[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60625-60633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20871]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 15-285; FCC 16-103]


Improvements to Benchmarks and Related Requirements Governing 
Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission adopts this Report and Order to implement a 
historic consensus proposal for ensuring that people with hearing loss 
have full access to innovative handsets.

DATES: These rules are effective October 3, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal 
Communications Commission's Report and Order in WT Docket 15-285, 
adopted August 4, 2016, and released August 5, 2016. The document is 
available for download at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The 
complete text of this document is also available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information 
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order, the Commission takes several steps to 
implement a historic consensus proposal for ensuring that people with 
hearing loss have full access to innovative handsets. First, the 
Commission amends the hearing aid compatibility requirements that are 
generally applicable to wireless service providers and manufacturers of 
digital wireless handsets. Specifically, the Commission increases the 
number of hearing aid-compatible handsets that service providers and 
manufacturers are required to offer with two new percentage benchmarks: 
(1) 66 Percent of offered handset models must be compliant following a 
two-year transition period for manufacturers, with additional 
compliance time for service providers, and (2) 85 percent of offered 
handset models must be compliant following a five-year transition 
period for manufacturers, with additional compliance time for service 
providers. The Commission also expands the de minimis exception to 
provide a more limited obligation for entities offering four or five 
handsets.
    2. The Commission also reconfirms its commitment to pursuing 100 
percent hearing aid compatibility to the extent achievable. The 
Commission therefore invites consensus plan stakeholders and other 
interested parties to make supplemental submissions over the next 
several years on the achievability of a 100 percent hearing aid 
compatibility deployment benchmark considering technical and market 
conditions. As part of this process, the Commission also expects 
stakeholders to make submissions on additional points of agreement 
regarding other unresolved issues raised in this proceeding, including 
using alternative technologies to achieve hearing aid compatibility and 
establishing a safe harbor for service providers based on a public 
clearinghouse that claims to identify compliant handsets.
    3. In order to advance towards the Commission's proposed 100 
percent compatibility deployment benchmark, the Commission seeks to 
continue the productive collaboration between stakeholders and other 
interested parties so that it can obtain data and information about the 
technical and market conditions involving wireless handsets and hearing 
improvement technologies. In this regard, the Commission suggests a 
timeline identifying general milestones over the next several years 
when the consensus plan stakeholders and other interested parties may, 
at their election, make additional submissions. Based in significant 
part on the information it receives, the Commission intends to 
determine the achievability of a 100 percent compliance standard for 
wireless hearing aid compatibility by no later than 2024.

Background

    4. The current hearing aid compatibility deployment benchmarks 
require that, subject to a de minimis exception described below, a 
handset manufacturer must meet, for each air interface over which its 
models operate, (1) at least an M3 rating for acoustic coupling for at 
least one-third of its models using that air interface (rounded down), 
with a minimum of two models, and (2) at least a T3 rating for 
inductive coupling for at least one-third of its models using that 
interface (rounded down), with a minimum of two models. Similarly, a 
service provider must meet, for each air interface over which its 
models operate, (1) at least an M3 rating for acoustic coupling for at 
least 50 percent of its models using that air interface (rounded up) or 
ten models, and (2) at least a T3 rating for inductive coupling for at 
least one-third of its models using that interface (rounded up) or ten 
models.
    5. In general, under the de minimis exception, most manufacturers 
and service providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset 
models operating over a particular air interface are exempt from the 
benchmark deployment requirements in connection with that air 
interface. Larger manufacturers with two or fewer handset models in an 
air interface have a limited obligation, as do service providers 
offering two or fewer models that obtain those models only from larger 
manufacturers. The provision further provides that any manufacturer or 
service provider that offers three digital wireless handset models 
operating over a particular air interface must offer at least one such 
handset model that meets the Commission's acoustic and inductive 
coupling requirements for that air interface.
    6. To help ensure compliance with these benchmarks, the 
Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules also require wireless 
handset manufacturers and wireless service providers to submit annual 
reports to the Commission detailing the covered handsets that they 
offer for sale, the models that are hearing aid-compatible (and the 
specific rating), and other information relating to the requirements of 
the rule. In June 2009, the Commission introduced the electronic FCC 
Form 655 as the mandatory form for filing these reports, and since that 
time, both service providers and manufacturers have filed reports using 
the electronic system. Service provider compliance filings are due 
January 15 each year and manufacturer reports are due July 15 each 
year.
    7. On November 12, 2015, three consumer advocacy organizations and 
three industry trade associations submitted a Joint Consensus Proposal 
(JCP) providing for a process for moving away from the current 
fractional benchmark regime. The parties to the

[[Page 60626]]

JCP state that they ``agree that hearing aid compatibility for all 
wireless handsets is the Commission's collective goal'' and that ``the 
Commission's regulations must balance this goal with the ability to 
encourage innovations that can benefit all people with disabilities.'' 
With these principles in mind, the JCP proposes staged increases in the 
applicable deployment benchmarks, culminating in a 100 percent 
benchmark in eight years, subject to an assessment by the Commission of 
whether complete compatibility is achievable.
    8. Specifically, the JCP provides that within two years of the 
effective date of the new rules, 66 percent of wireless handset models 
offered to consumers should be compliant with the Commission's acoustic 
coupling (M rating) and inductive coupling (T rating) requirements. The 
proposal provides further that within five years of the effective date, 
85 percent of wireless handset models offered to consumers should be 
compliant with the Commission's M and T rating requirements.
    9. In addition to these two-year and five-year benchmarks, the 
proposal provides that ``[t]he Commission should commit to pursue that 
100% of wireless handsets offered to consumers should be compliant with 
[the M and T rating requirements] within eight years.'' The JCP 
conditions the transition to 100 percent, however, on a Commission 
determination within seven years of the rules' effective date that 
reaching the 100 percent goal is ``achievable.'' The JCP prescribes the 
following process for making that determination:

