commission as 
well as the public know the range of compatible handsets that are being 
made available. The Commission requires that these reports be filed by 
all manufacturers and service providers, even those that fall within 
the de minimis exception, although not all data categories will apply 
to de minimis entities.
    59. The revised report content requirements are as follows for 
manufacturers: (1) Digital wireless phone handset models tested since 
the most recent report; (2) compliant phone models offered to service 
providers since the most recent report, identified by marketing model 
name/number(s) and FCC ID number; (3) for each such model, the air 
interface(s) and frequency band(s) over which it operates, the hearing 
aid compatibility ratings under ANSI C63.19 for each frequency band and 
air interface, the ANSI C63.19 version used, and the months in which 
the model was available since the most recent report; (4) non-compliant 
phone models offered to service providers since the most recent report, 
identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s) and FCC ID 
number; (5) for each non-compliant model, the air interface(s) over 
which it operates and the months in which the model was available since 
the most recent report; (6) total numbers of compliant and non-
compliant phone models offered to service providers for each air 
interface as of the time of the report; (7) any instance, as of the 
date of the report or since the most recent report, in which multiple 
compliant or non-compliant devices are marketed under separate model 
name/numbers but constitute a single model for purposes of the hearing 
aid compatibility rules, identifying each device by marketing model 
name/number and FCC ID number; (8) status of product labeling; and (9) 
outreach efforts.
    60. The revised report content requirements are as follows for 
service providers: (1) Compliant digital wireless phone handset models 
offered to customers since the most recent report, identified by 
marketing model name/number(s) and FCC ID number; (2) for each such 
model, the air interface(s) and frequency band(s) over which it 
operates, the hearing aid compatibility ratings under ANSI C63.19 for 
each frequency band and air interface, and the months in which the 
model was available since the most recent report; (3) non-compliant 
phone models offered since the most recent report, identifying each 
model by marketing model name/number(s) and FCC ID number; (4) for each 
non-compliant model, the air interface(s) over which it operates and 
the months in which the model was available since the most recent 
report; (5) total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone models 
offered to customers for each air interface over which the provider 
offers service as of the time of the report; (6) information related to 
the retail availability of compliant phones; (7) status of product 
labeling; (8) outreach efforts; and (9) the levels of functionality 
into which the compliant phones fall and an explanation of the service 
provider's methodology for determining levels of functionality.
    61. The Commission further determines that the same reporting 
requirements should apply to all service providers. The Commission 
rejects arguments by RCA and SouthernLINC that less information should 
be required of service providers that are not Tier I carriers. The 
Commission finds that uniform application of reporting requirements is 
necessary to inform all consumers, and the Commission is unconvinced by 
arguments that the reports will impose unreasonable burdens. In this 
regard, the Commission disagrees with those commenters that suggest 
that some of this information can be difficult to obtain or verify. 
Rather, in light of the requirements the Commission adopts, this 
information should be readily available to service providers either 
from the manufacturer's previous reports to the Commission, from the 
manufacturer's own Web site, or from the manufacturer directly. The 
Commission further rejects the proposition that some of this 
information, in particular the frequency bands and air interfaces over 
which a phone operates, is unnecessary. To the contrary, this 
information is essential to ensure correct application of its rules 
requiring deployment of hearing aid-compatible phones on a per-air 
interface basis, as well as its requirements that phones meet hearing 
aid compatibility standards for all air interfaces and frequency bands 
over which they operate. The Commission notes that even if a provider 
offers service over only one air interface, hearing aid compatibility 
over multiple air interfaces may be important to its customers who may 
use their phones when roaming.
    62. Furthermore, the Commission clarifies that even manufacturers 
and service providers that come under the de minimis exception to the 
deployment benchmarks are under an obligation to file reports to the 
Commission. Even though these entities may be exempt from other 
requirements under Sec.  20.19, it is still necessary to obtain 
information from them in order to form a complete picture of the 
availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets, as well as to inform 
consumers. For instance, consumers would benefit, if de minimis 
entities do produce or market handset models that have been tested and 
found to be hearing aid-compatible, from having access to information 
about those handsets. In addition, information regarding all handset 
models that these entities offer will enable the Commission to verify 
their eligibility for the exception. Entities that come under the de 
minimis exception will not be required to provide information other 
than that relating to the handset models that they offer. For example, 
as they are not subject to product labeling requirements, they need not 
provide information on labeling.
    63. In addition, the Commission requires each manufacturer and 
service provider that is required to offer one or more hearing aid-
compatible handset models to identify in its report, if it maintains a 
public Web site, the specific Web site address at which it provides 
information relating to the hearing aid-compatible handsets that it 
offers.
    64. The Commission requires manufacturers and service providers to 
file their initial reports under the new rules on January 15, 2009. 
Thereafter, the reports will be filed annually beginning July 15, 2009, 
for manufacturers and January 15, 2010, for service providers. The 
information in the reports shall be current through the end of the 
calendar month preceding the filing date, and the reports shall include 
historical information for the period since the entity filed its last 
report (which in most instances will be 12 months). In order to afford 
sufficient time for manufacturers and service providers to transition 
to the new data collecting and reporting regime, however, the reports 
filed in January 2009 will need to include information relating to 
compliant and non-compliant handset models offered only for the 
previous six months (i.e., beginning July 2008).
    65. The Commission finds that this schedule appropriately balances

[[Page 25579]]

