**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 07-250         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of the Commission's    | ) |                              |
| Rules                            | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible |   |                              |
| Mobile Handsets                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Petition of American National    | ) |                              |
| Standards Institute Accredited   | * |                              |
| Standards Committee C63 (EMC)    | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| ANSI ASC C63®                    | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

FIRST report and order

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

By the Commission: Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell
issuing separate statements:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

# INTRODUCTION 1

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

# BACKGROUND 14

# DISCUSSION 26

## Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment Requirements 26

### M3/T3 Standards.. 28

###  New Requirements For Handset Deployment 47

#### Product Refresh Rule For Manufacturers 48

#### Rule Requiring Service Providers To Offer Models With Differing Levels Of Functionality 50

### Implementation Issues 53

#### Definition Of A Model 53

#### Multi-Mode And Multi-Band Handsets 58

#### *De minimis* Rule 69

### M4/T4 Standards 75

##  2007 ANSI C63.19 Technical Standard 77

### Adoption of the 2007 Standard and Phase-in 77

### Application to Services in the 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz Bands 84

### Future Revisions and Extensions to the Technical Standard 86

## Reporting, Information and Outreach 90 

##  {#section .unnumbered}

### Reporting 90

### Information and Outreach 104

## 2010 Review 117

# CONCLUSION 118

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS 119

# ORDERING CLAUSES 127

APPENDIX A -- Parties Filing Comments

APPENDIX B -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX C -- Final Rules

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Report and Order, we revise the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements applicable to providers of public mobile services and
    manufacturers of digital wireless handsets used in the delivery of
    those services. Specifically, we adopt benchmark requirements for
    future deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets, and related
    requirements, based on the proposals in a Joint Consensus Plan
    developed by an Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions
    (ATIS) working group that included Tier I carriers,[^1] handset
    manufacturers, and several organizations representing the interests
    of consumers with hearing loss.[^2] We also adopt certain other rule
    changes to better promote the accessibility of hearing
    aid-compatible handsets to deaf and hard of hearing consumers. We
    intend to address other issues raised in the *Notice* in this
    proceeding but not addressed here in a subsequent report and
    order.[^3]

2.  As a preliminary matter, we take this opportunity to express our
    deep appreciation for the efforts of the many parties involved in
    the development of the Joint Consensus Plan, whose recommendations
    we substantially adopt today. The broad support for the Plan among
    both industry and consumer advocacy groups, as reflected in the
    record of this proceeding, testifies to the success of the proffered
    proposals in meeting the goals of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act,
    and in addressing the concerns of manufacturers and service
    providers while still advancing the interests of consumers with
    hearing loss in having greater access to advanced digital wireless
    communications. We strongly encourage the wireless industry,
    including new entrants, and consumer groups to continue their
    collaborative efforts in order to ensure the successful
    implementation of the measures adopted today.

3.  The changes we adopt to the handset deployment requirements
    include (1) modifying the requirement, presently stayed until April
    18, 2008, that manufacturers and service providers ensure that 50
    percent of their digital wireless handset models meet established
    standards for radio frequency (RF) interference reduction, and (2)
    increasing the obligation on manufacturers and service providers to
    offer handset models that meet an established standard for inductive
    coupling capability. We adopt a handset "refresh" requirement for
    manufacturers, obligating manufacturers to ensure annually that a
    certain percentage of their hearing aid-compatible handset models
    are newly issued that year, and we require service providers to
    offer hearing aid-compatible handsets with different levels of
    functionality.

4.  In addition to these modifications to the handset deployment
    requirements, we adopt an updated version of the technical standard
    for measuring hearing aid compatibility in both acoustic coupling
    and inductive coupling modes, provide a phase-in period for its
    application as the exclusive standard, and create a streamlined
    mechanism for adopting future revisions of the standard. Because we
    find that the established technical standard, including the most
    recent version of that standard adopted today, provides tests for
    measuring hearing aid compatibility for wireless services operating
    over a broader range of frequencies than is currently subject to
    hearing aid compatibility requirements, we extend the scope of these
    requirements to the full range of frequencies covered by the
    established standard. To assist us in monitoring the implementation
    of the new requirements and to provide information to the public, we
    also require manufacturers and service providers to continue to file
    annual reports on the status of their compliance with these
    requirements, and we require manufacturers and service providers to
    publish up-to-date information on their websites regarding their
    hearing aid-compatible handset models.