    A task force will be created, including all stakeholders, 
identifying questions for exploration in year four after the 
effective date that the benchmarks described above are established. 
After convening, the stakeholder task force will issue a report to 
the Commission within two years.
    The Commission, after review and receipt of the report described 
above, will determine whether to implement 100 percent compliance 
with [the M and T ratings requirements] based on concrete data and 
information about the technical and market conditions involving 
wireless handsets and the landscape of hearing improvement 
technology collected in years four and five. Any new benchmarks 
resulting from this determination, including 100 percent compliance, 
would go into effect no less than twenty-four months after the 
Commission's determination.
    Consumer groups and the Wireless Industry shall work together to 
hold meetings going forward to ensure that the process will include 
all stakeholders: At a minimum, consumer groups, independent 
research and technical advisors, wireless industry policy and 
technical representatives, hearing aid manufacturers and Commission 
representatives.

    10. The proposal provides that these new benchmarks should apply to 
manufacturers and service providers that offer six or more digital 
wireless handset models in an air interface, except that compliance 
dates for Tier I carriers and service providers other than Tier I 
carriers would be imposed six months and eighteen months, respectively, 
behind those for manufacturers, to account for the availability of 
handsets and inventory turn-over rates. The proposal recommends that 
the existing de minimis exception continue to apply for manufacturers 
and service providers that offer three or fewer handset models in an 
air interface and that manufacturers and service providers that offer 
four or five digital wireless handset models in an air interface should 
ensure that at least two of those handsets models are compliant with 
the Commission's M and T rating requirements. In addition, the proposal 
provides that these benchmarks should only be applicable if testing 
protocols are available for a particular air interface.
    11. On April 21, 2016 and July 29, 2016, the parties to the JCP 
filed ex parte letters supplementing their proposal and further 
addressing the proposed multi-stakeholder task force process.

Adoption of Enhanced Benchmarks

    12. As proposed in the JCP and the Notice, in place of the current 
percentage and minimum number handset deployment obligations, the 
Commission adopts the 66 and 85 percent benchmarks for manufacturers 
and service providers who offer six or more handset models per air 
interface. Manufacturers must comply with these benchmarks following a 
transition period of two and five years, respectively, running from the 
effective date of the new rules. Each of these transition periods is 
further extended by six months for Tier I carriers and 18 months for 
service providers other than Tier I carriers. To satisfy these new 
benchmarks, handset models must meet both a rating of M3 or higher for 
reduced RF interference in acoustic coupling mode and T3 or higher for 
inductive coupling capability. The Commission will maintain its current 
rounding rules, which means that the Commission's rules will continue 
to allow manufacturers to round their fractional deployment obligations 
down and the Commission's rules will continue to require service 
providers to round their fractional deployment obligations up.
    13. Consistent with the JCP and the Notice, the Commission will 
also maintain the current de minimis exception that applies to 
manufacturers and service providers that offer three or fewer handset 
models in an air interface. In addition, as proposed in the Notice and 
the JCP, the Commission amends the de minimis rule to additionally 
provide that when the new benchmarks become applicable, a more limited 
obligation will apply to manufacturers and service providers that offer 
4 or 5 handsets. Specifically, the Commission adopts, in most respects, 
the amendment proposed in the Notice and the JCP, and provide that (1) 
manufacturers and service providers that offer four wireless handset 
models in an air interface must ensure that at least two of those 
handset models are compliant with the Commission's M and T rating 
requirements; and (2) manufacturers who offer five wireless handset 
models in an air interface must similarly offer at least two that are 
compliant with the Commission's M and T rating requirements.
    14. The Commission modifies the JCP's proposed modification to the 
de minimis rule with regard to service providers that offer five 
wireless handset models in an air interface. Under the JCP, such 
service providers, like manufacturers offering that number of handset 
models, would in the future only have to offer two handset models that 
are compliant with the Commission's M and T rating requirements. Unlike 
in the cases discussed above, however, adoption of this requirement 
would result in a reduction of the obligations that such service 
providers have under the current rules. The Commission's current 
acoustic coupling deployment obligation for service providers offering 
five handset models in an air interface is 50 percent, or 2.5 handset 
models. Unlike manufacturers, service providers are required to round 
up when calculating their fractional deployment obligations and, 
therefore, under the Commission's existing rules the minimum number of 
models rated M3 or better for service providers offering five handset 
models in an air interface is three. No commenter argued that the 
Commission's current rounding rules should be revised, and considering 
the broader context--a transition toward universal handset compliance--
the Commission is unwilling to reduce the existing obligation. The 
parties to the JCP argue that fractional obligations for both 
manufacturers and service providers should be rounded down, but