manufacturers' and service providers' need for time to collect the 
information that will be required under the new reports with the 
public's interest in maintaining a steady flow of information. In 
particular, requiring the first reports to be filed in January 2009, 
two months after the next reports would have been filed under existing 
rules and 14 months after the most recent reports, affords 
manufacturers and service providers a reasonable period to begin 
collecting the new information. Although this schedule departs from the 
November and May dates proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, the 
differences are not great, and the Commission's adopted rule expands 
the period of time some entities are afforded before making their first 
reports. The Joint Consensus Plan was apparently drafted with the 
assumption that new rules would be in place before November 2007, and 
accordingly it is not clear how the proponents would intend to apply 
its proposed schedule in the current time frame. It is at least 
arguable, however, that Tier I carriers would be required to file their 
initial reports in May 2008. Manufacturers would file their first 
reports in November 2008. This time period also gives WTB an 
opportunity to devise and promulgate a standard electronic format for 
reporting. Consistent with the Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission 
finds that staggering the deadlines after the initial reports will 
allow service providers better to incorporate more recent manufacturer 
information into their reports, as well as facilitating efficient 
administrative review. In addition, the Commission disagrees with the 
Joint Consensus Plan's provision for a year's delay in reporting for 
service providers that are not Tier I carriers, particularly in light 
of its decision not to require any reports until January 2009. The 
Commission notes that in the past all service providers have had the 
same reporting obligations, and finds that this proposal would create 
an unacceptable and unnecessary gap in the availability of information. 
Only one party, RCA, filed comments supporting this aspect of the Joint 
Consensus Plan, and one smaller service provider, i wireless, 
specifically rejected the year's delay.
    66. Finally, the Commission delegates authority to prescribe a 
template, including the authority to require electronic filing, to WTB. 
The Commission finds that a standardized form would improve the quality 
and utility of the reports for the Commission, industry, and the 
public. Although at least one commenter prefers to rely on a narrative 
report format, the Commission concludes that a standardized format will 
assist the Commission and the public in understanding and analyzing the 
reports.
2. Information and Outreach
    67. In their comments, HLAA/TDI and Gallaudet/RERC offer several 
proposals for changes to the Commission's Web site and databases, as 
well as proposed requirements and recommendations for manufacturers and 
service providers. The Commission agrees with HLAA/TDI and Gallaudet/
RERC that improvements in the outreach activities of the Commission, 
manufacturers, and service providers would enhance the ability of 
consumers easily to obtain information about hearing aid-compatible 
handsets that meet their needs. The Commission therefore takes action 
on their recommendations.
    68. First, HLAA/TDI and Gallaudet/RERC propose several changes to 
the Commission's Web site, databases, and processes, including: 
Developing a single location or Web site where hearing aid users can 
find the ratings and model numbers of compliant handsets offered by 
manufacturers and service providers; adding a search function to the 
FCC's equipment authorization database that will enable consumers to 
browse among phone features by category; adding links to manufacturers' 
and service providers' Web sites from the Commission's Disability 
Rights Office (DRO)'s web page; and adopting a consumer-friendly method 
of handling hearing aid compatibility complaints that (1) Requires FCC 
resolution within 90 days, (2) provides for a separate and identifiable 
electronic and telephonic FCC receptacle for hearing aid compatibility 
complaints, and (3) facilitates the filing of formal hearing aid 
compatibility complaints.
    69. The Commission directs the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau (CGB), OET, and WTB to take these recommendations under 
advisement and to implement them to the extent feasible. The Commission 
concludes that all of these recommended actions, if feasible, would 
assist consumers. In particular, the Commission directs the 
Commission's DRO to include, on its Web site, links to the Web site 
addresses maintained by manufacturers and service providers that 
provide information on the hearing aid-compatible models that they 
offer. The idea that consumers should be able to access as much 
information as possible through easily accessible connections to 
relevant material is a fundamental one. The Commission notes, however, 
that because OET's database and the part 2 rules were designed to serve 
the equipment authorization process, there may be limits to their 
adaptability to provide accessible information on hearing aid 
compatibility certifications. In the NPRM, the Commission sought 
comment on whether to amend part 2 to require additional information 
regarding handset models in equipment authorization filings. The 
Commission defers action on these issues to a future Report and Order. 
The Commission declines at this time, in the absence of a more complete 
record, to require that hearing aid compatibility complaints be 
resolved within a particular time period, such as 90 days. The 
Commission does, however, expect that staff will make every effort to 
resolve such complaints within the shortest reasonable time frame, 
ideally within 90 days. The Commission also notes that, with its recent 
implementation of FCC Form 2000 online, the Commission has taken 
additional action to improve the manner in which it handles consumer 
complaints. In particular, FCC Form 2000C, the portion of Form 2000 
that is used for disability access complaints, includes specific 
provisions for complaints relating to the hearing aid compatibility of 
wireless telephone equipment and service. The form is designed to be 
user-friendly, asking consumers targeted questions intended to 
facilitate processing of the complaint.
    70. As proposed in the NPRM, HLAA/TDI specifically advocates 
adopting in the context of hearing aid compatibility complaints the 
contact information requirements for manufacturers and service 
providers that currently apply to complaints under Section 255 of the 
Communications Act, which governs access to telecommunications services 
by people with disabilities. Nokia Inc. (Nokia) and AT&T oppose this 
proposal, stating that ``[a]dditional actions by the Commission are not 
necessary,'' and that ``manufacturers should not be required to comply 
with Section 255's reporting requirements in the [hearing aid 
compatibility] context.'' Nokia Comments at 10.
    71. After review of the record, the Commission adopts the proposal 
in the NPRM and amends its rules accordingly. Contrary to the arguments 
of some parties, the proposal from the NPRM was not to create a new 
mandate, but simply to alter the process under the existing part 68 
mandate governing public complaints regarding hearing aid compatibility 
to make it conform to the part 6 rules that govern complaints under 
Section 255. Under the

[[Page 25580]]

Commission's part 68 complaint procedures, which are applicable to 
wireless hearing aid compatibility complaints, manufacturers and 
service providers are required to designate a service agent to the 
Administrative Council for Terminal Attachment (ACTA). A consumer 
wishing to make a complaint must first approach ACTA to secure the 
contact information for the relevant industry entity, only after which 
can the consumer actually file a complaint. This differs from the 
process for Section 255 complaints in part 6 of the rules, under which 
the contact information is provided directly to the Commission and made 
available to the public via the DRO Web site. The Commission concludes 
that requiring provision of hearing aid compatibility contact 
information directly to the Commission for posting on its Web site--
without otherwise changing the procedures for handling such 
complaints--will assist consumers and will impose little if any 
additional burden on manufacturers and service providers, who are 
already required to make the same information available to a third 
party.
    72. In addition to improvements to the Commission's Web site, 
databases, and processes, the Commission finds it essential to the 
proper functioning of its hearing aid compatibility rules that 
manufacturers and service providers make certain limited categories of 
up-to-date information available on their Web sites. Specifically, the 
Commission requires manufacturers and service providers, beginning 
January 15, 2009, to post a list of the hearing aid-compatible models 
that they offer (identified by marketing model name/number(s)), the 
hearing aid compatibility ratings of those models, and an explanation 
of the rating system. In addition, as suggested by Gallaudet/RERC, the 
Commission requires service providers to post the level of 
functionality for each model and an explanation of the service 
provider's methodology for designating levels of functionality. This 
list and related information should be updated within thirty days of 
any relevant changes. Although manufacturers and service providers are 
also required to provide this information annually to the Commission, 
such information will inevitably become dated over the course of a 
year. Thus, updated Web site postings are necessary both so that 
consumers can obtain up-to-date hearing aid compatibility information 
from their service providers and so that service providers can readily 
obtain such information from their manufacturer suppliers. Because all 
of the information that the Commission is requiring to be posted on Web 
sites is already required either in annual reports or on product 
packaging and inserts, the Commission disagrees with assertions that it 
would be unduly burdensome for manufacturers and service providers to 
procure and maintain such information. As noted with respect to service 
providers' annual reports, although information regarding handset 
compatibility is in the first instance under the control of 
manufacturers, the requirement that manufacturers post the information 
means it should be readily accessible for service providers to post as 
well. Consistent with its decision regarding reporting requirements, in 
order to afford manufacturers and service providers time to compile the 
requisite information and make the necessary changes to their Web 
sites, the Commission delays the effective date of these posting 
requirements until January 15, 2009.
    73. The Commission also requires manufacturers and service 
providers to include in their annual reports to the Commission the Web 
site address at which this information is posted. Further, if this Web 
site address ceases to be functional at any time prior to the next 
report, the Commission requires the manufacturer or service provider to 
inform the DRO of the revised address within 30 days of the change. 
These reporting requirements will enable the DRO to maintain up-to-date 
links for the public on its Web site.
    74. In addition to this required information, HLAA/TDI advocates 
that the Commission strongly urge industry to post certain other 
information on their Web sites, including: A search function for 
hearing aid compatibility data to allow consumers to browse within the 
category for features they want; a listing of hearing aid compatibility 
ratings for all handset models, not just those with ratings of 3 and 4 
(because hearing aid ratings are now available to consumers); volume 
control levels on phones; vibrating feature on phones; ring tones most 
suitable for people with hearing loss--those with low frequencies; 
devices with QWERTY keyboards that can make it easier to send e-mails 
and instant messages that supplement hearing aid compatibility; other 
features and functions on handsets; a downloadable version of a 
brochure on hearing aid-compatible handsets developed by ATIS WG6 
(print version of brochure should be available in every store, 
including independent stores); and a downloadable version of a phone 
evaluation tool that the RERC at Gallaudet is now testing on its Web 
sites and in its advertising.
    75. The Commission agrees that this information would be useful to 
consumers, and the Commission urges manufacturers and service providers 
to include it on their Web sites and in other publicity to the extent 
feasible. In recognition of the great variety of products, marketing 
practices, and Web site designs, however, the Commission does not at 
present require the posting of any specific information other than that 
previously described.
    76. Finally, the Commission clarifies that under the labeling 
requirement in Sec.  20.19(f), the M and T ratings that are required on 
the label are the overall, worst case ratings for the handset. The 
Commission recognizes that a multi-band or multi-mode handset may have 
different hearing aid compatibility ratings for different frequency 
bands or air interfaces. Consistent with its holding regarding the 
compatibility status of multi-band and multi-mode handsets, the 
Commission finds that the most useful information for consumers is a 
single ``worst case'' rating constituting the handset's lowest rating 
for any air interface or frequency band. Accordingly, while the 
Commission expects that the reports will include all hearing aid 
compatibility ratings assigned to a particular model, the labeling 
accompanying a hearing aid-compatible handset, as well as the 
information on a manufacturer or service provider's Web site, shall 
include only the lowest such rating as the rating for the handset.