5.  We anticipate that these inter-related changes, taken together and
    largely supported by manufacturers, service providers, and consumers
    with hearing loss, will further "ensure reasonable access to
    telephone service by persons with impaired hearing" as required by
    the Communications Act.[^4] The increased requirements to offer
    handsets with inductive coupling capability will particularly
    benefit the most disadvantaged wireless users in the deaf and hard
    of hearing community, who are more likely to rely on
    telecoil-equipped hearing aids. We also anticipate that the
    requirements that manufacturers refresh their products annually and
    that service providers offer handset models at differing
    functionality levels will help to ensure that consumers with hearing
    loss have a variety of handsets available to them, including
    handsets with innovative features, a goal that we have sought to
    encourage since the release of the 2003 *Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Order*.[^5] At the same time, we conclude that the level of
    obligations and the flexibility provided in the new benchmarks
    satisfy our obligation to "ensure that regulations adopted to
    implement \[the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act\] encourage the use of
    currently available technology and do not discourage or impair the
    development of improved technology."[^6] In particular, these
    changes help to resolve the technical issues that have been raised
    regarding the difficulty of producing a wide variety of Global
    System for Mobile Communications (GSM) handsets that both meet the
    requisite M3 (or higher) rating for acoustic coupling capability and
    include certain popular features, and thereby ensure that the impact
    of the rules remains as technology-impartial as possible while also
    ensuring the availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to
    consumers.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6.  Under the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility
    requirements, codified at Section 20.19 of the rules, mobile service
    providers and handset manufacturers must offer a certain number of
    digital wireless handset models that are compatible with the use of
    hearing aids through reductions in the RF interference caused by the
    handsets and through an internal capacity for inductive coupling
    with a telecoil. The rules also specify American National Standards
    Institute (ANSI) C63.19 as the standard for measuring hearing aid
    compatibility, specifically providing that to be hearing
    aid-compatible, a handset must meet, for reduced RF interference, a
    U3/M3 rating under the ANSI C63.19 standard, and for inductive
    coupling capability, a U3T/T3 rating.[^7] In addition, the rules
    impose product labeling requirements, as well as certain obligations
    regarding outreach and reporting.

7.  When the Commission established these requirements in 2003, it also
    directed Commission staff to deliver a report after three years
    assessing the impact of the requirements in achieving greater
    compatibility between hearing aids and digital wireless phones.[^8]
    It further indicated that this staff report would form the basis of
    a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to modify the hearing
    aid compatibility requirements, consistent with our statutory
    obligation to "periodically review the regulations established
    pursuant to \[the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act\]."[^9] On October
    5, 2007, pursuant to the Commission's directive, the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) released the *Staff Report,*
    reviewing the current status of implementation of the hearing aid
    compatibility requirements and offering recommendations for further
    action to facilitate access to digital wireless services by the deaf
    and hard of hearing.[^10] Many of these recommendations drew upon
    the proposals contained in the Joint Consensus Plan.[^11]

8.  In the *Notice* in this proceeding, adopted on November 5, 2007, we
    tentatively concluded, based on recommendations in the *Staff
    Report*, to adopt many of the recommendations in the Joint Consensus
    Plan, and sought comment on these tentative conclusions and related
    issues. In this regard, we stayed until April 18, 2008, the
    enforcement of certain benchmarks that had been scheduled to become
    effective February 18, 2008, pending our action in this
    proceeding.[^12] We also requested comment on various other issues
    relating to our hearing aid compatibility rules, including such
    forward-looking issues as the application of hearing aid
    compatibility obligations in the context of emerging technologies
    such as Wi-Fi[^13] and in relation to open access platforms.[^14] In
    this Report and Order, we address issues raised in the Joint
    Consensus Plan and other related matters.

9.  We begin by adopting a series of rule changes - many proposed in the
    Joint Consensus Plan - regarding the handset deployment obligations
    of both manufacturers and service providers.[^15] As part of these
    rule changes, we significantly increase the future obligations of
    both manufacturers and mobile service providers to provide handset
    models that meet a T3 or higher rating for inductive coupling. We
    also modify the requirements going forward to provide wireless
    handset models that meet an M3 or higher rating for RF interference
    reduction, establishing a one-third benchmark per air interface for
    manufacturers and requiring service providers to meet either a 50
    percent benchmark or specific numerical targets over the next three
    years. To address concerns regarding the availability of hearing
    aid-compatible handsets to smaller service providers, we provide
    these entities with an additional three months to meet each of the
    handset deployment benchmarks. Further, to facilitate the continuing
    availability of a variety of hearing aid-compatible handset models,
    we impose a new "refresh" obligation on manufacturers, which will
    require them to ensure that a certain number of their hearing
    aid-compatible handset models are models newly offered that year. We
    impose a comparable new requirement on service providers, who will
    have to offer hearing aid-compatible handset models with differing
    levels of functionality.

10. We also address how we are applying hearing aid compatibility
    requirements to handsets that operate over multiple frequency bands
    and/or air interfaces. Specifically, we provide that, to be
    certified as hearing aid-compatible, handsets must meet hearing aid
    compatibility standards in all frequency bands and all air
    interfaces over which they operate and for which there are
    established technical standards for measuring hearing aid
    compatibility. At this time, we leave the record open for further
    submissions regarding whether a phone that operates in such bands or
    air interfaces as well as band or air interfaces for which no
    standards exist should be counted as hearing aid-compatible.
    However, because there are many Wi-Fi-capable handset models already
    being offered to consumers, and in order to provide certainty to
    manufacturers and service providers that are already offering
    Wi-Fi-capable multi-mode handsets, we will allow as an interim
    measure such handsets to be offered as hearing aid-compatible so
    long as they otherwise qualify as hearing aid-compatible under our
    rules and certain disclosures are made to consumers.