[[Page 60627]]

they make this proposal solely on the grounds that it is ``consistent 
with current requirements.'' Further, the most recent submission from 
the parties to the JCP state their understanding that service providers 
offering five handset models will be required to offer three compatible 
handsets and raise no objection. Therefore, under the expanded de 
minimis exception, service providers who offer five handset models will 
have to ensure that at least three meet the Commission's M and T rating 
requirements. While this decision results in an increase in the number 
of T-rated handsets that a service provider who offers five handset 
models in an air interface currently must offer under the Commission's 
existing rules (i.e., from two to three), it is consistent with the 
JCP's proposal that handsets offered to satisfy the new benchmarks meet 
both an M3 and T3 rating (or better). It is also consistent with a 
general goal of moving toward 100 percent hearing aid compatibility.
    15. The expanded de minimis rule for manufacturers and service 
providers offering four or five handset models in an air interface will 
take effect for manufacturers, Tier I carriers, and service providers 
other than Tier I carriers at the same time in each case as the new 66 
percent benchmark (e.g., it will take effect for manufacturers in two 
years, and for Tier I carriers in two years and six months). This 
implementation schedule will run from the effective date of the new 
rules. For enforcement purposes, however, the Commission will review 
compliance with the new benchmarks and de minimis requirements starting 
the first day of the month after the new benchmarks become effective. 
This approach will eliminate any partial month compliance issues that 
may arise with the new requirements.
    16. The Commission concludes that the changes it adopts today 
satisfy the Commission's statutory obligations. The Commission notes 
that the Section 710(b)(2)(b) four-part test for lifting an exemption 
does not apply here where the Commission is assessing benchmarks for 
services and equipment already within the scope of Section 20.19 of the 
rules. Section 710(e), however, requires the Commission to ``consider 
costs and benefits to all telephone users, including persons with and 
without hearing loss,'' and 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.'' Section 710(e) further directs 
that the Commission should use appropriate timetables and benchmarks to 
the extent necessary due to technical feasibility or to ensure 
marketability or availability of new technologies to users. As 
discussed below, considering the costs and benefits to all end users, 
including persons with and without hearing loss and the impact on the 
use and development of technology, the Commission finds the new 
benchmarks and implementation schedule to be appropriate, reasonable, 
and technically feasible, and therefore in the public interest. The 
Commission further finds, given the acceptance of these benchmarks by 
both industry and consumer stakeholders, there does not appear to be 
any suggestion or evidence that they would impede the marketability and 
availability of new technologies to users.
    17. As reflected in the wide and unanimous support in the record 
for revising the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements as 
described above, these changes strike an appropriate balance between 
the interests of handset manufacturers, large and small service 
providers, and consumers with hearing loss. The Commission's actions 
today will provide significant benefits by expanding access to hearing 
aid-compatible handsets, while preserving the flexibility that allows 
competition and innovation in devices to flourish. Consumers with 
hearing loss, including those who rely on hearing aids or cochlear 
implants, will have more compatible handsets from which to choose when 
purchasing new phones, and manufacturers and service providers will 
have the time they need to meet the Commission's new benchmark 
requirements. This approach properly accounts for the realities of 
technology constraints as well as the needs of those with hearing loss. 
Further, no commenting party has argued that the costs of complying 
with the new benchmarks and their related implementation provisions 
would be detrimental to any consumers, with or without hearing loss. In 
fact, commenters broadly support the new benchmarks, timelines, 
additional implementation periods, and related provisions.
    18. In addition to benefitting hearing aid users generally, raising 
the benchmarks to increase the percentage of handset models with at 
least a T3 rating will be particularly beneficial to wireless users in 
the deaf and hard of hearing community who rely on telecoil-equipped 
hearing aids and cochlear implants. Further, given that these 
benchmarks were agreed to by the parties to the JCP, the stakeholders 
have already agreed that the associated costs of meeting hearing aid 
compatibility requirements for a higher percentage of models are 
reasonable. In light of the support for these changes from both 
consumers and the industries that would bear the costs, and given the 
lack of any significant related opposition or evidence to the contrary, 
the Commission finds it reasonable, consistent with the mandate of 
Section 710(e), to conclude that the benefits of adopting these 
benchmarks will exceed their costs.
    19. Further, the Commission finds that the transition periods the 
Commission adopts today are reasonable and are in the public interest. 
The Commission notes in particular that the JCP stakeholders crafted 
and proposed them, signaling broad support for these timelines. 
Moreover, the Commission has previously determined that two years is an 
appropriate period to accommodate the typical handset industry product 
cycle. The Commission believes that the transition periods identified 
in the JCP provide adequate time for handset manufacturers and service 
providers to adjust handset portfolios to ensure compliance with the 
new benchmarks, and the Commission therefore adopts them.
    20. While RWA argues that the compliance deadline for small service 
providers should be 24 months beyond the end of the two and five year 
transition periods for manufacturers, the Commission finds that the 
additional 18 months proposed in the JCP and the Notice is sufficient 
to address their concerns. In the Fourth Report and Order, the 
Commission allowed such providers only an additional three months after 
the compliance date for manufacturers and Tier I carriers to meet new 
deployment benchmarks and related requirements. In prior hearing aid 
compatibility transitions, the Commission has consistently allowed 
service providers that are not Tier I carriers no more than three 
months' time beyond the transition period provided to Tier I carriers. 
Here, the Commission is allowing service providers other than Tier I 
carriers an additional 12 months beyond the compliance date for Tier I 
carriers before they must be in compliance, and 18 months after 
manufacturers have to meet the new benchmarks. Therefore, there should 
be sufficient hearing aid-compatible handsets available to small 
service providers to integrate into their product lines. The Commission 
also notes that other commenters--including commenters that represent 
small