D. 2010 Review

    77. No commenters objected to the proposed 2010 date for the next 
review of the hearing aid compatibility rules, although AT&T suggested 
that 2012 would be appropriate as well. The Commission therefore 
concludes to begin a further review of its hearing aid rules in 2010, 
after the May 2010 deployment benchmarks have passed.

IV. Conclusion

    78. In the R&O, the Commission adopts a number of inter-related 
changes to its wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, largely based 
on proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan. These changes update the 
requirements regarding deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets, 
reporting, and outreach, as well as the standards by which hearing aid 
compatibility will be determined. The Commission concludes that the 
changes will improve access to wireless telecommunications services for 
persons with hearing disabilities, which continues to be a critical 
goal of

[[Page 25581]]

the Commission as society increasingly relies on wireless services for 
social, business, and emergency communications.

V. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    79. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in the R&O. The 
FRFA is set forth in an appendix to the R&O.

B. Congressional Review Act

    80. The Commission will send a copy of the R&O in a report to be 
sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

C. Accessible Formats

    81. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

VI. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    82. As required by the RFA, the Commission included an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the 
policies and rules considered in the NPRM in WT Docket No. 07-250. The 
Commission sought written public comment on the NPRM in this docket, 
including comment on the IRFA. The FRFA conforms to the RFA.
    83. Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2000 provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive 
bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band, the 
Commission believes that it would serve the public interest to analyze 
the possible significant economic impact of the proposed policy and 
rule changes in this band on small entities. Accordingly, this FRFA 
contains an analysis of this impact in connection with all spectrum 
that falls within the scope of the R&O, including spectrum in the 746-
806 MHz Band.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    84. In the R&O, the Commission revises Sec.  20.19 of the rules 
containing the hearing aid compatibility requirements applicable to 
providers of public mobile services and manufacturers of digital 
wireless handsets used in the delivery of those services. Specifically, 
the Commission adopts benchmark requirements for future deployment of 
hearing aid-compatible handsets, and related requirements, based on the 
proposals set forth in the NPRM and based on a Joint Consensus Plan 
developed by an ATIS working group that included nationwide carriers, 
handset manufacturers, and several organizations representing the 
interests of consumers with hearing loss. The Commission finds that 
these new handset deployment obligations for both manufacturers and 
service providers will ensure that its rules continue to be effective 
in an evolving marketplace of new technologies and services. Because 
service providers not in the Tier I category were not included in the 
Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission sought comment on and adopts in 
the R&O similar rule changes, with modified deadlines, for these 
entities. These requirements and deadlines are intended both to promote 
the accessibility of hearing aid-compatible handsets to all deaf and 
hard-of-hearing consumers, and to recognize the impediments to smaller 
and regional service providers obtaining the most recent handset 
models. In order to facilitate the continuing availability of a variety 
of hearing aid-compatible handset models to consumers, the Commission 
also adopts a requirement that manufacturers annually ``refresh'' their 
hearing aid-compatible offerings with new models, and a requirement 
that service providers offer hearing aid-compatible models with 
differing levels of functionality. The Commission further adopts an 
interim measure whereby phones with Wi-Fi capability that otherwise 
meet hearing aid compatibility standards may be counted as hearing aid-
compatible, but the manufacturer and service provider must clearly 
disclose that they have not been rated with respect to their Wi-Fi 
operation. Finally, the Commission revises the annual reporting 
obligations of manufacturers and service providers. These amendments 
will, among other things, render the reports more useful to consumers 
who wish to know the compatibility ratings of different handset models 
that have been certified as hearing aid-compatible. In addition, to 
ensure the availability of such information on a more current basis to 
service providers and consumers wishing to offer or purchase hearing 
aid-compatible handsets, the Commission requires manufacturers and 
service providers to provide up-to-date information on their Web sites 
regarding their hearing aid-compatible handset models.
    85. The Commission states that these inter-related changes, taken 
together and largely supported by manufacturers, service providers, and 
consumers with hearing loss, will further the statutory objective to 
``ensure reasonable access to telephone service by persons with 
impaired hearing.'' 47 U.S.C. 610(a). Among other things, the 
Commission explains that the most disadvantaged wireless users in the 
deaf and hard-of-hearing community, who are more likely to rely on 
telecoil-equipped hearing aids, will benefit from rule changes that 
increase requirements to offer handsets with inductive coupling 
capability. The Commission further states that the requirements that 
manufacturers refresh their product offerings annually and that service 
providers offer hearing aid-compatible handset models at differing 
functionality levels will help to ensure that consumers with hearing 
loss have a variety of handsets available to them, including handsets 
with innovative user features, a goal that the Commission has sought to 
promote since 2003. Finally, the Commission notes its objective to 
ensure that the impact of the rules remains as technology-impartial as 
possible while also ensuring availability of hearing aid-compatible 
handsets to consumers.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    86. No comments specifically addressed the IRFA. Nonetheless, small 
entity issues raised in comments are addressed in the FRFA in sections 
D and E.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    87. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may 
be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria

[[Page 25582]]

established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
    88. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The Commission 
defined ``small business'' for the wireless communications services 
(WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million 
for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' as 
an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the 
three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The 
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In 
the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 
1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as 
very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that 
qualified as a small business entity.
    89. 700 MHz Guard Bands Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Bands Order, 
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and 
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility 
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment 
payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three 
years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An auction of 
52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses for each of two spectrum blocks 
commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of 
the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five 
of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. 
A second auction of remaining 700 MHz Guard Bands licenses commenced on 
February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the 
licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was 
a small business that won a total of two licenses. Subsequently, in the 
700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission reorganized the 
licenses pursuant to an agreement among most of the licensees, 
resulting in a spectral relocation of the first set of paired spectrum 
block licenses, and an elimination of the second set of paired spectrum 
block licenses (many of which were already vacant, reclaimed by the 
Commission from Nextel). A single licensee that did not participate in 
the agreement was grandfathered in the initial spectral location for 
its two licenses in the second set of paired spectrum blocks. 
Accordingly, at this time there are 54 licenses in the 700 MHz Guard 
Bands and there is no auction data applicable to determine which are 
held by small businesses.
    90. 700 MHz Band Commercial Licenses. There is 80 megahertz of non-
Guard Band spectrum in the 700 MHz Band that is designated for 
commercial use: 698-757, 758-763, 776-787, and 788-793 MHz Bands. With 
one exception, the Commission adopted criteria for defining two groups 
of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for 
bidding credits at auction. These two categories are: (1) ``Small 
business,'' which is defined as an entity that has attributed average 
annual gross revenues that do not exceed $40 million during the 
preceding three years; and (2) ``very small business,'' which is 
defined as an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that 
do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years. In Block C of 
the Lower 700 MHz Band (710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz), which was 
licensed on the basis of 734 Cellular Market Areas, the Commission 
adopted a third criterion for determining eligibility for bidding 
credits: An ``entrepreneur,'' which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA has approved these small size standards.
    91. An auction of 740 licenses for Blocks C (710-716 MHz and 740-
746 MHz) and D (716-722 MHz) of the Lower 700 MHz Band commenced on 
August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, 
and included 256 licenses: Five EAG licenses and 251 CMA licenses. 
Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status 
and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur 
status and won 154 licenses.
    92. The auction for the remaining 62 megahertz of commercial 
spectrum began on January 24, 2008. A total of 214 applicants were 
found to be qualified bidders, of which 38 applicants claimed status as 
small businesses and 81 applicants claimed status as very small 
businesses.
    93. Government Transfer Bands. The Commission adopted small 
business size standards for the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, 
and the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands. Specifically, 
with respect to these bands, the Commission defined an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not 
exceeding $40 million as a ``small business,'' and an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not 
exceeding $15 million as a ``very small business.'' SBA has approved 
these small business size standards for the aforementioned bands. 
Correspondingly, the Commission adopted a bidding credit of 15 percent 
for ``small businesses'' and a bidding credit of 25 percent for ``very 
small businesses.'' This bidding credit structure was found to have 
been consistent with the Commission's schedule of bidding credits, 
which may be found at Sec.  1.2110(f)(2) of the Commission's rules. The 
Commission found that these two definitions will provide a variety of 
businesses seeking to provide a variety of services with opportunities 
to participate in the auction of licenses for this spectrum and will 
afford such licensees, who may have varying capital costs, substantial 
flexibility for the provision of services. The Commission noted that it 
had long recognized that bidding preferences for qualifying bidders 
provide such bidders with an opportunity to compete successfully 
against large, well-financed entities. The Commission also noted that 
it had found that the use of tiered or graduated small business 
definitions is useful in furthering its mandate under Section 309(j) to 
promote opportunities for and disseminate licenses to a wide variety of 
applicants. An auction for one license in the 1670-1674 MHz band 
commenced on April 30, 2003 and closed the same day. One license was 
awarded.
    94. Advanced Wireless Services. In the AWS-1 Report and Order, the 
Commission adopted rules that affect applicants who wish to provide 
service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands. The Commission 
anticipated that the services that will be deployed in these bands may 
have capital requirements comparable to those in the broadband Personal 
Communications Service (PCS), and that the licensees in these bands 
will be presented with issues and costs similar to those presented to 
broadband PCS licensees. Further, at the time the broadband PCS service 
was established,

