[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 173-183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32757]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 15-155]


Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) modernizes its wireless hearing aid compatibility rules. 
The Commission adopts these rules to ensure that people with hearing 
loss have full access to innovative handsets and technologies.

DATES: Effective February 4, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1883, email [email protected], 
or Eli Johnson, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (202) 418-1395, 
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Report and Order in WT Docket Nos. 15-285 and 07-250; FCC 15-155, 
adopted November 19, 2015, and released on November 20, 2015. This 
summary should be read with its companion document, the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking summary published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register. The full text of the Fourth Report and Order is 
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete item is also available on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the Fourth Report and Order

I. Introduction

    1. After review of the record and consideration of both the 
requirements of section 710 as amended by the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) and the 
previous actions taken in this proceeding, the Commission revises the 
scope of the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules largely as 
proposed in the 2010 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 75 
FR 54546, Sept. 8, 2010. Specifically, the Commission broadens the 
scope of the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, which have until 
now covered only handsets that are used with CMRS networks meeting 
specified characteristics enabling frequency reuse and seamless 
handoff. The Commission now extends the scope to cover handsets (that 
is, devices with a built-in speaker held to the ear in any of their 
ordinary uses) used with any terrestrial mobile service that enables 
two-way real-time voice communications among members of the public or a 
substantial portion of the public, including both interconnected and 
non-interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services 
provided through pre-installed software applications. In doing so, the

[[Page 174]]

Commission establishes a comprehensive hearing aid compatibility 
requirement that ensures consumers with hearing loss will have access 
to the same rapidly evolving voice technology options available to 
other consumers. To ensure testability under the currently approved 
technical standard, the Commission will require compliance only to the 
extent these handsets are used in connection with voice communication 
services in bands covered by Commission-approved standards for hearing 
aid compatibility. Section 20.19(a) is limited to mobile handsets 
consistent with the scope of ANSI Standard C63.19, and remains so under 
the expanded scope. The Commission therefore affirms that cordless 
telephones remain subject to section 68.4 of the Commission's rules, 
including the hearing aid compatibility requirements applicable to 
telephones under Part 68, and are not affected by the change in scope.
    2. While the Commission has taken steps previously to bring such 
emerging voice services under the rules, these steps are necessary to 
complete the process. The Third Report and Order adopted a technical 
standard that can be applied to test VoLTE, Wi-Fi-based calling, and 
other IP-based voice capabilities for hearing aid compatibility, and 
indicated an expectation that handsets that support covered CMRS voice 
communications services over IP-based air interfaces such as LTE would 
indeed be subject to the hearing aid compatibility requirements as a 
result. The Third Report and Order did not expand the scope provision 
of the rule beyond covered CMRS, or clarify the extent to which the new 
IP-based voice technologies and air interfaces constituted covered CMRS 
services. Consistent with the provisions of the CVAA that expressly 
extend section 710 to both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP 
services, adopting the expanded scope will ensure that the wireless 
hearing aid compatibility requirements apply to handsets used for such 
services regardless of how the services are classified for other 
regulatory purposes, and without regard to the network architecture 
over which the services are provided. The Commission thus resolves any 
uncertainty regarding the extent to which IP-based voice services 
covered by the 2011 ANSI Standard are also within the scope of the 
hearing aid compatibility rules.
    3. Its actions also ensure that the hearing aid compatibility rules 
cover modes of voice communications access that are increasingly 
available to the public as well as those that may develop in the 
future. For example, the expanded scope will cover handsets that enable 
voice communications through VoIP software applications installed by 
the manufacturer or service provider regardless of whether the calling 
functionality provides interconnection to the public switched telephone 
network. It will also cover advances in voice technology that have 
rendered obsolete some of the current rule's limitations on scope, such 
as provisions that apply hearing aid compatibility requirements only to 
services that involve frequency reuse and cell site handoff. Unlike the 
current scope, the expanded scope will also apply to a voice 
communications service over Wi-Fi that does not utilize an in-network 
switching facility that enables reuse of frequencies and seamless hand-
off.

1. Statutory Analysis of Expanded Scope

    4. The Commisson first finds that section 710, as amended by the 
CVAA, provides authority to require hearing aid compatibility in any 
device that meets the Commission's definition of handset and that is 
used in whole or in part for the delivery of services within the new 
scope of the rule. The CVAA expressly extended section 710 to cover 
mobile devices used with advanced communications services, including 
interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP services, to the extent that 
such devices are designed to provide two-way voice communication via a 
built-in speaker intended to be held to the ear in a manner 
functionally equivalent to a telephone. Thus, as amended by the CVAA, 
section 710 clearly supports expanding the scope of section 20.19 to 
cover the full range of handsets used to provide consumers with voice 
communications services, including IP-based services and voice 
communications software.
    5. Similarly, the CVAA amendments to section 710 confirm the 
Commission's prior determination that obligations should extend to 
cover a broad range of mobile handsets, and not merely those used 
exclusively as telephones. For example, these amendments make clear 
that covered devices used with public mobile services and private radio 
services include devices used ``in whole or in part'' to provide those 
services. While the Commission has recognized that engineering hearing 
aid compatibility for multi-use handsets may require adjustments to 
non-voice-communication features, the statute provides that equipment 
must meet hearing aid compatibility standards without any specific 
limitation based on non-communication adjustments. The Commission 
reaffirms that the hearing aid compatibility rules apply to a multi-use 
handset that can function as a telephone even though it may serve 
additional purposes or have another primary intended purpose.
    6. The Commission further finds that, in deciding whether to extend 
the scope of the wireless hearing aid compatibility obligations, the 
Commission must determine whether the statutory criteria for lifting 
the wireless exemption are satisfied, as it did in 2003 when it first 
modified the exemption for wireless telephones. The Commission examines 
each of the four criteria for lifting the exemption below, and 
determine that each criterion has been satisfied. The Commission finds 
that (1) individuals with hearing loss would be adversely affected 
absent the expansion of the rule's scope; (2) compliance with the 
Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules for the handsets within 
the expanded scope is technologically feasible; (3) compliance would 
not increase costs to such an extent that such equipment could not be 
successfully marketed; and (4) in consideration of these factors, and 
the costs and benefits of the rule change, expanding the scope of the 
hearing aid compatibility rules beyond covered CMRS is in the public 
interest.
    7. The Commission emphasizes that the Commission's analysis of the 
four criteria for lifting the exemption is not restricted to voice 
communications services that are deployed in the 698 MHz to 6 GHz band, 
and that the Commission finds that the criteria for lifting the 
exemption are met for such services in any frequency band, including 
frequencies outside the band covered by the ANSI 2011 Standard. 
Consistent with prior Commission determinations, however, the 
Commission retains the current restriction in the scope of the rule to 
the 698 MHz to 6 GHz band at this time, so that compliance under the 
rule is required only for operations in spectrum bands for which there 
is an approved technical standard. As new frequencies are deployed for 
comparable voice services and standards for them approved, however, 
incorporating such frequencies into the rule early in their deployment 
will better facilitate access to handsets using such frequencies when 
they are rolled out to the public. For example, the Incentive Auction 
scheduled to begin in early 2016 will involve new, flexible-use 
licenses in the 600 MHz Band that are suitable for providing mobile 
broadband services. The Commission expects that the