[[Page 60628]]

wireless service providers--support the transition period for small 
providers proposed in the JCP and the Notice. Taking into account that 
the latest hearing aid compatibility reports show a high rate of 
compliance for such providers, but also considering the significant 
increase the Commission is adopting in the applicable benchmarks, the 
Commission believes the agreed upon transition period for service 
providers other than Tier I carriers is reasonable.
    21. In addition, the Commission finds it in the public interest to 
continue to use the M3 and T3 ratings as the minimum that covered 
handsets must meet. The Commission declines to adopt ACI Alliance's 
proposal to put in place a benchmark or other mechanism that would 
require manufacturers to offer M4 and T4 rated handsets. The Commission 
believes this issue is better considered in the ANSI standards setting 
process or the ongoing stakeholder consensus process. Further, the 
Commission disagrees with ACI Alliance's assertion that the number of 
M4 and T4 rated handsets has been decreasing. In fact, manufacturers' 
compliance filings show the opposite. In light of this increase, it 
does not appear necessary to revise this component of the hearing aid 
compatibility requirements at this time.
    22. As proposed by the JCP and the Notice, meeting the new 
benchmarks of 66 and 85 percent will require offering handset models 
that have both an M3 rating (or higher) and a T3 rating (or higher). 
The current rules allow manufacturers and service providers to meet 
their M rating and T rating benchmarks with handset models that meet 
one rating but not the other. As a practical matter, however, all T3-
rated handsets already meet the M3 rating standard as well. None of the 
comments the Commission received indicate that requiring manufacturers 
and service providers to meet their benchmarks only with handsets that 
meet both standards is technically infeasible or will affect the 
marketability of these handsets in the United States. The Commission's 
approach encourages the use of currently available technology by 
relying on existing M3 and T3 coupling standards. Further, handsets 
that are hearing aid-compatible in either acoustic or telecoil mode 
will further benefit consumers with hearing loss by reducing the need 
for consumers to research whether a handset works only in one mode or 
the other. Moreover, the Commission's approach will not discourage or 
impair the development of improved technology. The Commission notes 
that wireless technology has continued to evolve rapidly over the years 
that the hearing aid compatibility rules have been in effect. The 
Commission anticipates that such innovation will continue with these 
revised benchmarks in place.
    23. The JCP proposed that the new benchmarks apply only ``if 
testing protocols are available for a particular interface.'' The 
Commission notes that, as with the current deployment requirements and 
consistent with past Commission precedent, manufacturers and service 
providers will be required to meet the new benchmarks only for 
technologies operating in the frequency bands covered by the approved 
technical standards. Further, these approved technical standards 
specify testing protocols for determining M and T ratings for mobile 
devices operating within the frequency range covered by the standards. 
Accordingly, the Commission does not agree that testing protocols are 
unavailable for new technologies within the scope of the standards. The 
Commission acknowledges, however, that, there may be cases of new 
technologies for which additional guidance or clarification on the 
application of the procedures may be helpful, and that temporary relief 
may be appropriate pending such guidance. In the past, the Commission 
has considered such issues on a case-by-case basis as they are raised 
by parties, and the Commission finds no reason to depart from this 
approach, given that there is no indication that this approach has not 
been successful in addressing any industry concerns. Accordingly, to 
the extent that parties request further guidance on testing procedures 
in connection with a particular new technology deployed in those bands, 
the Commission will, as it has in the past, address such requests on a 
case-by-case basis and provide appropriate guidance, or tailored 
accommodations pending guidance from the Commission or appropriate 
standards-setting bodies, as needed. The Commission would not, however, 
want the development of such testing protocols to delay hearing aid 
compatibility for new air interfaces or equipment. Therefore, the 
Commission expects the timely development of such testing protocols, 
and caution against unnecessary delays.
    24. The Commission also finds that it is in the public interest to 
retain the existing de minimis exception for manufacturers and service 
providers that offer three handset models or less, and to expand it to 
manufacturers and service providers that offer four or five digital 
wireless handset models in an air interface. No commenter objects to 
retaining or expanding the current de minimis rule while the new 
benchmarks of 66 and 85 percent are in effect. The Commission's 
expansion of the de minimis rule is generally consistent with the JCP 
and will reduce the burden on small and new industry participants. As 
discussed above, however, the Commission will require service providers 
who offer five handset models in an air interface to ensure that at 
least three meet the Commission's M and T rating requirements. The 
Commission believes the de minimis rule as revised today appropriately 
balances the goal of facilitating widespread deployment of hearing aid-
compatible devices to consumers while reducing burdens on small and new 
industry participants.
    25. The Commission finds it in the public interest to maintain the 
Commission's current rounding rules for fractional deployment 
obligations. Currently, when calculating the total number of handset 
models that must be offered over an air interface results in a 
fractional deployment obligation, manufacturers may round this number 
down, but service providers must round this number up. The Commission 
sees no reason to change this current practice.

Advancement of a 100 Percent Compatibility Deployment Benchmark

    26. By no later than 2024, the Commission intends to make a 
determination regarding the Commission's proposed requirement that 100 
percent of covered handsets be hearing aid-compatible. In consideration 
of the fact that both the hearing aid and mobile device markets will 
evolve during the time before the Commission makes this determination, 
the Commission will keep this docket open for all relevant submissions. 
The Commission anticipates that it will provide additional notice of 
wireless hearing aid compatibility proposals as they arise and become 
appropriate for more specific comment by manufacturers, service 
providers, consumer groups, and members of the public. The Commission 
believes this open process will afford all interested parties the same 
flexibility with which the Commission and stakeholders worked in the 
past to achieve consensus and establish the current hearing aid 
compatibility benchmarks and related requirements.
    27. In the discussion below, the Commission sets forth a process 
and timeline, consistent with the proposals in the JCP and the 
supplemental filings, for stakeholders to submit information 
individually or collectively, including from any independent task force 
or consensus group that they create. The

[[Page 60629]]

Commission also identifies for specific consideration additional 
issues. Although the Commission is making a decision to leave many 
issues open and the Commission defers action on any final rule 
codifying a possible 100 percent compatibility deployment benchmark, 
the Commission sets a pathway of milestones for submissions over the 
next several years that will ensure a resolution of this proceeding 
within the timeframe agreed to by the parties to the JCP and consistent 
with the Commission's intent that the Commission revisit this issue. 
These submissions are purely voluntary, however; the Commission does 
not require any party to make them, or to make them in the timeframes 
discussed, and will take no enforcement or other action against any 
party for failure to file. Further, in making these submissions, 
parties are not expected to produce any confidential, proprietary, or 
work product documents, nor, prior to the final report on 
achievability, does the Commission ask parties to provide more than 
summary descriptions of activities or any information or data being 
collected. In addition, the Commission does not expect any submissions 
to be filed until an independent task force or other consensus group to 
implement the JCP's commitments is created, and the Commission 
primarily expects these submissions to be filed by or on behalf of such 
a group. The Commission welcomes submissions from other parties, 
however, as well as submissions prior to the creation of the task force 
to the extent parties find it appropriate, particularly if they 
experience unanticipated difficulties in convening such a group.