11. In addition to these changes to the deployment requirements, we
    adopt several rules regarding the technical standard for measuring
    hearing aid compatibility. In this regard, we adopt the most recent
    version of that standard approved by ANSI, ANSI C63.19-2007. To
    enable an efficient transition to the new standard, we provide a
    phase-in period through 2009 during which parties may rely on either
    the 2007 version of the standard or the previous 2006 version. We
    also create a streamlined mechanism through which WTB and the Office
    of Engineering and Technology (OET) may adopt future revisions that
    extend the standard to new bands or air interfaces, ensuring that
    the application of hearing aid compatibility requirements to these
    bands and air interfaces will not be unduly delayed once established
    technical standards are available.

12. In addition, we expand the scope of our hearing aid compatibility
    obligations to include covered services over all frequencies in the
    800-950 MHz band and the 1.6-2.5 GHz band, given that the 2006 and
    2007 versions of the ANSI C63.19 standard already provide tests for
    services that employ certain air interfaces over these frequencies.
    Thus, for example, our action today ensures that such services, when
    provided over the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)-1 frequencies
    auctioned last year, will be subject to hearing aid compatibility
    obligations as of the effective date of these rules.

13. We also revise the reporting obligations of manufacturers and
    service providers. In particular, we extend annual reporting
    requirements for these entities on an open-ended basis, with the
    first of the new reports due January 15, 2009, and we amend the
    information that must be included in the reports. These amendments
    should render the reports much more useful to consumers who wish to
    know the compatibility ratings of different handset models that have
    been certified as hearing aid-compatible, as well as to service
    providers and Commission staff. To ensure the availability of such
    information on a more current basis to service providers and
    consumers wishing to offer or purchase hearing aid-compatible
    handsets, we require manufacturers and service providers to provide
    up-to-date information on their websites regarding their hearing
    aid-compatible handset models. We also require manufacturers and
    service providers to provide the Commission with a contact for
    accepting informal complaints regarding compliance with our hearing
    aid compatibility rules, to be posted on our website. To further
    facilitate access to available information by consumers, we direct
    staff to consider and implement, if feasible, other improvements to
    our hearing aid compatibility complaint process and website. As a
    final measure, we commit to again review our hearing aid
    compatibility rules in 2010.

# BACKGROUND

14. The Commission is required by law to ensure that persons with
    impaired hearing have reasonable access to telephone service.[^16]
    The Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 required all telephones
    manufactured or imported for use in the United States to meet
    established technical standards for hearing aid compatibility, with
    certain exceptions, among them an exception for telephones used with
    mobile wireless services.[^17] The statute required the Commission
    to revoke or limit the exemption if it determined that:

-   such revocation or limitation is in the public interest;

-   continuation of the exemption without such revocation or limitation
    would have an adverse effect on hearing-impaired individuals;

-   compliance with the requirements adopted is technologically feasible
    for the telephones to which the exemption applies; and

-   compliance with the requirements adopted would not increase costs to
    such an extent that the telephones to which the exemption applies
    could not be successfully marketed.[^18]

15. In the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order* adopted in 2003, the
    Commission found that the increasing reliance of consumers on
    digital mobile telephony, ANSI's establishment of a technical
    standard to measure compatibility, and technological advances which
    made compatibility more possible created a situation where the
    public interest required that the exemption be partially revoked.
    The Commission laid down requirements for manufacturers and service
    providers to offer appropriate numbers of hearing aid-compatible
    handset models to their customers.[^19] These requirements were
    later modified slightly in the *Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Reconsideration Order and Further Notice* adopted in 2005,[^20] and
    reviewed but not changed in the *Second Report and Order* in
    November 2007.[^21]

16. The Commission's requirements apply generally to providers of
    digital commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) "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,"
    as well as to manufacturers of wireless phones used in the delivery
    of such services. [^22] Since 2003, Section 20.19 of the rules has
    subjected Broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS), Cellular
    Radiotelephone Service (cellular), and Specialized Mobile Radio
    (SMR) Services in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to specific hearing
    aid compatibility requirements.[^23] Last year, we adopted revisions
    to Section 20.19 that extend the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements to all providers of digital CMRS that meet the
    specified criteria and to manufacturers of handsets capable of
    providing such services, once applicable technical standards are
    established in the relevant bands in the future.[^24] We also
    established a timetable for the development of the necessary
    technical standards for new services and frequency bands that have
    governing service rules in place and for incorporation of
    requirements based on those standards into our rules.[^25]

17. *Current Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements*. The Commission's
    hearing aid compatibility requirements address hearing aids that
    operate in either of two modes -- acoustic coupling or inductive
    coupling. Hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling mode receive
    through a microphone and then amplify all sounds surrounding the
    user, including both desired sounds, such as a telephone's audio
    signal, and unwanted ambient noise.[^26] Hearing aids operating in
    inductive coupling mode turn off the microphone to avoid amplifying
    unwanted ambient noise, instead using a telecoil to receive only
    audio signal-based magnetic fields generated by inductive
    coupling-capable telephones.[^27]