[[Page 175]]

technical standards needed for any such frequencies will be developed 
in timely fashion. To the extent that a manufacturer believes that 
compliance is not technically feasible or would prevent marketability 
for devices used with a future public mobile service--such as one that 
operates in the 600 MHz Band--the manufacturer may apply for a waiver 
under section 710(b)(3) for the applicable ``new telephones, or 
telephone associated with a new technology or service.'' By addressing 
the statutory exemption as it applies to additional frequencies now, 
the Commission ensures that it need not engage in a similar statutory 
analysis each time ANSI adopts a revision to cover an additional 
frequency range, which will help to expedite incorporation of such 
revisions into the rules and therefore speed the testing and offering 
of new hearing aid-compatible technologies to consumers. The 
Commission's determinations in this Fourth Report and Order should 
remove any doubt that, as new frequencies are deployed for comparable 
voice services and corresponding hearing aid compatibility standards 
are developed, the Commission intends to incorporate them into the 
Commission's requirements. This will advance the Commission's goal that 
the Commission's rules provide people who use hearing aids and cochlear 
implants with continuing access to the most advanced and innovative 
technologies as they develop.
    8. Adverse Effect on People with Hearing Loss. In the FNPRM, the 
Commission proposed to find that failure to extend hearing aid 
compatibility requirements broadly to handsets used for voice 
communications with members of the public or a substantial portion of 
the public, including those operating over new and developing 
technologies, would have an adverse effect on people with hearing loss 
and deny such consumers an opportunity to use advanced functionalities 
and services becoming commonplace in society. The Commission further 
suggested that the inability to access such innovative technologies as 
they develop would have an adverse effect on individuals with hearing 
loss, and that a broad scope could address that concern by encouraging 
manufacturers to consider hearing aid compatibility at the earliest 
stages of the product design process.
    9. Consumer Groups and ASHA comment that people with hearing loss 
who use hearing aids need access to mobile phone services just like 
every other American, including at home, work, school, and in emergency 
situations, and that updated regulations can help to ensure that these 
people can be fully integrated into society. TIA comments that 
manufacturers have made gains to enhance access by deaf or hard of 
hearing individuals to new technologies and hearing aid-compliant 
products, while CTIA contends that the current rules for hearing aid 
compatibility have been highly effective in ensuring that a wide 
variety of compliant wireless handsets are available to the public.
    10. Consistent with the Commission's proposed findings, the 
Commission concludes that failure to adopt the expanded scope would 
adversely affect people with hearing loss. Absent the amended scope, 
mobile VoIP services would be covered only to the extent that they were 
determined to both satisfy the definition of CMRS and involve the use 
of ``an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to 
reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber 
calls.'' Those limitations, the Commission finds, would materially 
impede the ability of people with hearing loss to use many advanced 
devices and networks, and the Commission notes that ongoing innovation 
would likely amplify this harmful impact over time. If handsets 
encompassing these emerging technologies are not broadly made hearing 
aid-compatible, consumers with hearing loss who use hearing aids or 
cochlear implants could be left without full access to new technologies 
and networks that are used increasingly by members of the public to 
communicate with one another at home, at work, and as they travel, 
including for communications in critical emergencies. The Commission 
notes that mobile technologies generally are increasingly important to 
members of the public. According to the National Center for Health 
Statistics, the percentage of adults living in households with only 
wireless telephones has been steadily increasing with about 44.1 
percent of adults (about 106 million adults) living in wireless-only 
households as of the last six months of 2014; in addition, as of the 
last six months of 2014, 54.1 percent of all children (nearly 40 
million children) lived in households that only used wireless 
telephones. Having access to emerging IP-based voice technologies such 
as High Definition Voice may prove particularly important to 
individuals with hearing loss. In addition, as these emerging handsets 
evolve to encompass a wide and growing range of computing and other 
functions, a lack of hearing aid-compatible handsets may force 
individuals with hearing loss to choose between limiting their voice 
communications or limiting their access to many of the other features 
that these new handsets offer.
    11. In broadening the scope of the rule, the Commission is mindful 
that it is important to ensure hearing aid-compatible access to 
handsets, voice technologies, and networks not only once they are 
established but also as they develop in the future. The Commission 
anticipates ongoing innovation in mobile voice technologies that will 
lead to more services for consumers to communicate that do not use the 
North American Numbering Plan or involve the cellular system 
architecture reflected in the current rule. By making clear that 
hearing aid compatibility requirements apply not only to currently 
available technologies such as VoLTE but to all mobile terrestrial 
services that enable two-way, real-time voice communications among 
members of the public, the Commission ensures that new consumer 
devices--that might be developed or emerge in the future--will be 
covered as technical standards become available, regardless of 
regulatory classification or network architecture, unless a waiver is 
granted. The Commission expects manufacturers to take hearing aid 
compatibility into account during the early stages of product 
development.
    12. Technological Feasibility. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought 
comment on whether handsets that are currently on the market or are 
planned for introduction that fall within the coverage of the proposed 
rule, but are not covered by the existing rule, would meet the existing 
ANSI standard or a similar performance standard, for frequency bands 
and air interfaces that are not addressed by the existing standard. 
Given that hearing aid compatibility standards were already being met 
for handsets that operate on a variety of 2G and 3G air interfaces over 
two frequency bands, the Commission stated that, absent evidence to the 
contrary, it was likely that such standards could be met for handsets 
not within the class of covered CMRS but that provide similar services. 
The Commission further indicated that commenters arguing that 
compliance was not feasible should provide specific engineering 
evidence related to a defined class of handsets.
    13. TIA comments that the Commission should not expand the 
application of the hearing aid compatibility requirements beyond the 
scope of consumer wireless handsets with CMRS functionality until there 
is a better understanding of the obstacles