[[Page 25583]]

it was similarly anticipated that it would facilitate the introduction 
of a new generation of service. Therefore, the AWS-1 Report and Order 
adopts the same small business size definition that the Commission 
adopted for the broadband PCS service and that the SBA approved. In 
particular, the AWS-1 Report and Order defines a ``small business'' as 
an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three 
years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an 
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years 
not exceeding $15 million. The AWS-1 Report and Order also provides 
small businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very small 
businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent.
    95. Wireless Cable Systems. The SBA small business size standard 
for the broad census category of ``Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers-except satellite'' appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS. 
The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, 
which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. Wireless 
cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service 
(``BRS''), formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (``MDS''), and the 
Educational Broadband Service (``EBS''), formerly Instructional 
Television Fixed Service (``ITFS''), to transmit video programming and 
provide broadband services to residential subscribers. These services 
were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video 
programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over the 
past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on 
providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. The Commission 
estimates that the number of wireless cable subscribers is 
approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local Multipoint Distribution 
Service (``LMDS'') is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave 
service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. The SBA 
small business size standard for the broad census category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS. 
To gauge small business prevalence for MDS, ITFS and LMDS, the 
Commission must use current census data that are based on the previous 
category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated 
size standard; that size standard was: All such firms having $13.5 
million or less in annual receipts. This data was gathered when Cable 
and Other Program Distribution was the applicable NAICS Code size 
standard under SBA.
    96. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS 
entities in the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS 
auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that had 
annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous 
three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context 
of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 
bidders won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status 
as a small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 
61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business 
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees 
that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million and are 
thus considered small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable 
operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS 
auction fall under the SBA small business size standard for Cable and 
Other Program Distribution. Information available to us indicates that 
there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do 
not generate revenue in excess of $13.5 million annually. Therefore, 
the Commission estimates that there are approximately 850 small entity 
MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's 
auction rules.
    97. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small 
entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small 
business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). The Commission estimates 
that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100 
of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, the 
Commission estimates that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small 
entities.
    98. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions, the Commission defined a 
small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues of 
less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. Moreover, 
the Commission added an additional classification for a ``very small 
business,'' which was defined as an entity that had annual average 
gross revenues of less than $15 million in the previous three calendar 
years. These definitions of ``small business'' and ``very small 
business'' in the context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by 
the SBA. In the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of 
the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small 
businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses. Based 
on this information, the Commission believes that the number of small 
LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction 
and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small 
entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's 
auction rules.
    99. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for small businesses in the category ``Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).'' Under that SBA 
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For 
the census category of ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications,'' Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 
1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
category and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.
    100. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business 
size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross 
revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. 
For Block F, an additional small business size standard for ``very 
small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 
million for the preceding three calendar years. These small business 
size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been 
approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small 
business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and 
B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in 
the Block C auctions. A total of 93 ``small'' and ``very small'' 
business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for 
Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 
C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning 
bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 
422 C and F PCS licenses in Auction 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in 
this auction, 29 qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. 
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including

[[Page 25584]]

judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F 
Block licenses being available for grant.
    101. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards ``small 
entity'' bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that 
had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous 
calendar years. The Commission awards ``very small entity'' bidding 
credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each 
of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small 
business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The Commission has 
held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 
bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995, and closed on 
April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small 
businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area 
licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 
200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 
8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses 
under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for 
the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for 
the 800 MHz band was held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 
2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business 
status won five licenses.
    102. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses 
for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was 
completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area 
licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band 
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In 
an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic 
Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were 
sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed ``small business'' status 
and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning 
bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status 
as small business.
    103. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR 
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in 
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms 
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended 
implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have 
annual revenues of no more than $15 million, or have no more than 1,500 
employees. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission 
believes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining 
existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small 
entities, as that small business size standard is established by the 
SBA.
    104. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission uses the SBA 
definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite),'' i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. 
There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer 
small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be 
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    105. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission uses the SBA 
definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite),'' i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. 
There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone 
Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify 
as small entities under the SBA definition.
    106. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on 
several ultra high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast channels that are not 
used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering 
the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in 
this service. The Commission uses the SBA definition applicable to 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),'' i.e., an 
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission is unable 
at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as 
small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission assumes, for 
purposes of this analysis, that all of the 55 licensees are small 
entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
    107. Mobile Satellite Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 
the U.S. Small Business Administration has developed a small business 
size standard specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The 
appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite 
Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they 
have $13.5 million or less in annual revenues. Currently, the 
Commission's records show that there are 31 entities authorized to 
provide voice and data MSS in the United States. The Commission does 
not have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of these 
parties are small entities. The Commission notes that small businesses 
are not likely to have the financial ability to become MSS system 
operators because of high implementation costs, including construction 
of satellite space stations and rocket launch, associated with 
satellite systems and services.
    108. Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA has 
established a small business size standard for wireless communications 
equipment manufacturers. Under the Radio and Television Broadcasting 
and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing standard, firms are 
considered small if they have 750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau 
data for 1997 indicates that, for that year, there were a total of 
1,215 establishments in this category. Of those, there were 1,150 that 
had employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 
500 to 999. The Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
communications equipment manufacturers are small businesses.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    109. The Commission adopts reporting and outreach requirements that 
will involve some recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for 
small entities. Under the decision in the R&O, manufacturers and 
service providers, including those that are small entities, will 
continue to file regular reports with the Commission detailing their 
hearing aid compatibility efforts. In order to improve the existing 
reports for consumers and industry and meet the Commission's hearing 
aid compatibility objectives (see section A), however, the Commission 
adopts new content requirements for these reports. The Commission also 
adopts a new outreach obligation for manufacturers and service 
providers that maintain public Web sites to post up-to-date information 
involving some of this content, and to report and keep updated to the 
Commission a working link to the web location at which this information 
is posted. Finally, because many handset models are currently being 
offered that operate over both established CMRS interfaces and the Wi-
Fi air interface for which no established hearing aid compatibility 
standards exist, the Commission allows such phones on an interim basis 
to be counted as hearing aid-compatible if