18. The rules codify the ANSI C63.19 performance levels as the
    applicable technical standard for hearing aid compatibility.[^28]
    The Commission staff, pursuant to delegated authority, has permitted
    applicants for equipment certification to rely on either the 2001,
    2005, or 2006 version of the ANSI standard.[^29] Where major changes
    to the standard are made that could affect compliance, the
    Commission stated it would initiate an appropriate rulemaking
    proceeding to consider adoption of updated versions.[^30]

19. With respect to acoustic coupling operation, the Commission
    generally requires each covered manufacturer and service provider to
    offer specific numbers of handset models per air interface in its
    product line (*e.g.*, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, and iDEN)[^31] that meet, at
    a minimum, an M3 rating (formerly denominated a U3 rating) for
    reduction of RF interference between handsets and hearing aids
    operating in acoustic coupling mode, as set forth in the ANSI C63.19
    technical standard.[^32] The Commission also requires manufacturers
    and service providers to offer at least two handset models per air
    interface that meet at least a T3 rating (formerly denominated a U3T
    rating) to enable inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in
    telecoil mode.[^33] The rules further provide that as of February
    18, 2008, the requirement for manufacturers and service providers to
    deploy handsets meeting an M3 or higher rating for RF interference
    reduction would increase to at least 50 percent of all digital
    wireless handset models offered per air interface.[^34] Enforcement
    of this requirement, however, has been stayed until April 18, 2008,
    due to the pendency of this proceeding.[^35]

20. The rules also contain a *de minimis* exception to the deployment
    benchmarks for certain digital wireless handset manufacturers and
    wireless service providers.[^36] Specifically, manufacturers or
    providers that only offer one or two handset models per air
    interface are exempt from the requirements; those that only offer
    three models are required to offer one that is hearing
    aid-compatible.

21. In addition, the 2003 *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order* imposed
    certain implementation requirements not codified in the rules. Those
    requirements include an obligation on the part of manufacturers and
    digital wireless service providers to report every six months on
    efforts toward compliance with the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements for the first three years of implementation and then
    annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation.[^37]
    Other obligations imposed concern product labeling[^38] and live,
    in-store consumer testing of digital wireless handsets.[^39]

22. Upon first establishing hearing aid compatibility requirements, the
    Commission indicated that it would monitor compliance and consider
    other opportunities to further the ability of persons with hearing
    disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications. In
    particular, the Commission stated that it planned in the future to
    commence a proceeding to consider: "(1) whether to increase \[or\]
    decrease the 2008 requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models
    that comply with a U3 rating; (2) whether to adopt \[hearing aid
    compatibility\] implementation benchmarks beyond 2008; and (3)
    whether to otherwise modify the \[hearing aid compatibility\]
    requirements."[^40] The Commission also directed that, prior to such
    a proceeding, staff deliver to the Commission a report on the
    effectiveness of the hearing aid compatibility rules and the status
    of their implementation.[^41]

23. *The Joint Consensus Plan*. On June 25, 2007, in response to WTB's
    request for comment on issues to be addressed in the *Staff
    Report*,[^42] ATIS submitted the Joint Consensus Plan developed by
    representatives of handset manufacturers, service providers, and
    members of the hearing impaired community. The Plan is made up of
    several proposed interrelated rule changes to Section 20.19,
    including changes to benchmarks and deployment deadlines for hearing
    aid-compatible phones, adoption of a new version of the ANSI C63.19
    standard, and other steps that the Commission should take to
    adequately address the hearing aid compatibility of wireless
    handsets.[^43] Most of these proposals address modifications to
    rules that would apply to manufacturers and nationwide service
    providers (Tier I carriers), and do not expressly address the future
    hearing aid compatibility requirements that would apply to regional
    or smaller service providers.[^44]

24. *The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.* On November 7, 2007, we issued
    the *Notice* that drew upon the Joint Consensus Plan and the
    recommendations of the *Staff Report*. In the *Notice*, we
    tentatively concluded substantially to adopt the provisions of the
    Joint Consensus Plan, and sought comment on that and several related
    matters.  In particular, we tentatively concluded to modify the
    handset deployment deadlines in Section 20.19 using the framework
    proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, and to require manufacturers
    and service providers to include in their portfolios of hearing
    aid-compatible handsets a certain number of new models as well as
    models with differing levels of functionality.[^45] In addition to
    these steps, we tentatively concluded to adopt an updated technical
    standard as proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan,[^46] and we sought
    comment on proposed new reporting, information, and outreach
    measures, as well as other interrelated proposals in the Joint
    Consensus Plan.[^47]  While we recognized that the Joint Consensus
    Plan proposals were developed through significant investigation and
    negotiation by the working group and its members,[^48] we
    also sought comment on possible alterations or additions to certain
    aspects of its proposals that might better implement our hearing aid
    compatibility goals, including the deployment regime for
    non-nationwide service providers, who were generally not included
    within the Joint Consensus Plan's framework.[^49] Finally, in the
    *Notice*, we stayed enforcement of the February 18, 2008 benchmark
    requirement that 50 percent of handset models meet acoustic
    compatibility standards until April 18, 2008.[^50] In doing so, we
    recognized the need for certainty, and the desirability of providing
    appropriate and timely notification to manufacturers and service
    providers as regards their hearing aid compatibility obligations.