[[Page 176]]

in making the products and expanding services, and argues that issues 
relating to applying the rules to VoLTE and Wi-Fi with CMRS capability 
illustrate that emerging technologies create new and previously 
unanticipated technical challenges.
    14. The Commission concludes that it is technologically feasible to 
manufacture newly covered handsets so they meet the minimum ratings for 
hearing aid compatibility under the current technical standard or, to 
the extent they may be deployed in frequencies not addressed under the 
2011 ANSI Standard, under a similar performance standard. Since the 
Commission proposed its analysis in 2010, subsequent developments have 
only confirmed that compliance with the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements will generally be feasible for consumer mobile voice 
technologies. Indeed, manufacturers are already successfully testing 
and rating VoLTE operations for both T- and M-rating compliance, and 
they are also successfully testing and rating CMRS-enabled voice 
communications over Wi-Fi (hereinafter ``Wi-Fi Calling'') for M-rating 
compliance, demonstrating empirically that compliance in those areas is 
technologically feasible. In addition, OET's Laboratory Division issued 
guidance in October 2013 describing the technical parameters related in 
part to testing VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling functionalities for both M-
ratings and T-ratings, and did not identify any challenges related to 
technological feasibility. While the 2013 guidance did observe that the 
equipment needed to test for T-coil compliance for Wi-Fi Calling ``may 
not be readily available'' and therefore excluded such operations from 
the testing obligation, nothing in the record suggests that the 
availability of testing equipment remains a challenge, and perhaps more 
significantly, this limitation does not bear on technological 
feasibility.
    15. The Commission finds that any technical challenges to achieving 
hearing aid compatibility in handsets will not differ significantly 
from those that manufacturers have already addressed in achieving 
hearing aid compatibility in the broad range of mobile handsets noted 
above. Indeed, because the specifications for new air interface 
technologies (such as the Fifth Generation or 5G wireless technology) 
will now be developed with the expectation that hearing aid 
compatibility requirements will apply, the Commission anticipates that 
the need to meet such requirements will be taken into account early in 
the design process, which should help to ensure that compatibility for 
such technologies is feasible. The Commission notes that industry 
commenters have provided no example of developing technology within the 
adopted scope for which achieving hearing aid compatibility was found 
to be infeasible, and the Commission knows of no reason that consumer 
handsets that operate over systems within the expanded scope could not 
achieve these ratings. As the Commission noted in 2010, to the extent 
the Commission is presented with the rare case of a new technology that 
cannot feasibly meet the requirements, or cannot do so in full, section 
710 expressly provides for a waiver.
    16. Marketability. In the FNPRM, the Commission stated that based 
on the number of hearing aid-compatible models that were already being 
successfully marketed across multiple air interfaces and frequency 
bands, it anticipated, in the absence of convincing evidence to the 
contrary, that other telephones offering similar capabilities and 
meeting the same or comparable compliance standards could also be 
successfully marketed. The Commission sought comment on this statement 
and on whether there is any class of handsets for which the cost of 
achieving compliance would preclude successful marketing. The 
Commission sought comment on whether, for reasons of technological 
infeasibility or prohibitive costs, any rule provisions could not be 
applied to any class of handsets.
    17. Generally, aside from the impact relating to satellite phones, 
commenters did not address in detail whether compliance would increase 
costs to such an extent that equipment could not be successfully 
marketed. TIA argues that an open-ended application of the rules to 
other types of wireless handsets with voice capability but which are 
not typically held to the ear would, among other matters, impose undue 
financial burdens. HIA comments that in terms of costs, compatibility 
with other devices is already a factor in hearing aid design, and thus 
does not anticipate that a ``to the ear'' standard it supports would 
impose additional costs on its members.
    18. In order to expand the scope of section 20.19, the Commission 
must also find that compliance would not increase costs to a degree 
that would prevent successfully marketing of the equipment. As 
discussed above in the Commission's analysis of technological 
feasibility, manufacturers already offer numerous hearing aid-
compatible handsets with differing features and physical 
characteristics over a variety of air interfaces, including a number of 
models certified as hearing aid-compatible over LTE. Further, while 
Iridium and Inmarsat raise concerns about the impact of hearing aid 
compatibility requirements on the marketability of satellite phones, no 
commenter raises any concerns about marketability with respect to 
handsets and operations within the expanded scope the Commission adopts 
in this Fourth Report and Order. Considering the absence of anything in 
the record demonstrating compliance costs that would depart materially 
from the costs for handsets that already comply, the Commission 
anticipates that handsets offering comparable voice communications 
capabilities to the public will similarly be marketable. The Commission 
therefore finds that requiring hearing aid compatibility for handsets 
newly within the scope of the requirements will not undermine their 
marketability. To the extent the Commission is presented with the rare 
case of a new technology for which compliance would increase costs to 
the extent that the technology could not be successfully marketed, 
section 710 expressly provides that the Commission may waive the 
requirements.
    19. Public Interest. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to find 
that expanding the scope of the hearing aid compatibility requirements 
to reach handsets using new technologies would serve the public 
interest. In seeking comments on this proposal, the Commission stated 
that its policy ``is to encourage manufacturers to consider hearing aid 
compatibility at the earliest stages of the product design process.'' 
The Commission further stated that the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act 
makes clear that consumers with hearing loss should be afforded equal 
access to communications networks to the fullest extent feasible. The 
Commission stated that commenters should address the proposed finding 
that further modification of the exemption to reach handsets using new 
technologies is in the public interest.
    20. Consumer Groups argue that there are millions of Americans with 
hearing loss, technological innovations help people with disabilities, 
and they need access to their mobile phones in different settings. ASHA 
and Lintz note the importance of wireless phones to those who suffer 
from hearing loss.
    21. The Commission concludes, in light of the consideration of the 
costs and benefits to all telephone users, that applying the hearing 
aid compatibility requirements to all handsets and services within the 
expanded scope, including current and emerging IP-based voice services, 
will serve the