[[Page 25585]]

they otherwise qualify as hearing aid-compatible under its rules, but 
requires consumers to be informed that those phones have not been rated 
for hearing aid compatibility with respect to their Wi-Fi operations. 
Section E summarizes additional detail about these reporting and 
outreach requirements that the Commission adopts in the R&O.
    110. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements resulting from the R&O will apply to all entities in the 
same manner. As discussed in section E, the Commission finds that 
applying the same rules equally to all entities in this context 
promotes fairness. The Commission does not believe that the costs and/
or administrative burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden 
small entities. Moreover, any costs and burdens assumed by small 
entities will be offset by the benefits obtained by consumers. The 
revisions the Commission adopts should benefit consumers by giving them 
more information and more options for gaining access to hearing aid 
compatibility information.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    111. The RFA requires an agency to describe in the IRFA any 
significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its 
proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four 
alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting 
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of 
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The 
Commission considered these alternatives with respect to all of the 
requirements that it is imposing on small entities in the R&O, and this 
FRFA incorporates by reference all discussion in the R&O that considers 
the impact on small entities of the rules adopted by the Commission. In 
addition, the Commission's consideration of those issues as to which 
the impact on small entities was specifically discussed in the record 
is summarized as follows:
    112. Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment Benchmarks and 
Deadlines. In accordance with its objective of furthering the 
availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to the deaf and hard-
of-hearing community, the Commission considered several different 
proposals for handset deployment benchmarks and deadlines. These 
alternatives balanced several different approaches to improving 
wireless services for deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers. For example, 
the Commission considered the possibility of applying to small entities 
different benchmarks for offering handset models meeting M3 and T3 (or 
higher) hearing aid compatibility ratings. Six parties representing 
regional or smaller service providers submitted comments in favor of 
lower benchmarks for smaller service providers.
    113. Ultimately, the Commission adopted identical benchmark 
alternatives for all manufacturers and all service providers (including 
small manufacturers and service providers). The Commission decided on a 
single set of deployment benchmark alternatives for all service 
providers (other than those coming under the de minimis exception) in 
accordance with its objective of furthering the availability of hearing 
aid-compatible handsets for all consumers regardless of where they 
reside. Under these alternatives for both M3 and T3 ratings, service 
providers may meet hearing aid compatibility standards for either a 
minimum number or minimum percentage of the handset models that they 
offer, whichever is less. Thus, under the percentage alternative, 
service providers with smaller product lines, including many small 
entities, are relieved of the burden of having to offer larger numbers 
of hearing aid-compatible models required of larger service providers. 
The Commission considered the alternative of reducing the benchmarks 
still further for smaller service providers, but determined that the 
increased relief of burdens that would be achieved by doing so was 
outweighed by the public interest in ensuring availability of hearing 
aid-compatible handsets to all consumers who need them, which is the 
primary objective of this proceeding.
    114. In addition, to minimize the economic burden to service 
providers that are small entities, the Commission extended future 
hearing aid compatibility compliance deadlines for non-nationwide 
service providers by three months. The Commission provided this 
additional time in recognition that smaller service providers have few 
handset options and more difficulty in obtaining the newest offerings 
than their nationwide counterparts. In reaching this decision, the 
Commission considered and rejected other alternatives. In particular, 
five non-nationwide carriers submitted comments asking for extended 
deadlines of six months to one year following Tier I carriers' 
deadlines. The Commission did not agree with the extension of deadlines 
beyond three months, because it determined that such action would 
amount to an unacceptable and unnecessary denial of handset benefits to 
consumers. The Commission noted that the extension of three months is 
consistent with past orders where it has found that many smaller 
service providers justified waivers of approximately three months from 
prior hearing aid compatibility deadlines, but denied most requests for 
longer periods of delay.
    115. In considering these deployment benchmarks and deadlines, the 
Commission also adopted the proposal of the Joint Consensus plan to 
retain the existing de minimis exception. Under this exception, 
manufacturers and service providers that offer two or fewer digital 
wireless handset models in the U.S. per air interface are exempt from 
hearing aid compatibility requirements (other than certain reporting 
requirements), and those offering three handset models per air 
interface are required to offer one hearing aid-compatible model. The 
Commission kept this rule, which minimizes economic impact on certain 
small entities, in recognition that exempting from hearing aid 
compatibility requirements all companies with very small product lines 
promotes innovation and competition.
    116. Other Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment Obligations. 
In addition to handset deployment benchmarks and deadlines, the 
Commission adopted rules requiring handset manufacturers to refresh 
their hearing aid-compatible product offerings annually, and requiring 
service providers to offer to consumers hearing aid-compatible handsets 
with differing levels of functionality. The objective of these rules is 
to ensure that hearing aid users can select from a variety of compliant 
handset models, with varying features and prices. In adopting these 
rules, the Commission considered comments of several smaller service 
providers that the requirement to offer compatible models with 
differing levels of functionality is unnecessary and intrusive as 
applied to non-nationwide service providers. In response, the 
Commission acknowledged that it does not expect a service provider with 
four hearing aid-compatible models, for example, necessarily to offer 
as many levels of functionality or as broad a range of product 
offerings as a provider with eight or more models. Therefore, the 
Commission crafted the rule to afford service providers flexibility to

[[Page 25586]]

define their levels of functionality in a manner appropriate to their 
situation. Nonetheless, the Commission determined that even the 
smallest service providers should be able to distinguish among their 
offerings in some manner, and that requiring them to do so offers 
benefits to consumers that outweigh the relatively small burden on 
small entities.
    117. Reporting, Information, and Outreach. As noted in section D, 
the Commission adopted reporting and other compliance requirements that 
will apply to all entities irrespective of their size. The R&O requires 
manufacturers and all service providers to file reports annually. This 
requirement to file annual reports continues a requirement that exists 
under the current rules. However, the R&O adds new required content to 
the reports, including: (1) Model name/numbers and FCC ID numbers; (2) 
the air interfaces and frequency bands over which each model operates; 
(3) information regarding handset models offered throughout the period 
since the previous report, including the months during which each model 
was available; and (4) for service providers, their models' levels of 
functionality and their methodology for dividing hearing aid-compatible 
handset models into different levels of functionality.
    118. The Commission in the past has stated that annual hearing aid 
compatibility reports serve a dual purpose of assisting the Commission 
in monitoring handset deployment progress and providing valuable 
information to the public concerning the technical testing and 
commercial availability of hearing aid compatible handsets for 
consumers. The new content requirements in the R&O will result in 
better information to the Commission and to consumers. Some comments on 
the NPRM asserted that additional reporting requirements would be 
burdensome, particularly to smaller service providers, and the 
Commission considered whether any alternatives could serve consumers' 
needs in a manner less burdensome to small entities. As the Commission 
found, however, all of the information to be included in the reports is 
either within the service provider's control or can be readily gathered 
from manufacturers' Web sites or their previous reports. Thus, the 
Commission found that these reports will not impose any unreasonable 
burden on manufacturers and service providers, whether large or small. 
Furthermore, in order to ensure proper implementation of the hearing 
aid compatibility rules and to consumers, the Commission found it 
extremely important to obtain the information in question from all 
service providers without exception. Accordingly, the Commission found 
that other alternatives would not provide it with the information 
necessary to accomplish its objectives.
    119. The Commission also considered whether, as advocated by one 
commenter, the initial reports under the new rules should be delayed by 
one year for service providers that are not Tier I carriers. The 
Commission found that this proposal would create an unacceptable and 
unnecessary gap in the availability of information. Moreover, in order 
to ease the burden of compliance for all manufacturers and service 
providers, the Commission determined not to require the next reports 
from any entities until January 15, 2009.
    120. The Commission further authorized the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau to prescribe a uniform template for the 
annual reports and require electronic filing. The Commission considered 
whether to allow regulated entities, including small entities, 
alternatively to use a narrative format. To assist the Commission and 
consumers in understanding and analyzing the reports, it concluded that 
a uniform, electronic format will not impose a significant increase in 
economic burdens.
    121. In addition to regular reporting, the R&O will require 
manufacturers and service providers that have public Web sites to post 
certain information, including the hearing aid-compatible handset 
models that they offer, the ratings of those models, an explanation of 
the rating system, and, for service providers, those models' levels of 
functionality and their methodology for determining levels of 
functionality. This information must be kept current within 30 days. In 
addition, service providers must include this web address in their 
reports to the Commission, and inform the Commission within 30 days if 
the address ceases to be functional. As with the annual reports, the 
Commission considered whether it could adopt less burdensome 
requirements for small entities, and concluded that it needed to impose 
the same requirements on all manufacturers and service providers to 
serve the purpose of providing critical information to all consumers. 
Moreover, because all of the information to be posted is also required 
in the reports to the Commission or in packaging inserts, the burden of 
maintaining it on the Web site should be small. Finally, as with the 
reports, the Commission eased the burden of coming into compliance for 
all entities by delaying the effective date of this requirement until 
January 15, 2009.
    122. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification (FRFC) for Order on 
Reconsideration and Erratum. The modifications in the Recon to the 
Commission process for approving new versions of the hearing aid 
compatibility technical standard do not place any new burdens on small 
entities. Therefore, the Commission certifies, pursuant to Section 
605(b) of the RFA, that the action taken in the Recon will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Report to Congress