Open Docket for Supplemental Submissions

    28. In the July Supplemental Filing, the parties to the JCP 
discussed ``how the Commission can be kept apprised of the status of 
the Task force's progress once the Task Force is established.'' 
Recognizing the need for transparency through the process, they 
``acknowledge that an annual report once the Task Force is established 
could satisfy the Commission's interest in the Task Force's 
activities.'' They further recommend that, ``[r]ather than prescribe 
the specific contents of any additional reports . . . the Commission 
should permit the Task Force the flexibility to work together to 
determine the best way to communicate the status of the determination 
process to the FCC and the public.'' The consumer group signatories 
further suggest that ``so long as the language is not proscriptive, 
they would not object to guidance from the Commission on the kind of 
information that could be included in the yearly reports.''
    29. Consistent with these proposals, and to allow stakeholders to 
reach further consensus on the various proposals set forth in the JCP 
and raised in the Commission's subsequent Notice, the Commission asks 
interested parties to file additional comments, reports, and other 
submissions in this docket in accordance with the timeline detailed 
below. The Commission will use this open docket to develop a record on 
whether and when a regime under which all wireless handsets are 
required to be hearing aid-compatible is ``achievable.'' The Commission 
will also use this docket to collect additional points of consensus on 
the question of a 100 percent wireless hearing aid compatibility 
deployment requirement, alternative hearing aid compatibility 
standards, and the other issues raised in the Commission's Notice.
    30. The Commission finds that maintaining an open docket is the 
best method to reach an outcome that reflects a consensus among all 
interested parties. Although the Commission's open docket will permit 
broad participation among many interested participants over the next 
several years, the Commission expects that parties will continue to 
work together to establish whatever task force and/or working groups 
are necessary to submit consensus filings. The Commission therefore 
does not expect that every party affected by the outstanding issues in 
this proceeding will file reports or other submissions, and anticipates 
that such filings will most likely be filed solely by the task force or 
other groups that are established. Stakeholders themselves are best 
positioned to work collectively to obtain and report the data necessary 
to craft a regime that ensures full hearing aid compatibility while 
protecting market incentives to innovate and invest. The Commission 
encourages the formation of groups that represent the broadest number 
of participants, including representatives of consumers who use hearing 
aid devices, research and technical advisors, wireless industry policy 
and technical representatives, and hearing aid manufacturers.
    31. With the assumption that interested parties will convene a task 
force to make submissions in this docket, the Commission notes that 
such a group would be established by the stakeholders themselves and 
would operate separate from the Commission. Although the Commission 
anticipates that any such task force group will use its best efforts to 
reach compromises that result in consensus positions, the Commission 
realizes that it may not be possible in all cases to achieve agreement 
among all participants or on all issues. Accordingly, by maintaining an 
open docket for submissions from all interested parties, the Commission 
also provides an opportunity for any individual, as well as any 
minority, positions to be presented to the Commission during the course 
of this proceeding.

Timeline for Submissions

    32. The Commission asks interested parties to make submissions in 
accordance with the timeframes outlined below. These timeframes 
generally correspond to the timeline in the April 21, 2016 ex parte 
filing from the parties to the JCP, which describes the steps leading 
to a report helping to inform the Commission whether 100 percent 
hearing aid compatibility is ``achievable considering technical and 
market conditions.'' For example, it states that the signatories will 
determine appropriate task force participants ``within two years, but 
no later than the start of year four.'' The filing states that the 
parties will develop questions and explore the scope of the issues 
prior to year four, and that the official start of the achievability 
determination process will begin in year four. It also states that the 
task force will take all reasonable steps to file a report with the 
Commission by no later than the end of year six and, at that point, 
disband. The proposed submissions described below are intended to 
encourage transparency and to facilitate a collaborative process among 
hearing aid manufacturers, digital wireless handset manufacturers, 
consumer groups representing those with hearing loss, and wireless 
service providers.
    33. The Commission clarifies that the submissions described below 
are intended to be illustrative and that it will be up to any task 
force or consensus group to determine the best means of apprising the 
Commission of its activities. Guided by the additional data, 
information, and reports the Commission expects to receive, the 
Commission's intent is to make a final determination in this proceeding 
by no later than 2024. The Commission expects that interested parties 
will work independently and collectively to obtain valuable information 
and assist the Commission's ultimate achievability determination by 
making submissions as follows:
    Stakeholder Participation:

[[Page 60630]]