[[Page 177]]

public interest. Most notably, an expanded scope will ensure that the 
country's approximately 36 million individuals with hearing loss have 
access to the advances in communications and related technology that 
are becoming increasingly essential to participation in our society. 
The expanded scope makes it more likely that individuals with hearing 
loss will have access to the latest technology in mobile handsets since 
technological innovations will generally have to be considered in the 
design stage for the handsets. The Commission further finds that 
enabling access to the full--and growing--range of handsets available 
to all other consumers will provide both social and economic benefits 
to consumers with hearing loss. Access to mobile handsets with 
innovative technologies as they develop can benefit not just an 
employee with hearing loss who uses his or her own mobile phone but the 
employer and co-workers as well, by facilitating the full participation 
and valuable input of employees with hearing loss who otherwise may be 
restricted in their ability to fully communicate with their colleagues. 
Members of the public will also generally benefit from being able to 
communicate with people with hearing loss as fully and robustly as 
possible. The Commission also notes that the wireless industry's 
comments demonstrate broad support for covering advanced services. For 
example, in its comments to the 2010 FNPRM, TIA supports ``expand[ing] 
the scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules to advanced 
communications technologies'' guided by the Commission's Policy 
Statement and consistent with section 710 of the Act. For these 
reasons, the Commission finds that expanding the scope of section 20.19 
as discussed herein advances the public interest.
    22. Public Safety and Private Enterprise Networks. The Commission 
declines, at this time, to extend the hearing aid compatibility rules 
to handsets used exclusively with services that are not available to 
the public, such as services over public safety or private enterprise 
networks (meaning those networks that are designed and deployed to meet 
a business's specific communications needs). For example, the 
Commission does not extend hearing aid compatibility requirements to 
state, local, and Tribal public safety radio systems used by police, 
fire, or emergency medical personnel for dispatch and emergency 
response. Consistent with this determination, the Commission further 
clarifies that the incorporation of a VoIP functionality operating over 
Wi-Fi in a public safety or private enterprise device does not bring 
the device under the expanded scope of the rule. Rather, The expanded 
scope will cover only devices used with the provision of a service 
available to the public or a substantial portion of the public.
    23. In the past, the Commission's decisions to lift the exemption 
for devices used with some wireless services, and particularly the 
Commission's determination that doing so is in the public interest, 
have been based in part on the Commission's findings that these devices 
and services have become part of the mass market for communications. 
Generally, handsets for network services such as public safety or 
private enterprise networks are designed for a specialized market with 
a limited set of users. Based on the record before us, there is little 
evidence on the extent that these specialized public safety and private 
enterprise devices would satisfy the criteria of technical feasibility 
and marketability. Rather, the record supports the Commission's 
tentative conclusion in the FNPRM that the different market 
circumstances for public safety or private enterprise networks and the 
absence of an existing universe of hearing aid-compatible handsets 
would increase the burden of meeting the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements. In addition, although the Commission recognizes there are 
benefits to ensuring accessibility to public safety or private 
enterprise devices, the record reflects that the typical weight, shape, 
and other aspects of the physical design of public safety and private 
enterprise devices are such that the radios conventionally are not held 
up to the ear but rather used with audio that emanates from a 
loudspeaker with adjustable volume control rather than from a telephone 
earpiece. As such, the Commission finds that these devices are 
generally not comparable in their typical use to the wireless handsets 
covered by the hearing aid compatibility obligations. The Commission 
also finds that the public interest requires that the Commission 
proceeds with caution in order to avoid requirements that may 
discourage, delay, or increase the cost of equipment where public 
safety or critical infrastructure operations are directly at stake. 
Taking these factors into consideration, the record precludes us from 
finding that the benefit associated with expanding the rule to public 
safety and private enterprise networks would outweigh the cost. 
Accordingly, the Commission finds, at this time, that the statutory 
requirements are not met in order to expand the scope of the hearing 
aid compatibility rules to include these devices. The Commission 
continues to be sensitive to the needs of those individuals with 
hearing loss, however, and will consider re-visiting this issue if it 
comes to the Commission's attention that the benefits associated with 
expanding the rule come to outweigh the costs.
    24. Non-terrestrial Networks. Based on the existing record, the 
Commission is unable to find that the statutory criteria for lifting 
the hearing aid compatibility exemption have been satisfied for radio 
communication devices operating over non-terrestrial networks, such as 
those operating in the MSS. As Iridium has explained, MSS handsets 
operate at significantly higher power levels than mass market devices 
and must communicate with stations over a dramatically greater distance 
than comparable terrestrial technologies. Iridium also notes that lower 
sales volumes, in-house product development, and longer product 
development and marketing cycles due to infrequent product replacements 
pose additional impediments to achieving hearing aid compatibility. 
Even if such challenges could be overcome, the record supports the 
conclusion that each MSS provider would need to develop its own 
solution, and the Commission is concerned that the increased costs 
associated with complying with the rules in those circumstances, and 
the MSS industry's need to recover those costs over a relatively 
limited market, would prevent the successful marketing of MSS handsets 
or discourage further innovation in such handsets. Further, because MSS 
providers offer a specialized service over customized technology to a 
small customer base that is focused on government, critical 
infrastructure, and other large enterprise users, and not the public at 
large, the Commission finds that extending hearing aid compatibility 
requirements to the MSS raises concerns similar to those noted above 
regarding public safety and private enterprise networks. Indeed, the 
Commission found last year that these characteristics justified not 
extending to MSS the text-to-911 requirements that the Commission 
otherwise imposed broadly on CMRS providers and all other providers of 
interconnected text-messaging applications. Although there could be 
benefits to individuals with hearing loss from extending the scope of 
the hearing aid compatibility rules to cover such

[[Page 178]]

devices and services, the current differences between MSS and 
terrestrial services, as well as concerns and uncertainty regarding the 
marketability and technological feasibility of hearing aid-compatible 
MSS devices, do not allow us at this time to make the determinations 
necessary to lift the exemption for these devices. The Commission will 
reevaluate in the future whether the MSS should remain exempt from the 
scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules.