    123. The Commission will send a copy of the R&O, including the 
FRFA, and a copy of the Recon, including the FRFC, in a report to be 
sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a 
copy of the R&O, including the FRFA, and a copy of the Recon, including 
the FRFC, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. Copies of the 
R&O and FRFA and the Recon and FRFC (or summaries thereof) are also 
being published in the Federal Register.

VII. Ordering Clauses

    124. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 
4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 610, the R&O is hereby adopted.
    125. It is further ordered that parts 0, 20 and 68 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR parts 0, 20 and 68, are amended as specified 
in an Appendix to the R&O, effective June 6, 2008.
    126. It is further ordered that the information collections 
contained in the R&O will become effective following approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document 
at a later date establishing the effective date.
    127. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration.
    128. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority of 
Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 610, and Section 1.108 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.108, the Recon is hereby adopted.
    129. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and

[[Page 25587]]

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Recon, including the FRFC, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

    Organization and functions (government agencies).

47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment. 
Incorporation by Reference.

47 CFR Part 68

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 20, and 68 as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.


0
2. Section 0.241 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  0.241  Authority delegated.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Notices of proposed rulemaking and of inquiry and final orders 
in rulemaking proceedings, inquiry proceedings and non-editorial orders 
making changes, except that the Chief of the Office of Engineering and 
Technology is delegated authority, together with the Chief of the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to adopt certain technical 
standards applicable to hearing aid compatibility under Sec.  20.19 of 
this chapter, as specified in Sec.  20.19(k).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 0.331 is amended by adding a new sentence after the second 
sentence in paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  0.331  Authority delegated.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * Adoption of certain technical standards applicable to 
hearing aid compatibility under Sec.  20.19 of this chapter made 
together with the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology, as 
specified in Sec.  20.19(k) of this chapter, also need not be referred 
to the Commission. * * *
* * * * *

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
4. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, 332, and 710 
unless otherwise noted.

0
5. Section 20.19 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  20.19  Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.

    (a) Scope of section; definitions. (1) The hearing aid 
compatibility requirements of this section apply to providers of 
digital CMRS in the United States to the extent that they offer real-
time, two-way switched voice or data service that is interconnected 
with the public switched network and utilizes an in-network switching 
facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish 
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls, and such service is provided 
over frequencies in the 800-950 MHz or 1.6-2.5 GHz bands using any air 
interface for which technical standards are stated in the standard 
document ``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of 
Compatibility Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing 
Aids,'' American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.19-2007 (June 
8, 2007).
    (2) The requirements of this section also apply to the 
manufacturers of the wireless handsets that are used in delivery of the 
services specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    (i) Manufacturer refers to a wireless handset manufacturer to which 
the requirements of this section apply.
    (ii) Model refers to a wireless handset device that a manufacturer 
has designated as a distinct device model, consistent with its own 
marketing practices. However, if a manufacturer assigns different model 
device designations solely to distinguish units sold to different 
carriers, or to signify other distinctions that do not relate to either 
form, features, or capabilities, such designations shall not count as 
distinct models for purposes of this section.
    (iii) Service provider refers to a provider of digital CMRS to 
which the requirements of this section apply.
    (iv) Tier I carrier refers to a CMRS provider that offers such 
service nationwide.
    (b) Hearing aid compatibility; technical standards. A wireless 
handset used for digital CMRS only over the frequency bands and air 
interfaces referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is hearing 
aid-compatible with regard to radio frequency interference or inductive 
coupling if it meets the applicable technical standard(s) set forth in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section for all frequency bands 
and air interfaces over which it operates, and the handset has been 
certified as compliant with the test requirements for the applicable 
standard pursuant to Sec.  2.1033(d) of this chapter. A wireless 
handset that incorporates a Wi-Fi air interface is hearing aid-
compatible if the handset otherwise satisfies the requirements of this 
paragraph.
    (1) For radio frequency interference.
    (i) Applicable technical standards prior to 2010. Beginning June 6, 
2008 and until January 1, 2010, a wireless handset submitted for 
equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing 
aid compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the M3 rating associated 
with the technical standard set forth in either the standard document 
``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility 
Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-
2006 (June 12, 2006) or ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007)--each available 
for purchase from the American National Standards Institute. Any grants 
of certification issued before June 6, 2008 under previous versions of 
ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes.
    (ii) Applicable technical standards beginning in 2010. On or after 
January 1, 2010, a wireless handset submitted for equipment 
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid 
compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the M3 rating associated with 
the technical standard set forth in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007). 
Any grants of certification issued before January 1, 2010, under the 
earlier versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid 
compatibility purposes.
    (2) For inductive coupling.
    (i) Applicable technical standards prior to 2010. Beginning June 6, 
2008 and until January 1, 2010, a wireless handset submitted for 
equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing 
aid compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the T3 rating associated 
with the technical standard set forth in either the standard

[[Page 25588]]