    By December 31, 2017 (end of Year 1)--
    Report on outreach efforts by or to relevant stakeholders to gain 
commitments to participate in a consensus group.
    Report on the formation of any stakeholder consensus group(s), 
including membership, leadership, and operations.
    By December 31, 2018 (end of Year 2)--
    Report on outreach efforts by or to relevant stakeholders to gain 
commitments to participate in a consensus group.
    Report on the formation of any stakeholder consensus group(s), 
including membership, leadership, and operations.
    Consensus Issues and Data:
    By December 31, 2019 (end of Year 3)--
    Report on any meetings, operations, and accomplishments to date of 
any stakeholder consensus group(s).
    Report on the questions and scope of hearing aid compatibility 
issues to be evaluated by any stakeholder consensus group(s).
    Report on any information and data planned to be collected by any 
stakeholder consensus group(s).
    Report on any developments regarding the matters identified above 
under Stakeholder Participation (if applicable).
    By December 31, 2020 (end of Year 4)--
    Report on any meetings, operations, and accomplishments to date of 
any stakeholder consensus group(s).
    Report on the information and data collected over Year 4 on those 
hearing aid compatibility issues being evaluated by any stakeholder 
consensus group(s).
    By December 31, 2021 (end of Year 5)--
    Report on any meetings, operations, and accomplishments to date of 
any stakeholder consensus group(s).
    Report on the information and data collected over Year 5 on those 
hearing aid compatibility issues being evaluated by any stakeholder 
consensus group(s).
    Determination and Report:
    By December 31, 2022 (end of Year 6)--
    Report on any meetings, operations, and accomplishments to date of 
any stakeholder consensus group(s).
    Report on the information and data collected over Years 4 and 5 on 
those hearing aid compatibility issues being evaluated by any 
stakeholder consensus group(s).
    Submit final report on the achievability of a 100 percent hearing 
aid compatibility deployment benchmark and on other hearing aid 
compatibility issues being evaluated by any stakeholder consensus 
group(s).

Issues for Consensus

    34. Although the Commission has decided to generally leave matters 
open and defer action until a future proceeding, the Commission expects 
stakeholders and other interested parties to use their best efforts to 
reach consensus on the remaining issues and proposals set forth in the 
JCP filed on November 12, 2015 and raised in the subsequent Notice. The 
Commission encourages interested parties to address four issues in 
particular: (1) Whether 100 percent compatibility is achievable, with 
any analysis framed under the standard articulated in Section 710(e) of 
the Act, as appropriate; (2) how a 100 percent deployment benchmark 
could rely in part or in whole on alternative hearing aid compatibility 
technologies, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring 
interoperability between hearing aids and alternative technologies; (3) 
whether service providers should be able to legally rely on information 
in the Accessibility Clearinghouse in connection with meeting 
applicable benchmarks; and (4) whether the Commission should establish 
a fixed period of time or shot clock for the resolution of petitions 
for waiver of the hearing aid compatibility requirements. The 
Commission further discusses these issues below in the context of the 
record that has developed to date.
    35. The Commission's ultimate approach on the outstanding issues 
from the JCP and the subsequent Notice depends in many cases on the 
outcome of the achievability determination. Accordingly, in these 
cases, the Commission plans to defer specific action on final rules 
regarding compliance processes, legacy models, burden reduction, the 
appropriate transition period for any new deployment requirements the 
Commission adopts, and other alternatives and implementation issues 
until the point at which the Commission receives a final report on the 
achievability of a 100 percent hearing aid compatibility standard from 
the stakeholder consensus group(s) that the Commission anticipates will 
participate in this proceeding. As such issues are relevant to the 
milestones the Commission describes above, however, the Commission 
expects that interested parties will make submissions as appropriate, 
as these issues remain open for consideration within the scope of this 
proceeding. Moreover, as interested parties seek points of agreement on 
these issues separate from the aforementioned milestones, the 
Commission expects they will make submissions summarizing points of 
consensus.
    36. Determination of Achievability. The Commission intends to base 
the determination of the achievability of a 100 percent compatibility 
deployment benchmark on the factors identified in Section 710(e) of the 
Act. Section 710(e) requires the Commission to ``consider costs and 
benefits to all telephone users, including persons with and without 
hearing loss,'' and 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.'' Section 710(e) further directs that the 
Commission should use appropriate timetables and benchmarks to the 
extent necessary due to technical feasibility or to ensure 
marketability or availability of new technologies to users.
    37. The Commission notes that in response to the Notice, Wireless 
Associations and Consumer Groups recommend that the Commission use a 
Section 710 analysis (as opposed to the achievability requirements of 
Section 716 and 718) to determine whether a 100 percent standard is 
achievable. The Commission agrees with this recommendation, as it 
intends to rely on the factors identified in Section 710(e) of the Act. 
This approach is consistent with the analysis undertaken by the 
Commission in the 2008 First Report and Order when it adopted 
modifications to the then-current deployment benchmarks. The Commission 
does not plan to base its determination of achievability on certain 
other Section 710 provisions, however, such as Section 710(b)(2)(B) 
which directs the Commission to use a four-part test to periodically 
reassess exemptions from the hearing aid compatibility requirements for 
wireless handsets. Accordingly, as interested parties prepare a report 
on the achievability of a 100 percent hearing aid compatibility 
deployment benchmark, the Commission encourages them to submit 
conclusions based on the factors identified in Section 710(e), 
including cost/benefit, technical feasibility, marketability, and 
availability of new technologies.
    38. Alternative Hearing Aid Compatibility Technologies. In 
connection with the achievability assessment, the Commission encourages 
stakeholders to work towards consensus submissions on whether a 100 
percent standard should permit technologies