25. Comments were due December 21, 2007, and reply comments were due
    January 7, 2008. We received 19 comments and 16 reply comments.
    Comments came from a wide range of interests, including handset
    manufacturers, national, regional and small service providers,
    hearing loss advocacy groups, retail interests, and hearing aid
    manufacturers.[^51] While commenters generally support adoption of
    the Joint Consensus Plan, the record reveals differences regarding
    certain aspects of its implementation, as well as issues that are
    not addressed in the Plan.

# DISCUSSION

## Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment Requirements 

26. In order to promote our objective of furthering the availability of
    hearing aid-compatible handsets to the deaf and hard-of-hearing
    community, we adopt several interrelated benchmarks, deadlines, and
    other requirements governing the deployment of hearing
    aid-compatible handsets. These actions, which are based largely on
    the Joint Consensus Plan and the proposals in the *Notice*, balance
    several different approaches to improving wireless services for deaf
    and hard-of-hearing consumers. Based on the record, we conclude that
    these requirements, as a whole, will offer great benefits to those
    consumers with hearing loss, without imposing undue costs on handset
    manufacturers, service providers, or consumers generally.

27. As proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan and the *Notice*, we first
    adopt new benchmarks and deadlines for 2008 through 2011 regarding
    deployment of handsets rated M3 (or higher) for RF interference
    reduction and handsets rated T3 (or higher) for inductive coupling
    capability. As regards the requirements for RF interference
    reduction, we recognize the difficulties that handset manufacturers
    and service providers with large product lines face with respect to
    the 50 percent benchmark originally scheduled to go into effect on
    February 18, 2008, and we modify the benchmark in the near term
    while at the same time ensuring that consumers will have significant
    and increasing choices of acoustic coupling-compatible models over
    the next several years. At the same time, we increase the upcoming
    benchmarks for handset models that have inductive coupling
    capability. In this regard, to ensure that all consumers will have
    options regardless of where they reside or from which carrier they
    obtain service, we adopt the same deployment benchmarks for all
    service providers, although we extend the compliance deadlines for
    service providers other than Tier I carriers in recognition of their
    more limited handset options and their difficulty obtaining the
    newest offerings. Second, as an integral part of the handset
    deployment objectives we set forth today, we adopt requirements to
    ensure the availability of not just more handset models, but also a
    range of compatible handset models throughout the
    manufacturer-to-consumer supply and distribution channels. We thus
    require all manufacturers to "refresh" their hearing aid-compatible
    handset product offerings annually, and all service providers to
    offer consumers handset models with differing levels of
    functionality. Third, we address several implementation issues,
    including the definition of what constitutes a distinct model, the
    treatment of handset models that operate over multiple frequency
    bands and/or air interfaces, and the application of the *de minimis*
    rule. Finally, while we encourage manufacturers and service
    providers, including new entrants, to deploy handset models that
    meet the higher hearing aid compatibility standards denoted by M4
    and T4 ratings, we determine consistent with the record not to adopt
    any requirements in this regard at this time.

### M3 / T3 Standards

28. [Background]{.underline}. Section 20.19(c) and (d) of the
    Commission's rules contain the current benchmarks and deadlines for
    deployment of hearing aid-compatible handset models for use with
    hearing aids operating in acoustic and inductive coupling
    modes.[^52]

29. With respect to reduced RF interference with hearing aids operating
    in acoustic mode, Section 20.19(c) currently provides that
    manufacturers must make available to wireless service providers at
    least two handset models per air interface that meet an M3 rating or
    higher. Tier I carriers must make available to consumers at least
    five handset models per air interface, or 25 percent of the total
    number of handset models offered, whichever is less, that meet at
    least an M3 rating. Other digital wireless service providers must
    make available to consumers at least two handset models per air
    interface that meet at least an M3 rating. In addition, the rules
    currently provide that, as of February 18, 2008, at least 50 percent
    of all digital wireless handset models offered by manufacturers or
    service providers per air interface must meet an M3 rating or
    higher, although we stayed enforcement of this requirement until
    April 18, 2008, pending review of this requirement in this
    proceeding.

30. With respect to deployment of handset models that meet standards for
    inductive coupling capability, Section 20.19(d) currently provides
    that manufacturers must make available to wireless service providers
    at least two handset models per air interface that meet at least a
    T3 rating. Digital wireless service providers must similarly make
    available to consumers at least two handset models per air interface
    that meet at least a T3 rating.

31. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on several proposals to modify
    Section 20.19(c) of the rules.[^53] For requirements relating to
    both manufacturers and service providers, we sought comment on a
    tentative conclusion to modify the 2008 benchmarks and establish new
    benchmarks consistent with the proposals in the Joint Consensus
    Plan. In place of the 50 percent deployment requirement, we sought
    comment on a tentative conclusion to require equipment manufacturers
    to meet or exceed an M3 rating for 33 percent of their handset
    models per air interface.[^54] For Tier I carriers, we tentatively
    concluded that these carriers could meet the 50 percent M3-rated or
    higher deployment threshold, or they could meet a second option in
    any individual year to provide a specified number of handset models
    per air interface rated M3 or higher.[^55] Because the Joint
    Consensus Plan is silent with respect to service providers that are
    not Tier I carriers,[^56] we asked commenters for input on the
    appropriate regime for these wireless service providers to deploy
    handsets rated M3 or higher.[^57]

32. We also sought comment on tentative conclusions to modify Section
    20.19(d) of the rules in order to impose additional deployment
    obligations for inductive coupling-capable mobile telephones.[^58]
    We recognized that under the current rule section, manufacturers and
    service providers are not required to deploy additional inductive
    coupling-capable handset models once they have met the September 18,
    2006, deadline of two compliant handset models per air
    interface.[^59] Under our tentative decision in the *Notice*,
    manufacturers and Tier I carriers would instead be required to offer
    increased numbers or percentages of handset models rated T3 or
    higher for each air interface in 2009 through 2011.[^60] We stated
    that these new requirements would increase the number of available
    T3-rated handsets that, as compared to M3-rated handsets, are
    currently of limited availability.[^61] We sought input on whether
    this same deployment regime should apply to other service
    providers.[^62]

33. The parties in this proceeding are nearly unanimous in supporting
    the *Notice's* tentative conclusions on the appropriate M3 and T3
    benchmarks and deadlines insofar as they apply to manufacturers and
    Tier I carriers offering nationwide services,[^63] referencing the
    compromise and agreement that culminated in the Joint Consensus
    Plan.[^64] However, six commenting parties representing regional or
    smaller service providers that are not Tier I carriers -- MetroPCS,
    SouthernLINC, Virgin Mobile, RCA, Chinook, and i wireless -- argue
    that they should not be subject to the same benchmarks[^65] or any
    new requirements beyond the existing mandates to offer two M3- and
    T3-rated (or higher) handset models per air interface.[^66] If any
    new requirements must apply, they argue that the benchmarks in these
    provisions should be reduced, proposing levels that would be
    approximately one-half of the Tier I levels.[^67] These commenters
    state that they would be forced to reduce their total product lines
    in order to meet the Tier I percentage benchmarks.[^68] They further
    contend that they have less access to hearing aid-compatible
    handsets than Tier I carriers, and that as a practical matter they
    would essentially be subject to more difficult requirements than
    Tier I carriers under the Joint Consensus Plan.[^69] On the other
    side of this issue, two advocates for the deaf and hard-of-hearing
    disagree, and argue that these service providers should be held to
    the same compatible handset deployment benchmarks as Tier I carriers
    because, with proper planning, these service providers can meet
    these benchmarks in the same, or perhaps slightly extended,
    timeframes.[^70]

34. [Discussion]{.underline}. For both RF interference reduction and
    inductive coupling capability, we adopt the tentative conclusions in
    the *Notice* for manufacturers and Tier I carriers, and hereby amend
    Section 20.19(c) and (d) to adopt the benchmarks and deadlines
    proposed in the *Notice*.[^71] For service providers that are not
    Tier I carriers, we adopt these same benchmarks, but we extend their
    deadlines for compliance by three months in order to afford these
    entities additional flexibility to obtain and deploy the requisite
    numbers of compatible handset models.[^72]

35. In terms of RF interference reduction for acoustic coupling
    compatibility, manufacturers as of the effective date of this rule
    will have to meet a rating of M3 (or higher) for a minimum of
    one-third of their non-*de minimis* portfolio models offered to
    service providers per air interface in the United States.[^73] Tier
    I carriers, as of the effective date of this rule, will have to meet
    an M3 rating (or higher) for the lesser of 50 percent of their
    handset models per air interface (rounding fractions up) or a
    specific number of handset models, pursuant to the schedule set
    forth below.[^74] This schedule requires Tier I carriers to provide
    an increasing number of handset models per air interface over which
    they offer service by future dates as follows:

    [Before February 15, 2009]{.underline}:[^75] eight M3-rated (or
    higher) handset models;

    [Beginning February 15, 2009]{.underline}: nine M3-rated (or higher)
    handset models; and

    [Beginning February 15, 2010]{.underline}: ten M3-rated (or higher)
    handset models.

    Service providers not in Tier I will be subject to the same
    requirements, but only beginning three months after the effective
    date of these rules. As a result, the above requirements will take
    effect for such service providers as of May 15 of the respective
    year, rather than February 15.[^76]

36. With respect to inductive coupling capability, the new requirements
    establish benchmarks for both manufacturers and service providers
    that combine percentage and numerical measures.[^77] First,
    manufacturers will be required to meet the greater of two measures
    for each air interface for which they offer handsets beginning
    February 15, 2009:[^78]

    \(1\) a minimum of two T3-rated (or higher) models for each air
    interface for which the manufacturer offers four or more handset
    models to service providers; or

    \(2\) at least 20 percent / 25 percent / one-third of models that
    the manufacturer offers to service providers over each air interface
    rated T3 (or higher) beginning February 15, 2009 / 2010 / 2011
    respectively. These percentage calculations will be rounded down to
    the nearest whole number in determining the minimum number of
    handsets to be produced. Each non-*de minimis* manufacturer will
    thus still be required to maintain production of at least two or
    more T3-rated (or higher) handset models per air interface for which
    it offers handsets.