document ``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of 
Compatibility Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing 
Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-2006 (June 12, 2006) or ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 
2007). Any grants of certification issued before June 6, 2008 under 
previous versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid 
compatibility purposes.
    (ii) Applicable technical standards beginning in 2010. On or after 
January 1, 2010, a wireless handset submitted for equipment 
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid 
compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the T3 rating associated with 
the technical standard set forth in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007). 
Any grants of certification issued before January 1, 2010, under the 
earlier versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid 
compatibility purposes.
    (3) [Reserved].
    (4) All factual questions of whether a wireless handset meets the 
technical standard(s) of this paragraph shall be referred for 
resolution to the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    (5) The following standards are incorporated by reference in this 
section: American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards 
Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility, C63TM, 
``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility 
Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-
2006 (June 12, 2006), Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, Inc., publisher; and American National Standards Institute 
Accredited Standards Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 
C63TM, ``American National Standard Methods of Measurement 
of Compatibility Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing 
Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007), Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, Inc., publisher. These incorporations by 
reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are 
incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of 
any change in these materials will be published in the Federal 
Register. The materials are available for inspection at the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th St., SW., Reference 
Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 and at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of these materials at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go 
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    The materials are also available for purchase from IEEE Operations 
Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141, by calling (732) 981-
0060, or going to http://www.ieee.org/portal/site.
    (c) Phase-in of requirements relating to radio frequency 
interference. The following applies to each manufacturer and service 
provider that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the 
services specified in paragraph (a) of this section and that does not 
fall within the de minimis exception set forth in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (1) Manufacturers.
    (i) Number of hearing aid-compatible handset models offered. For 
each digital air interface for which it offers wireless handsets to 
service providers, each manufacturer of wireless handsets must:
    (A) If it offers four to six models, ensure that at least two of 
its handset models offered to service providers comply with the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or
    (B) If it offers more than six models, ensure that at least one-
third of its handset models offered to service providers (rounded down 
to the nearest whole number) comply with the requirements set forth in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (ii) Refresh requirement. Beginning in calendar year 2009, and for 
each year thereafter that it elects to produce a new model, each 
manufacturer that offers any new model for a particular air interface 
during the calendar year must ``refresh'' its offerings of hearing aid-
compatible handset models by offering a mix of new and existing models 
that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section according to the 
following requirements:
    (A) For manufacturers that offer three models per air interface, at 
least one new model rated M3 or higher shall be introduced every other 
calendar year.
    (B) For manufacturers that offer four or more models operating over 
a particular air interface, the number of models rated M3 or higher 
that must be new models introduced during that calendar year is equal 
to one-half of the minimum number of models rated M3 or higher required 
for that air interface (rounded up to the nearest whole number).
    (2) Tier I carriers. For each digital air interface for which it 
offers wireless handsets to customers, each Tier I carrier must either:
    (i) Ensure that at least fifty (50) percent of the handset models 
it offers comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, calculated 
based on the total number of unique digital wireless handset models the 
carrier offers nationwide; or
    (ii) Ensure that it offers, at a minimum, the following specified 
number of handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section:
    (A) Prior to February 15, 2009, at least eight (8) handset models;
    (B) Beginning February 15, 2009, at least nine (9) handset models; 
and
    (C) Beginning February 15, 2010, at least ten (10) handset models.
    (3) Service providers other than Tier I carriers. For each digital 
air interface for which it offers wireless handsets to customers, each 
service provider other than a Tier I carrier must:
    (i) Prior to September 7, 2008, include in the handset models it 
offers at least two handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section;
    (ii) Beginning September 7, 2008, either:
    (A) Ensure that at least fifty (50) percent of the handset models 
it offers comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, calculated 
based on the total number of unique digital wireless handset models the 
service provider offers nationwide; or
    (B) Ensure that it offers, at a minimum, the following specified 
number of handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section:
    (1) Until May 15, 2009, at least eight (8) handset models;
    (2) Beginning May 15, 2009, at least nine (9) handset models; and
    (3) Beginning May 15, 2010, at least ten (10) handset models.
    (4) All service providers. The following requirements apply to Tier 
I carriers and all other service providers.
    (i) In-store testing. Each service provider must make available for 
consumers to test, in each retail store owned or operated by the 
provider, all of its handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section.
    (ii) Offering models with differing levels of functionality. Each 
service provider must offer its customers a range of hearing aid-
compatible models with differing levels of functionality (e.g., 
operating capabilities, features offered, prices). Each provider may 
determine the criteria for determining these differing levels of 
functionality, and must disclose its methodology to the Commission 
pursuant to paragraph (i)(3)(vii) of this section.
    (d) Phase-in of requirements relating to inductive coupling 
capability. The following applies to each manufacturer

[[Page 25589]]

and service provider that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery 
of the services specified in paragraph (a) of this section and that 
does not fall within the de minimis exception set forth in paragraph 
(e) of this section.
    (1) Manufacturers. Each manufacturer offering to service providers 
four or more handset models in a digital air interface for use in the 
United States or imported for use in the United States must ensure that 
it offers to service providers, at a minimum, the following number of 
handset models that comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, whichever number is greater in any given year:
    (i) At least two (2) handset models in that air interface; or
    (ii) At least the following percentage of handset models (rounded 
down to the nearest whole number):
    (A) Beginning February 15, 2009, at least twenty (20) percent of 
its handset models in that air interface, provided that, of any such 
models introduced during calendar year 2009, one model may be rated 
using ANSI C63.19-2006 (June 12, 2006), and all other models introduced 
during that year or subsequent years shall be rated using ANSI C63.19-
2007 (June 8, 2007) or subsequently adopted version as may be approved 
pursuant to paragraph (k);
    (B) Beginning February 15, 2010, at least twenty-five (25) percent 
of its handset models in that air interface; and
    (C) Beginning February 15, 2011, at least one-third of its handset 
models in that air interface.
    (2) Tier I carriers. For each digital air interface for which it 
offers wireless handsets to service providers, each Tier I carrier 
must:
    (i) Ensure that at least one-third of the handset models it offers 
comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, calculated based on the 
total number of unique digital wireless handset models the carrier 
offers nationwide; or
    (ii) Ensure that it offers, at a minimum, the following specified 
number of handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section:
    (A) Prior to February 15, 2009, at least three (3) handset models;
    (B) Beginning February 15, 2009, at least five (5) handset models;
    (C) Beginning February 15, 2010, at least seven (7) handset models; 
and
    (D) Beginning February 15, 2011, at least ten (10) handset models.
    (3) Service providers other than Tier I carriers. For each digital 
air interface for which it offers wireless handsets to customers, each 
service provider other than a Tier I carrier must:
    (i) Prior to September 7, 2008, include in the handset models it 
offers at least two handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section;
    (ii) Beginning September 7, 2008, either:
    (A) Ensure that at least one-third of the handset models it offers 
comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, calculated based on the 
total number of unique digital wireless handset models the carrier 
offers nationwide; or
    (B) Ensure that it offers, at a minimum, the following specified 
number of handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section:
    (1) Until May 15, 2009, at least three (3) handset models;
    (2) Beginning May 15, 2009, at least five (5) handset models;
    (3) Beginning May 15, 2010, at least seven (7) handset models; and
    (4) Beginning May 15, 2011, at least ten (10) handset models.
    (4) All service providers. The following requirements apply to Tier 
I carriers and all other service providers.
    (i) In-store testing. Each service provider must make available for 
consumers to test, in each retail store owned or operated by the 
provider, all of its handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(2) 
of this section.
    (ii) Offering models with differing levels of functionality. Each 
service provider must offer its customers a range of hearing aid-
compatible models with differing levels of functionality (e.g., 
operating capabilities, features offered, prices). Each provider may 
determine the criteria for determining these differing levels of 
functionality, and must disclose its methodology to the Commission 
pursuant to paragraph (i)(3)(vii) of this section.
    (e) De minimis exception. (1) Manufacturers or service providers 
that offer two or fewer digital wireless handsets in an air interface 
in the United States are exempt from the requirements of this section 
in connection with that air interface, except with regard to the 
reporting requirements in paragraph (i) of this section. Service 
providers that obtain handsets only from manufacturers that offer two 
or fewer digital wireless handset models in an air interface in the 
United States are likewise exempt from the requirements of this section 
other than paragraph (i) of this section in connection with that air 
interface.
    (2) Manufacturers or service providers that offer three digital 
wireless handset models in an air interface must offer at least one 
handset model compliant with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 
section in that air interface. Service providers that obtain handsets 
only from manufacturers that offer three digital wireless handset 
models in an air interface in the United States are required to offer 
at least one handset model in that air interface compliant with 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (f) Labeling and disclosure requirements. (1) Labeling 
requirements. Manufacturers and service providers shall ensure that 
handsets that are hearing aid-compatible, as defined in paragraph (b) 
of this section, clearly display the rating, as defined in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, on the packaging material of the 
handset. In the event that a hearing aid-compatible handset achieves 
different radio interference or inductive coupling ratings over 
different air interfaces or different frequency bands, the RF 
interference reduction and inductive coupling capability ratings 
displayed shall be the lowest rating assigned to that handset for any 
air interface or frequency band. An explanation of the ANSI C63.19 
rating system must also be included in the device's user's manual or as 
an insert in the packaging material for the handset.
    (2) Disclosure requirement relating to handsets with Wi-Fi 
capability. Beginning December 7, 2008, each manufacturer and service 
provider shall ensure that, wherever it provides hearing aid 
compatibility ratings for a handset model that incorporates a Wi-Fi air 
interface, it discloses to consumers, by clear and effective means 
(e.g., inclusion of call-out cards or other media, revisions to 
packaging materials, supplying of information on Web sites) that the 
handset has not been rated for hearing aid compatibility with respect 
to Wi-Fi operation.
    (g) Model designation requirements. Where a manufacturer has made 
physical changes to a handset that result in a change in the hearing 
aid compatibility rating under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 
section, the altered handset must be given a model designation distinct 
from that of the handset prior to its alteration.
    (h) Web site requirements. Beginning January 15, 2009, each 
manufacturer and service provider subject to this section that operates 
a publicly-accessible Web site must make available on its Web site a 
list of all hearing aid-compatible models currently offered, the 
ratings of those models, and an explanation of the rating system. Each 
service provider must also specify on its Web site, based on the levels 
of functionality that the service provider has defined, the level that 
each hearing aid-compatible model falls under as well as an explanation 
of how the