[[Page 60631]]

other than those designed to meet the current M and T rating 
requirements, and to ``consider which data would be needed to determine 
if the existing definition of [hearing aid compatibility] is the most 
effective means for ensuring access to wireless handsets for consumers 
who use hearing aids while encouraging technological innovation.'' The 
JCP provides that the Commission should consider ``whether wireless 
handsets can be deemed compliant with the HAC rules through means other 
than by measuring RF interference and inductive coupling.'' In the 
Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether any new benchmarks 
should specifically require both a minimum M3 and T3 rating, or whether 
manufacturers should be allowed to meet the requirement by 
incorporating other methods of achieving compatibility with hearing 
aids, such as Bluetooth[supreg]. In response to the Notice, Apple and 
ASTAC both support rules that recognize solutions such as Bluetooth as 
alternative hearing aid compatibility technologies, while HIA and other 
individual commenters oppose permitting certification of Bluetooth 
profiles that are not universally standardized in the same way as the 
telecoils found in hearing aids and cochlear implants. Wireless 
Associations, Consumer Groups, and T-Mobile state that the Commission 
should use the stakeholder process to evaluate new and innovative ways 
to consider the definition of hearing aid compatibility.
    39. As interested parties prepare a report on the achievability of 
a 100 percent hearing aid compatibility deployment benchmark, the 
Commission expects that they will consider alternative hearing aid 
compatibility technologies, along with emerging technologies and 
devices designed to assist in modifying or amplifying sound for 
individuals with hearing loss, such as personal sound amplification 
(PSA) products. The Commission also invites parties to explain how 
these technologies and devices should be incorporated into a future 
benchmark framework. Because telecoils may be comparable to analog 
technologies, the Commission invites submissions regarding the 
inclusion of digital technologies, such as Bluetooth, within the rules 
as alternatives for meeting some or all of any future deployment 
benchmark(s). The Commission emphasizes the importance of broad 
interoperability between hearing aids and compatibility technologies, 
and the Commission flags the costs the consumers could face if certain 
technologies work only with select hearing aids. The Commission is 
encouraged by the extent to which Apple's proprietary solutions may 
lead to further research towards more universal standards that can 
someday be recognized by a standards body like ANSI, particularly if 
they lead to interoperable alternative solutions that can be deployed 
more widely across all manufacturers' devices and can work reliably 
with more than just certain select hearing aid models.
    40. Relying on the Accessibility Clearinghouse. The Commission also 
sought comment in the Notice on whether and how compatibility 
information that manufacturers supply on Form 655 could be used to 
automatically supplement the Accessibility Clearinghouse database, and 
whether service providers should be able to rely on information in the 
Accessibility Clearinghouse or in manufacturers' Form 655 submissions 
as a compliance safe harbor. Very few commenters address these issues, 
and those that did offered only general support without input on how 
these measures could or should be implemented. The Commission notes 
that the existing Accessibility Clearinghouse database contains 
information gathered from and curated by third parties and, despite 
questions on this issue in the Notice, no commenters addressed whether 
the database reliably identifies devices that are in fact fully 
compliant with the hearing aid compatibility rules. The Commission 
therefore invites interested parties to address these issues regarding 
the Clearinghouse in supplemental submissions, and the Commission 
encourages them to offer consensus positions to the extent possible. 
Because these issues may become less impactful in the event the 
Commission transitions to 100 percent compatibility, it would be most 
beneficial to receive stakeholders' views toward the beginning of the 
timetable presented above.
    41. While the Commission reaches no conclusion at this time about a 
safe harbor based on the Accessibility Clearinghouse, it finds that the 
hearing aid compatibility rating information contained in 
manufacturers' Form 655 reports is reliable. In those reports, 
manufacturers must identify each handset model's hearing aid 
compatibility rating, which in turn must reflect the testing results 
produced by a Commission-approved Telecommunications Certification 
Body. Manufacturers are further required to certify that statements 
reported in the form ``are accurate, true and correct.'' Because the 
Commission concludes that this information is reliable, it will treat a 
service provider as compliant with the hearing aid compatibility rules 
to the extent that its compliance is based on its reasonable reliance 
on data contained in, or aggregated from, manufacturers' Form 655 
submissions.
    42. Waiver Requests. The Commission also sought comment in the 
Notice on potential modifications to the Commission's compliance 
processes in the context of implementing the JCP, including how best to 
apply the Section 710(b)(3) waiver process. In particular, the 
Commission sought comment on whether it should establish a fixed time 
period within which the Commission must take action on waiver requests, 
and if so, whether 180 days or another amount of time would be 
appropriate considering both the need to develop a full record and the 
importance of avoiding delay in the introduction of new technologies. 
While some commenters recommend that a waiver process should continue 
to be available to provide relief in appropriate cases, no commenter 
addresses the adoption of such a time period. The Commission again 
invites interested parties to address in this proceeding the adoption 
of a shot clock on the resolution of hearing aid compatibility waiver 
requests involving new technologies or other circumstances, and the 
extent to which such a measure (or other modifications to the waiver 
process or the Commission's other compliance processes) may contribute 
to the achievability of a 100 percent requirement, to addressing the 
concerns of small entities, or to ensuring that hearing aid 
compatibility requirements do not hinder the development or deployment 
of new technologies.

Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
    43. To ensure that a wide selection of digital wireless handset 
models are available to consumers with hearing loss, the Commission's 
rules require both manufacturers and service providers to meet defined 
benchmarks for offering hearing aid-compatible wireless phones.
    44. As proposed in the Joint Consensus Proposal (JCP) and the 
Notice, the Commission adopted the 66 and 85 percent benchmarks for 
manufacturers and service providers who offer six or more handset 
models per air interface, with the two and five year transition 
periods, respectively, for manufacturers and the additional