    Second, as of the effective date of this rule, Tier I carriers must
    meet the lesser of the two following measures for each air interface
    over which they offer service:

    \(1\) one-third of digital wireless handset models are T3-rated (or
    higher) (rounding fractions up); or

    \(2\) a schedule as follows:

    [Before February 15, 2009]{.underline}: three T3-rated (or higher)
    handsets.

    [Beginning February 15, 2009]{.underline}: five T3-rated (or higher)
    handsets.

    [Beginning February 15, 2010]{.underline}: seven T3-rated (or
    higher) handsets.

    [Beginning February 15, 2011]{.underline}: ten T3-rated (or higher)
    handsets.

    Third, service providers other than Tier I carriers will also be
    required to meet the same benchmarks as Tier I carriers, but only
    beginning three months after the effective date of these rules.
    Again, the scheduled rollout dates will be May 15 of the respective
    years, rather than February 15.[^79]

37. Given the unanimous support in the record, we find that these
    benchmarks for both equipment manufacturers and Tier I carriers to
    deploy M3-rated and T3-rated handsets are in the public interest.
    The combination, two-option approach for deploying M3-rated handsets
    provides needed flexibility for Tier I carriers with large product
    lines to deploy new and additional models over time while still
    ensuring that substantial numbers of compatible handset models will
    be available to consumers. These rule changes are supported by
    consumer advocates,[^80] and we agree that the balance they achieved
    with industry representatives in the Joint Consensus Plan represents
    a beneficial compromise between technological constraints and the
    needs of hard-of-hearing consumers.[^81] No commenting party has
    argued that these benchmarks for manufacturers and Tier I carriers
    would be detrimental to consumers. This approach also is more
    technology-impartial than a single 50 percent requirement,
    reflecting the uncontroverted technological impediments to meeting
    the M3 rating standard for many handset models that employ a GSM air
    interface. [^82] Moreover, we adopt this modification in conjunction
    with new rules requiring manufacturers to "refresh" their compatible
    offerings with new products annually and requiring service providers
    to make hearing aid-compatible models available with different
    levels of functionality.[^83] These requirements will directly
    benefit consumers needing handsets with acoustic coupling
    capabilities.

38. We also make our decisions regarding the benchmarks for RF
    interference reduction and inductive coupling capability as an
    integrated whole. We agree with HLAA/TDI that increased requirements
    for deployment of T3-rated handset models comprise "a beneficial
    trade-off" for reducing, in certain circumstances, the thresholds
    for deploying M3-rated handset models that would have taken effect
    under the existing Section 20.19(c).[^84] The record supports the
    conclusion that customers' options for handsets that enable
    inductive coupling with hearing aids' telecoils have been more
    limited than for acoustic coupling compatibility.[^85] The current
    two-model rule for these entities was set in 2003 and has become
    out-dated, as it does not provide for an expansion of T3-rated
    handset options. Expanded requirements of this nature should benefit
    some of the most disadvantaged wireless users in the deaf and hard
    of hearing community, who are more likely to rely on
    telecoil-equipped hearing aids. We agree with HLAA/TDI that it is
    generally in the public interest to increase the benchmarks for
    manufacturers' and Tier I carriers' deployment of handsets meeting a
    T3 rating for inductive coupling capability.[^86] We agree as well
    with Gallaudet/RERC that additional requirements of this nature will
    "significantly benefit individuals with severe to profound hearing
    loss."[^87] Thus, we find that an additional focus of their
    resources should be on making available additional T3-rated handset
    models.

39. We also conclude that the same deadlines are appropriate for
    manufacturers and Tier I carriers. We agree with ATIS that a single,
    unified deadline as proposed in the *Notice* and Joint Consensus
    Plan will improve compliance and make the rules simpler to
    administer.[^88] Moreover, unlike service providers not in Tier I,
    Tier I carriers have in the past not submitted waiver requests
    stating that they have experienced significant problems meeting
    deployment deadlines in the same time frame as manufacturers.
    Furthermore, unlike the initial deployment deadlines where
    manufacturers may have had no models certified as hearing
    aid-compatible until shortly before the date, Tier I carriers now
    need only to increase their selection from among available stock.
    Although AT&T states that "it prefers a staggering of the compliance
    deadlines" after 2008,[^89] AT&T only cites generally the lag time
    for service providers to obtain handsets from manufacturers and does
    not provide more specific support evidencing a problem (current or
    past) with a unified date.[^90] We therefore decline to extend the
    compliance deadlines for Tier I carriers.