2. Voice Capability Provided Through Software

    25. Background. When the Commission first promulgated hearing aid 
compatibility rules, applications that enable voice communications 
through third-party software did not exist. If a digital handset 
enabled voice communications, it could do so only through the native 
voice capabilities of the service provider's network technology relying 
on a voice coder-decoder (codec) embedded in the hardware. Today, 
mobile voice communications can be enabled in a variety of ways, 
including: Applications pre-installed by the manufacturer, its 
operating system software partner, or a service provider; applications 
downloaded by the end user from the manufacturer's store; or 
applications that the end user obtains from an independent source. 
While third-party voice applications may rely on a voice codec built 
into the operating system or hardware of the device, they may also use 
their own proprietary codec. While seeking comment in the 2010 FNPRM on 
expanding the scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules beyond 
covered CMRS, the Commission also sought comment on how its hearing aid 
compatibility rules should address circumstances where voice capability 
may be enabled on a handset by a party other than the manufacturer.
    26. AT&T, ATIS, Consumer Groups, CTIA, MetroPCS, Motorola, TIA, and 
T-Mobile agree that manufacturers and service providers should not be 
required to ensure compliance for voice communication capabilities 
added to a handset by consumers or third parties after original 
purchase. In connection with this argument, AT&T, CTIA, and TIA cite 
section 2(a) of the CVAA, which they claim limits liability for certain 
third-party activities, as support for exempting them from compliance 
responsibility for third party actions. These commenters oppose 
subjecting manufacturers and service providers to testing requirements 
for third party applications unless the manufacturer and service 
provider have themselves affirmatively incorporated the application 
into a device, arguing, in the main, that manufacturers and providers 
lack control over third party applications installed in the device by 
someone else. In contrast, HIA argues that hearing aid compatibility 
should be ensured both ``at the time of sale'' and upon ``installation 
of a voice feature.'' As an alternative approach, Consumer Groups urge 
the Commission to require manufacturers and service providers to 
include provisions in their licensing agreements or contracts with 
software application developers to ensure that software maintains the 
hearing aid compatibility of a device.
    27. Discussion. After consideration of the record, the Commission 
agrees with those commenters that argue against applying the hearing 
aid compatibility requirements to voice applications added by consumers 
after their purchase of the device. The record demonstrates that 
testing a device for hearing aid compatibility for all possible 
applications is infeasible at this time because manufacturers and 
service providers are unable to predict what third-party software a 
consumer may choose to install. The Commission believes it would create 
incentives to restrict the open development of new voice applications 
if the Commission holds manufacturers and service providers responsible 
for hearing aid compatibility compliance for all third-party voice 
applications. Certifying a handset for hearing aid compatibility does 
not require testing software-based voice functions except to the extent 
that such software applications are installed by the manufacturer or 
service provider, or at their direction, for use by a consumer over a 
given air interface. The Commission requires that, when testing a 
device's operations over a given air interface, manufacturers must 
ensure the hearing aid compatibility of all voice communication 
functionality they provide over that interface whether such 
functionality is provided through software, hardware, or both. The 
Commission declines to limit responsibility to the subset of such 
software installed prior to certification, as suggested by TIA. Such a 
restriction would not ensure compatibility of software that 
manufacturers or service providers install after certification, and the 
Commission sees no reason not to require compatibility of such 
software. Because, under the Commission's approach, manufacturers and 
service providers need only ensure the compatibility of the software-
based voice operations that are installed by the manufacturer or 
service provider or at their direction, and such operations are 
necessarily within their control, the Commission finds that testing any 
software-based voice functionality is technically feasible, not unduly 
burdensome, and beneficial to consumers with hearing loss who may wish 
to use such operations.
    28. Previously, the Commission has permitted manufacturers and 
service providers to obtain hearing aid compatibility certification for 
handsets that are capable of supporting additional voice capability 
without testing for such operations, including the operations addressed 
above, but has required them to disclose to consumers that not all of 
the handsets' operations have been tested and rated for hearing aid 
compatibility. While the Commission now establishes a requirement to 
test and rate software applications installed under the circumstances 
specified above in order to obtain hearing aid compatibility 
certification, the Commission finds it appropriate to provide a period 
of time during which manufacturers may continue to certify handsets 
based on disclosure rather than testing. The Commission anticipates 
that implementing the requirement to test and rate software-based voice 
functionality will require additional guidance on testing parameters, 
the development of new systems capable of testing the applicable codec/
air interface combinations, as well as coordination between 
manufacturers, service providers, and third-party application 
providers. Given these implementation issues, the Commission provides 
that during the transition period for applying deployment benchmarks, 
manufacturers may continue to obtain hearing aid compatibility ratings 
for a device's operation on a given air interface without testing and 
rating software-enabled voice functions, as long as they disclose to 
consumers that certain operations have not been tested and rated for 
hearing aid compatibility, consistent with the disclosure required in 
section 20.19(f)(2)(i). The Commission notes again that ANSI ASC 
C63[supreg]-EMC, at its November 2015 meeting, formally approved a 
project to revise the ANSI C63.19 standard for hearing aid 
compatibility to address a number of topics, including some 
technologies not covered in the current version of the standard. The 
application of the transition period to software-based voice operations 
reflects, in part, the Commission's expectation that industry groups 
will work through the standards process to finalize all necessary 
guidance well before the end

[[Page 179]]

of the transition period. If manufacturers and service providers come 
to conclude that such guidance is not available sufficiently far in 
advance of the transition date to allow parties to come into 
compliance, they may seek an extension of the transition deadline by 
petitioning the Commission for a waiver of this regulatory deadline 
under the Commission's waiver rules (e.g., sections 1.3 and/or 1.925, 
as appropriate). As part of its review of any petitions to waive this 
regulatory deadline, the Commission will consider possible impacts on 
consumers with hearing loss.