[[Page 25590]]

functionality of the handsets varies at the different levels.
    (i) Reporting requirements.
    (1) Reporting dates. Manufacturers shall submit reports on efforts 
toward compliance with the requirements of this section on January 15, 
2009 and on July 15, 2009, and on an annual basis on July 15 
thereafter. Service providers shall submit reports on efforts toward 
compliance with the requirements of this section on January 15, 2009, 
and annually thereafter. Information in the reports must be up-to-date 
as of the last day of the calendar month preceding the due date of the 
report.
    (2) Content of manufacturer reports. Reports filed by manufacturers 
must include:
    (i) Digital wireless handset models tested, since the most recent 
report, for compliance with the applicable hearing aid compatibility 
technical ratings;
    (ii) Compliant handset models offered to service providers since 
the most recent report, identifying each model by marketing model name/
number(s) and FCC ID number;
    (iii) For each compliant model, the air interface(s) and frequency 
band(s) over which it operates, the hearing aid compatibility ratings 
for each frequency band and air interface under ANSI Standard C63.19, 
the ANSI Standard C63.19 version used, and the months in which the 
model was available to service providers since the most recent report;
    (iv) Non-compliant models offered to service providers since the 
most recent report, identifying each model by marketing model name/
number(s) and FCC ID number;
    (v) For each non-compliant model, the air interface(s) over which 
it operates and the months in which the model was available to service 
providers since the most recent report;
    (vi) Total numbers of compliant and non-compliant models offered to 
service providers for each air interface as of the time of the report;
    (vii) Any instance, as of the date of the report or since the most 
recent report, in which multiple compliant or non-compliant devices 
were marketed under separate model name/numbers but constitute a single 
model for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules, identifying 
each device by marketing model name/number and FCC ID number;
    (viii) Status of product labeling;
    (ix) Outreach efforts; and
    (x) If the manufacturer maintains a public Web site, the Web site 
address of the page(s) containing the information regarding hearing 
aid-compatible handset models required by paragraph (h) of this 
section.


    Note to Paragraph (i)(2): For reports due on January 15, 2009, 
information provided with respect to paragraphs (i)(2)(ii) 
through(i)(2)(v) and (i)(2)(vii) and (i)(2)(viii) need be provided 
only for the six-month period from July 1 to December 31, 2008.


    (3) Content of service provider reports. Reports filed by service 
providers must include:
    (i) Compliant handset models offered to customers since the most 
recent report, identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s) 
and FCC ID number;
    (ii) For each compliant model, the air interface(s) and frequency 
band(s) over which it operates, the hearing aid compatibility ratings 
for each frequency band and air interface under ANSI Standard C63.19, 
and the months in which the model was available since the most recent 
report;
    (iii) Non-compliant models offered since the most recent report, 
identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s) and FCC ID 
number;
    (iv) For each non-compliant model, the air interface(s) over which 
it operates and the months in which the model was available since the 
most recent report;
    (v) Total numbers of compliant and non-compliant models offered to 
customers for each air interface over which the service provider offers 
service as of the time of the report;
    (vi) Information related to the retail availability of compliant 
handset models;
    (vii) The levels of functionality into which the compliant handsets 
fall and an explanation of the service provider's methodology for 
determining levels of functionality;
    (viii) Status of product labeling;
    (ix) Outreach efforts; and
    (x) If the service provider maintains a public Web site, the Web 
site address of the page(s) containing the information regarding 
hearing aid-compatible handset models required by paragraph (h) of this 
section.


    Note to Paragraph (i)(3): For reports due on January 15, 2009, 
information provided with respect to paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through 
(i)(3)(iv) and (i)(3)(vi) through (i)(3)(viii) need be provided only 
for the six-month period from July 1 to December 31, 2008.


    (4) Format. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is delegated 
authority to approve or prescribe formats and methods for submission of 
these reports. Any format that the Bureau may approve or prescribe 
shall be made available on the Bureau's Web site.
    (j) Enforcement. Enforcement of this section is hereby delegated to 
those states that adopt this section and provide for enforcement. The 
procedures followed by a state to enforce this section shall provide a 
30-day period after a complaint is filed, during which time state 
personnel shall attempt to resolve a dispute on an informal basis. If a 
state has not adopted or incorporated this section, or failed to act 
within six (6) months from the filing of a complaint with the state 
public utility commission, the Commission will accept such complaints. 
A written notification to the complainant that the state believes 
action is unwarranted is not a failure to act. The procedures set forth 
in part 68, subpart E of this chapter are to be followed.
    (k) Delegation of rulemaking authority.
    (1) The Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the 
Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology are delegated 
authority, by notice-and-comment rulemaking, to issue an order amending 
this section to the extent necessary to adopt technical standards for 
additional frequency bands and/or air interfaces upon the establishment 
of such standards by ANSI Accredited Standards Committee 
C63TM, provided that the standards do not impose with 
respect to such frequency bands or air interfaces materially greater 
obligations than those imposed on other services subject to this 
section. Any new obligations on manufacturers and Tier I carriers 
pursuant to paragraphs (c) through (i) of this section as a result of 
such standards shall become effective no less than one year after 
release of the order adopting such standards, and any new obligations 
on other service providers shall become effective no less than 15 
months after the release of such order.
    (2) The Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the 
Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology are delegated 
authority, by notice-and-comment rulemaking if required by statute or 
otherwise in the public interest, to issue an order amending this 
section to the extent necessary to approve any version of the technical 
standards for radio frequency interference or inductive coupling 
adopted subsequently to ANSI C63.19-2007 for use in determining whether 
a wireless handset meets the appropriate rating over frequency bands 
and air interfaces for which technical standards have previously been 
adopted either by the Commission or pursuant to paragraph (k)(1) of 
this section. This delegation is limited to the approval of changes to 
the technical standard that

[[Page 25591]]

do not raise major compliance issues. Further, by such approvals, the 
Chiefs may only permit, and not require, the use of such subsequent 
versions of standard document ANSI C63.19 to establish hearing aid 
compatibility.

PART 68--CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TELEPHONE NETWORK

0
6. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 
1082; (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303).


0
7. Section 68.418 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  68.418  Procedure; designation of agents for service.

* * * * *
    (b) To ensure prompt and effective service of informal complaints 
filed under this subpart, every responsible party of equipment approved 
pursuant to this part shall designate and identify one or more agents 
upon whom service may be made of all notices, inquiries, orders, 
decisions, and other pronouncements of the Commission in any matter 
before the Commission. Such designation shall be provided to the 
Commission and shall include a name or department designation, business 
address, telephone number, and, if available, TTY number, facsimile 
number, and Internet e-mail address. The Commission shall make this 
information available to the public.

 [FR Doc. E8-9855 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P