[[Page 60632]]

transition periods of six months for Tier I carriers and 18 months for 
non-Tier I carriers. To satisfy these benchmarks, handset models must 
meet both a rating of M3 or higher for acoustic coupling and T3 or 
higher for inductive coupling capability. The Commission determined to 
maintain its current rounding rules that allow manufacturers to round 
their fractional deployment obligations down, but require service 
providers to round their fractional deployment obligations up.
    45. Consistent with the JCP, the Commission also determined to 
maintain the current de minimis exception that applies to manufacturers 
and service providers that offer three or fewer handset models in an 
air interface and provides that manufacturers and service providers 
that offer four wireless handset models in an air interface must ensure 
that at least two of those handsets models are compliant with the 
Commission's M and T rating requirements.
    46. In the Report and Order, the Commission also set forth a 
process and timeline, consistent with the proposals in the JCP, for 
interested parties to make submissions individually or collectively, 
including from any independent task force or consensus group that they 
create. The Commission determined to leave many hearing aid 
compatibility issues open and deferred action on a final rule codifying 
a 100 percent compatibility deployment benchmark. It also identified 
for specific consideration several issues raised by parties to the JCP 
and the Notice. The Commission explained that it will use submissions 
over the next several years to develop a record on whether and when a 
regime under which all wireless handsets are required to be hearing 
aid-compatible is ``achievable.'' The Commission further explained that 
it will use this docket to collect additional points of consensus that 
it anticipates will be the basis for a final rule that codifies a 100 
percent wireless hearing aid compatibility deployment standard and 
addresses the other hearing aid compatibility requirements raised in 
the Notice.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    47. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
3. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration
    48. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission 
is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a 
detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result 
of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in 
response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
4. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply
    49. The following small entity licensees and regulatees may be 
affected by the rules changes adopted in the Report and Order: Small 
Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions; 
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing; Part 15 Handset Manufacturers; Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite); Internet Service 
Providers; and All Other Information and Telecommunications Services.
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 wireless service providers and the 
manufacturers of digital wireless 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. In the Report and Order, 
the Commission did not impose any additional reporting, record keeping, 
or other compliance requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    51. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a number of 
provisions to help small businesses in meeting the new hearing aid 
compatibility deployment requirements. Specifically, the Commission 
decided to keep in place and expand the existing de minimis exception. 
In addition, the Commission allowed small business service providers an 
additional 18 months after the effective date of the new rules to 
comply with the new benchmarks.
6. Federal Rules That Might Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Rules
    52. None.
7. Report to Congress
    53. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    54. The 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. In addition, therefore, 
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

    55. The Commission will include a copy of this Report and Order 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).

Ordering Clauses

    56. Accordingly, 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 Report and Order is hereby adopted.
    57. It is further ordered that the rule amendments set forth in 
Appendix B will become effective 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register.
    58. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer 
Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of 
the Report and Order to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

[[Page 60633]]

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends part 20 of title 47 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues 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 adding paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(C) and (D), 
(c)(2)(iii), (c)(3)(iii), (c)(3)(iv), (d)(1)(ii)(D) and (E), 
(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), and (e)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.19  Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Beginning October 3, 2018, at least sixty-six (66) percent of 
those handset models (rounded down to the nearest whole number) must 
comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (D) Beginning October 4, 2021, at least eighty-five (85) percent of 
those handset models (rounded down to the nearest whole number) must 
comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Beginning April 3, 2019, each Tier I carrier must ensure that 
at least sixty-six (66) percent of the handset models it offers comply 
with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, calculated based on the 
total number of unique digital wireless handset models the carrier 
offers nationwide. Beginning April 4, 2022, each Tier I carrier must 
ensure that at least eighty-five (85) percent of the handset models it 
offers comply with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, 
calculated based on the total number of unique digital wireless handset 
models the carrier offers nationwide.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Beginning April 3, 2020, ensure that at least sixty-six (66) 
percent of the handset models it offers comply with paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section, calculated based on the total number of unique 
digital wireless handset models the carrier offers.
    (iv) Beginning April 3, 2023, ensure that at least eighty-five (85) 
percent of the handset models it offers comply with paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section, calculated based on the total number of unique 
digital wireless handset models the carrier offers.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Beginning October 3, 2018, at least sixty-six (66) percent of 
the handset models in that air interface, which must comply with 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (E) Beginning October 4, 2021, at least eighty-five (85) percent of 
the handset models in that air interface, which must comply with 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Beginning April 3, 2019, each Tier I carrier must ensure that 
at least sixty-six (66) percent of the handset models it offers comply 
with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, calculated based on the 
total number of unique digital wireless handset models the carrier 
offers nationwide. Beginning April 4, 2022, each Tier I carrier must 
ensure that at least eighty-five (85) percent of the handset models it 
offers comply with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, 
calculated based on the total number of unique digital wireless handset 
models the carrier offers nationwide.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Beginning April 3, 2020, ensure that at least sixty-six (66) 
percent of the handset models it offers comply with paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section, calculated based on the total number of unique 
digital wireless handset models the carrier offers;
    (iv) Beginning April 3, 2023, ensure that at least eighty-five (85) 
percent of the handset models it offers comply with paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section, calculated based on the total number of unique 
digital wireless handset models the carrier offers.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Beginning October 3, 2018, manufacturers that offer four or 
five digital wireless handset models in an air interface must offer at 
least two handset models compliant with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 
this section in that air interface. Beginning April 3, 2019, Tier I 
carriers who offer four digital wireless handset models in an air 
interface must offer at least two handsets compliant with paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section in that air interface and Tier I 
carriers who offer five digital wireless handset models in an air 
interface must offer at least three handsets compliant with paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section in that air interface. Beginning April 
3, 2020, service providers, other than Tier I carriers, who offer four 
digital wireless handset models in an air interface must offer at least 
two handset models compliant with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section in that air interface and service providers, other than Tier I 
carriers, who offer five digital wireless handset models in an air 
interface must offer at least three handsets compliant with paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section in that air interface.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-20871 Filed 9-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P