3. Transition Period for Applying Existing Deployment Benchmarks

    29. Background. To ensure that a wide selection of digital wireless 
handset models is available to consumers with hearing loss, the 
Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules require both manufacturers 
and service providers to meet defined benchmarks for deploying hearing 
aid-compatible wireless handsets. Specifically, manufacturers and 
service providers are required to offer minimum numbers or percentages 
of handset models that meet the technical standards for compatibility 
with hearing aids operating in modes for acoustic coupling (M-rating) 
and inductive coupling (T-rating). These benchmarks apply separately to 
each air interface for which the manufacturer or service provider 
offers handsets.
    30. In the 2010 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the 
appropriate transition period before applying these hearing aid 
compatibility deployment benchmarks to lines of handsets that are 
``outside the subset of CMRS that is currently covered by section 
20.19(a).'' In this regard, the Communications Act, as amended by the 
CVAA, directs the Commission to ``use appropriate timetables or 
benchmarks to the extent necessary (1) due to technical feasibility, or 
(2) to ensure the marketability or availability of new technologies to 
users.''
    31. In their comments, Clearwire, CTIA, T-Mobile, and Motorola 
support a two-year transition as adequate for many handsets to come 
into compliance with existing benchmarks. RWA, Blooston, and RTG 
support longer time frames of up to an additional 12 months for small, 
rural, and/or Tier III service providers who, these commenters contend, 
do not have the same access to new handsets as Tier I providers. While 
it did not propose any specific time period, HIA states that the 
transition period should be no longer than the minimum amount of time 
needed for a new product design cycle.
    32. Discussion. Based on the record in this proceeding, the 
Commission finds it in the public interest to adopt a January 1, 2018 
transition date (for manufacturers and Tier I carriers) and an April 1, 
2018 transition date (for other service providers) for applying section 
20.19's deployment benchmarks and related requirements to newly covered 
air interfaces, i.e., those air interfaces that operate outside the 
former scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules due to either 
regulatory status or network architecture issues. The Commission will 
begin enforcing the benchmarks for these newly covered air interfaces 
once the applicable transition period expires. After the transition is 
complete, the M- and T-rating deployment benchmarks for handsets 
supporting any newly covered operations will be the same as those used 
for currently covered operations in handsets, and the Commission will 
apply the same benchmark requirements (including the de minimis rules) 
to all handsets, including newly covered operations, that a 
manufacturer or a service provider offers. In this regard, the 
Commission notes that TIA argues that the Commission should extend the 
de minimis exception to handsets offered over air interfaces that a 
manufacturer or service provider is phasing out of its portfolio. This 
comment appears to go to the exception's operation generally and not to 
its application after a possible transition, and therefore it is 
outside the scope of the FNPRM.
    33. The Commission finds that a January 1, 2018 transition date is 
appropriate for both manufacturers and Tier I service providers. When 
the Commission adopted its initial hearing aid compatibility rules in 
2003, it gave manufacturers and Tier I carriers 24 months to comply 
with acoustic coupling requirements. Similarly, in 2012, OET and WTB 
adopted a 24-month transition period for covered CMRS operations that 
use frequency bands and air interfaces that can be tested under the 
2011 ANSI Standard. As discussed above, the Commission finds that any 
challenges related to technical feasibility and marketability will not 
be significantly different for newly covered handsets than for handsets 
that are currently being made hearing aid-compatible under the rule. 
The Commission finds that a similar transition period provides adequate 
time to adjust handset portfolios to ensure compliance with the 
benchmarks that apply independently to each air interface, regardless 
of whether the voice communications functionality is network-based or 
software-based. This transition period affords manufacturers a 
reasonable amount of time to implement requirements to test and rate 
software-based voice functionality. Although HIA argues that the 
transition period should be limited to the length of a typical product 
design cycle, the Commission has previously determined that two years 
is an appropriate period to accommodate the typical handset industry 
product development cycle, and the record in this proceeding further 
supports that conclusion. The Commission finds that a January 1, 2018 
transition date for manufacturers and Tier I service providers is an 
appropriate timetable to account for any issues of technical 
feasibility and marketability.
    34. The Commission affords an additional three months for non-Tier 
I service providers to meet the deployment benchmarks and related 
requirements for handsets newly subject to the hearing aid 
compatibility rules. In allowing additional time until the April 1, 
2018 transition date, the Commission recognizes that non-Tier I service 
providers often have difficulty obtaining the newest handset models. 
While some commenters argue that the transition period should be longer 
in certain instances, the record does not demonstrate a need for an 
even greater transition period for non-Tier I service providers nor any 
reason to depart from prior hearing aid compatibility transitions in 
which the Commission afforded non-Tier I providers an additional three 
months beyond the transition period provided to Tier I service 
providers.
    35. Given that many manufacturers and service providers began 
meeting benchmarks in 2014 for handsets with operations over the 
additional air interfaces and frequency bands covered by the 2011 ANSI 
Standard, including in the case of the LTE air interface, the 
Commission anticipates that these parties will continue to meet 
existing benchmarks during the transition. The Commission finds this 
expectation reasonable for any IP-based voice services, including VoLTE 
and Wi-Fi Calling, given that affected parties are already meeting 
deployment benchmarks for VoLTE operations, and the record reflects 
that manufacturers and service providers are in some cases already 
widely complying with hearing aid compatibility requirements.
    36. The Commission notes that, due to a lack of testing equipment 
availability, manufacturers are currently permitted to obtain 
certification of handset models for inductive coupling capability under

[[Page 180]]

the 2011 ANSI Standard without testing and rating any present VoLTE or 
Wi-Fi Calling operations, subject to a disclosure that such handsets 
have not been tested and rated for all of their operations. The 
Commission emphasizes that, at the January 1, 2018 transition date, 
parties will need to meet requirements to test and rate for inductive 
coupling capability, including for VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling if such 
services are included in the handset, in order to certify such handsets 
as hearing aid-compatible and meet applicable deployment requirements. 
During the transition, however, the Commission will continue the 
interim process permitting disclosure instead of inductive coupling 
testing and rating for VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling when used to provide 
CMRS-based voice services. The Commission notes that some newer VoLTE-
enabled handsets have been tested and rated for inductive coupling 
capability. The record reflects an industry understanding that the 
current process allowing for disclosure instead of testing and rating 
for inductive coupling capability in all modes of operation is 
temporary. Indeed, the industry has had notice for over a year that 
Commission staff are reassessing how long the Commission should use the 
current process as testing equipment and protocols become increasingly 
available. Thus, the Commission finds that the January 1, 2018 
transition date is a reasonable point in time at which the Commission 
will require full inductive coupling testing and rating of handsets 
with VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling functionality before certifying these 
handsets so manufacturers and service providers can meet their 
deployment benchmarks.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    37. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) 
included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities of the rules considered in the FNPRM in WT Docket 07-250. The 
Commission sought written public comments on the FNPRM in this docket, 
including comment on the IRFA. Because the Commission amends its rules 
in the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission has included this Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) which conforms to the RFA. To 
the extent that any statement contained in this FRFA is perceived as 
creating ambiguity with respect to the Commission's rules, or 
statements made in preceding sections of this Fourth Report and Order, 
the rules and statements set forth in those preceding sections shall be 
controlling.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Fourth Report and Order
    38. Until now, the hearing aid compatibility rules have generally 
been limited only to handsets used with two-way switched voice or data 
services classified as Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), and only 
to the extent they are provided over networks meeting certain 
architectural requirements that enable frequency reuse and seamless 
handoff. In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission expands the 
scope of these rules to cover the emerging wireless technologies of 
today and tomorrow. The rules adopted here eliminate uncertainty about 
the scope of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements 
and ensure that emerging voice services will be covered regardless of 
their classification for other regulatory purposes and without 
restriction to a particular network architecture. The rules now extend 
to handsets (those mobile device that contain a built-in speaker and 
are typically held to the ear in any of their ordinary uses) used with 
any terrestrial mobile service that enables two-way real-time voice 
communications among members of the public or a substantial portion of 
the public, including through the use of pre-installed software 
applications. The Commission also adopts a transition period that 
ensures industry stakeholders will be able to comply with these rules 
while continuing to innovate and invest. By expanding the scope of the 
Commission's rules to those consumer mobile devices that are typically 
held to the ear, are heavily relied on for voice communications, and 
operate in bands covered by approved standards--and only where 
compliance is technically feasible--we target the Commission's efforts 
to those situations where Commission action can make a significant 
impact and best serve the public interest. In this regard, the 
Commission has been mindful of its obligation to expand hearing aid 
compatibility requirements only in those instances where the record 
supports the necessary statutory findings mandated by the Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Act. This action will require that future technologies 
comply with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules, ensuring 
that consumers with hearing loss are not always trying to catch up to 
technology and providing industry with additional regulatory certainty.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    39. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
    40. 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 proposed rules. 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 established by the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'').
    41. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's action may, over time, affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory 
small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In 
addition, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census 
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental 
jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of 
this total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as ``small 
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Commission estimates that most 
governmental jurisdictions are small.
    42. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: ``This

[[Page 181]]

industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. 
Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and 
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 
cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and 
television studio and broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and 
Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such 
firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data 
for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category 
that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 
had less than 500 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the 
majority of firms can be considered small.
    43. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers. The Commission has not developed 
a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed communications 
handset manufacturers. Therefore, the Commission will utilize the SBA 
definition applicable to Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this 
category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there 
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for 
part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 had less than 500 
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be 
considered small.
    44. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The 
Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry 
comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching 
and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. 
Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging 
services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.'' The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). In this category, a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 
category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or 
more. According to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they 
were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular 
service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) telephony services. Of 
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more 
than 1,500 employees. The Commission estimates that approximately half 
or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can 
be considered small.
    45. Internet Service Providers. The 2007 Economic Census places 
these firms, whose services might include Voice over Internet Protocol 
(VoIP), in one of three categories. The first refers to whether the 
service is provided over the provider's own telecommunications 
facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or over client-supplied 
telecommunications connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs). This type of ISP 
is classified by the Commission in the category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers comprise 
establishments primarily engaged in operating or providing access to 
transmission facilities or infrastructure that they own and/or lease 
for the transmission of voice, data, sound, and video using wired 
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a 
single technology or on a combination of technologies. Establishments 
in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired cable audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband Internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite distribution services using 
facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this 
industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers have an SBA small business 
size standard under which an establishment having 1,500 or fewer 
employees is small. The second type of ISP is classified in the 
category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). 
This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and 
maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this service have 
spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as 
cellular phone services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video 
services. The size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except satellite) is the same as for Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers. The third type of ISP is classified under All Other 
Telecommunications. This industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or 
VoIP services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are 
also included in this industry. The SBA size standard for this industry 
states that all establishments in this category whose annual receipts 
are $32.5 million or less are small.
    46. For purpose of this rulemaking, the Commission is concerned 
only with those ISPs that are classified either in the category of 
Wireless Communications Carriers (except satellite) or are classified 
in the category of All Other Telecommunications. The type of handsets 
which are the subject of the proposed rulemaking herein is primarily, 
if not exclusively, concerned with wireless handsets. ISPs which are 
classified under Wired Telecommunications are not relevant in the 
context of this particular rulemaking.
    47. United States census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite) firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 413 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, 
including cellular service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer

[[Page 182]]

employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can 
be considered small. Thus, using available data, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers can 
be considered small.
    48. With regard to the category of All Other Telecommunications, 
U.S. Census data for 2007 state that 2,383 firms were operational 
during that year. Of that number, 2,346 had annual receipts of less 
than $25 million. The Commission estimates that the majority of ISP 
firms in this category are small entities.
    49. All Other Information Services. The Census Bureau defines this 
industry as including ``establishments primarily engaged in providing 
other information services (except news syndicates, libraries, 
archives, Internet publishing and broadcasting, and Web search 
portals).'' VoIP services over wireless technologies could be provided 
by entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming, 
web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar 
IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for this category; that size standard is $27.5 million or less 
in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, 
there were 367 firms in this category that operated for the entire 
year. Of these, 354 had annual receipts of under $25 million. The 
Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small 
entities that may be affected by the Commission's action.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    50. The current hearing aid compatibility regulations impose a 
number of obligations on covered CMRS providers and the manufacturers 
of handsets used with those services, including: (1) Requirements to 
deploy a certain number or percentage of handset models that meet 
hearing aid compatibility standards, (2) ``refresh'' requirements on 
manufacturers to meet their hearing aid-compatible handset deployment 
benchmarks in part using new models, (3) a requirement that service 
providers offer hearing aid-compatible handsets with varying levels of 
functionality, (4) a requirement that service providers make their 
hearing aid-compatible models available to consumers for testing at 
their owned or operated stores, (5) point of sale disclosure 
requirements, (6) requirements to make consumer information available 
on the manufacturer's or service provider's Web site, and (7) annual 
reporting requirements.
    51. The Fourth Report and Order expands the scope of the hearing 
aid compatibility rules to cover handsets used with any terrestrial 
mobile service that enables two-way real-time voice communications 
among members of the public or a substantial portion of the public, 
including through the use of pre-installed software applications and 
other Internet Protocol (IP)-based technologies. After the transition 
period, the rules the Commission adopts will extend to providers of 
wireless voice communications among members of the public or a 
substantial portion of the public using equipment that contains a 
built-in speaker and is typically held to the ear, and to the 
manufacturers of such equipment, the same hearing aid compatibility 
rules that currently apply to a defined category of CMRS. The 
Commission also clarifies that testing a handset for hearing aid 
compatibility does not require testing software voice functions except 
to the extent that such functionality is installed by the manufacturer 
or service provider or at their direction, for use by a consumer over a 
given interface. The Commission provides that the existing deployment 
benchmarks and related requirements will apply to newly covered 
handsets and air interfaces beginning January 1, 2018, with an 
additional three months allowed for handsets offered by non-Tier I 
service providers. The Commission further provides that, during this 
transition period, manufacturers may continue to obtain a hearing aid 
compatibility rating for a handset's operation on a given interface 
without testing software-enabled voice functions provided they meet 
applicable disclosure requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    52. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(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) exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    53. In adopting the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission expands 
the scope of the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules to cover 
handsets used with any terrestrial mobile service that enables two-way 
real-time voice communications among members of the public or a 
substantial portion of the public, including through the use of pre-
installed software applications. The change in scope ensures that 
handsets with emerging voice technologies are subject to hearing aid 
compatibility requirements. At the same time, the new scope eases 
burdens on manufacturers and service providers, including small 
entities, by permitting handsets already certified to continue to be 
treated as hearing aid-compatible without any need for recertification 
after the expanded scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules goes 
into effect. The new scope also eases burdens for small entities by 
applying the same de minimis exception rules when the existing M- and 
T-rating deployment benchmarks begin to apply to all handsets, 
including newly covered operations, that a manufacturer or a service 
provider offers.
    54. The Commission adopts a transition period in order to reduce 
burdens on small entities and others. The Commission finds it in the 
public interest to adopt a January 1, 2018 transition date (for 
manufacturers and Tier I carriers) and an April 1, 2018 transition date 
(for other service providers) for applying section 20.19's deployment 
benchmarks and related requirements to newly covered operations. Some 
commenters support longer time frames of up to an additional 12 months 
for small, rural, and/or Tier III service providers who, these 
commenters contend, do not have the same access to new handsets as Tier 
I providers. The Commission considered this alternative proposal and 
decided to afford an additional three months for non-Tier I service 
providers to meet the deployment benchmarks and related requirements 
for handsets newly subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules. In 
allowing additional time until the April 1, 2018 transition date, the 
Commission recognizes that non-Tier I service providers often have 
difficulty obtaining the newest handset models. The Commission 
determined that the record does not demonstrate a need for a longer 
transition period for non-Tier I service providers (including small 
entities) nor provide any reason to depart from prior hearing aid 
compatibility transitions in which the Commission afforded non-Tier I 
providers an additional three months beyond the transition period

[[Page 183]]

provided to Tier I service providers because, in part, a shorter period 
would better meet the needs of consumers with hearing loss.
6. Report to Congress
    55. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Fourth Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Fourth Report and Order 
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register.

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    56. The Fourth Report and Order does not contain substantive new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It does not contain any 
substantive new or modified information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

C. Congressional Review Act

    57. The Commission will include a copy of this Fourth Report and 
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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).

III. Ordering Clauses

    58. It is ordered, pursuant to 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, this Fourth Report and Order is hereby adopted.
    59. It is further ordered that the rule amendments will become 
effective 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register.
    60. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Fourth Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, 
Incorporation by reference, Radio.


Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a) 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Section 20.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), 
(a)(3)(iv), and (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.19  Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Service providers. (i) On or after January 1, 2018 for Tier I 
carriers and April 1, 2018 for service providers other than Tier I 
carriers, the hearing aid compatibility requirements of this section 
apply to providers of digital mobile service in the United States to 
the extent that they offer terrestrial mobile service that enables two-
way real-time voice communications among members of the public or a 
substantial portion of the public, including both interconnected and 
non-interconnected VoIP services, and such service is provided over 
frequencies in the 698 MHz to 6 GHz bands.
    (ii) Prior to January 1, 2018 for Tier I carriers and April 1, 2018 
for service providers other than Tier I carriers, 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 698 MHz to 6 GHz bands.
    (2) Manufacturers. On or after January 1, 2018, 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)(i) of this section. Prior to January 1, 2018, 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)(ii) of this section.
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Service provider refers to a provider of digital mobile 
service to which the requirements of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a 
wireless handset used for digital mobile service only over the 698 MHz 
to 6 GHz frequency bands is hearing aid-compatible with regard to radio 
frequency interference or inductive coupling if it meets the applicable 
technical standard set forth in paragraph (b)(1) or (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 operations outside 
the 698 MHz to 6 GHz frequency bands is hearing aid-compatible if the 
handset otherwise satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (b).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-32757 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P