40. The record raises separate questions regarding whether to apply the
    same handset deployment benchmarks to service providers other than
    Tier I carriers. As stated in the *Notice*, the Joint Consensus
    Plan's proposals consider appropriate modifications only to the
    rules for manufacturers and nationwide, Tier I carriers, and they do
    not address the Commission's hearing aid compatibility benchmarks
    for regional or smaller service providers, including Tier II and
    Tier III carriers, or other service providers like resellers and
    mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs).[^91] In addition, none of
    the equipment manufacturers or Tier I carriers that have
    participated in this proceeding submitted comments on this issue.
    The only record we have before us is comprised of the comments of
    six parties representing regional or smaller service providers not
    in Tier I -- MetroPCS, SouthernLINC, Virgin Mobile, RCA, Chinook and
    i wireless -- and two consumer advocate representatives, each group
    disagreeing with the other on this question.[^92]

41. After carefully considering this record in light of our past
    experience with non-nationwide service providers, and the costs and
    benefits of several possible rule change proposals,[^93] we conclude
    that the same deployment benchmark alternatives should apply to all
    service providers, but we delay the compliance deadlines by three
    months for service providers that are not Tier I carriers.[^94] For
    the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded that service
    providers with small product lines will be unable to meet the 50
    percent and one-third targets for handset models meeting RF
    interference reduction and inductive coupling capability targets,
    respectively. Moreover, we find that any burdens these requirements
    impose are necessary to ensure reasonable handset options for all
    hearing-impaired consumers regardless of where they reside or who
    they may receive service from, not just the 90 or so percent that
    may receive their service from Tier I carriers.[^95] Nonetheless, in
    recognition of the stated difficulties smaller service providers
    face in obtaining the latest handset models,[^96] we delay each of
    their compliance deadlines by three months.

42. Initially, we reject the argument that the proposed benchmarks
    impose a "greater" burden on smaller carriers because they offer too
    few handset models to take advantage of the numerical alternatives,
    and will therefore be forced to meet the percentage benchmarks.[^97]
    We do not accept that smaller service providers are subject to
    greater burdens simply because their percentages are higher: service
    providers with smaller product lines will be required to offer fewer
    hearing aid-compatible handset models than service providers with
    larger product lines. As discussed above, the alternative of
    offering eight to 10 handset models per air interface that meet an
    M3 or higher rating for RF interference reduction recognizes that
    carriers with large product lines may have difficulty obtaining
    sufficient compatible handset models to meet a 50 percent
    requirement, particularly since the manufacturer production
    benchmark is one-third going forward. In addition, we find that the
    availability of eight to 10 M3-rated models will provide substantial
    choice to hard-of-hearing consumers, especially in light of our
    other requirements, and therefore we are not requiring service
    providers with large product lines to offer more models.[^98]

43. In fact, we find that the availability of percentage benchmarks is
    necessary to ensure that smaller service providers are not overly
    burdened. Even though eight to 10 M3-rated models provide consumers
    with substantial choice, we do not believe it reasonable to require
    that eight to 10 compatible models be offered by service providers
    with smaller product lines, including many non-nationwide service
    providers.[^99] Therefore, we permit these service providers instead
    to meet the compatibility standard for 50 percent of their product
    lines, ranging from two to seven models per air interface depending
    on the total number of models offered. Similar reasoning underlies
    the alternative benchmarks for inductive coupling capability. The
    rule is designed to permit each service provider to meet the
    benchmark that is less burdensome for it depending on its particular
    situation, while providing consumers with significant choice no
    matter which service provider they may use.

44. We are also not persuaded by arguments that service providers other
    than Tier I carriers will be unable to obtain sufficient hearing
    aid-compatible handset models to meet the benchmark percentages and
    therefore will have to reduce their product lines. These service
    providers argue that they have less access to hearing aid-compatible
    models than Tier I carriers, among other reasons because they must
    purchase handsets through third-party vendors and because the larger
    carriers sometimes have exclusive arrangements to obtain certain
    handset models.[^100] We note, however, that the number of hearing
    aid-compatible models these service providers must obtain to meet
    the percentage benchmarks is not large. For example, a service
    provider that offers 10 handset models over an air interface would
    need to offer five that meet an M3 (or higher) rating and four that
    meet a T3 (or higher) rating.[^101] We acknowledge that many smaller
    service providers' offerings of compatible handsets may currently
    fall short of these levels.[^102] Given the substantial and
    increasing number of hearing aid-compatible models that are
    currently available, however, we are convinced that, with reasonable
    effort, even the smallest non-*de minimis* providers[^103] can
    obtain enough compatible models to satisfy the particular benchmarks
    that are applicable to them.[^104] Commenters offer no evidence that
    so many hearing aid-compatible models are subject to exclusivity
    arrangements as to significantly diminish the number that they are
    able to obtain, or that large numbers of compatible models are
    unavailable through vendors.[^105] We also remain unpersuaded by
    Virgin Mobile's general argument that few hearing aid-compatible
    models are available in the lower price ranges that its customers
    demand.[^106] Although Virgin Mobile may reasonably select the
    hearing aid-compatible models that are most likely to appeal to its
    customer base, we continue to believe it should not be relieved of
    its duty to make hearing aid-compatible options available to its
    customers simply due to its prediction that customers will not
    choose to purchase these models.[^107] In addition, we anticipate
    that in the future, manufacturers may produce more hearing
    aid-compatible models in lower price ranges in order to facilitate
    carriers' fulfillment of their obligation to offer phones with
    multiple levels of functionality.

45. Moreover, to the extent the deployment benchmarks that we adopt do
    impose increased burdens on small carriers, these burdens are
    outweighed by the benefits to consumers. Commenters representing
    people with hearing loss support the universal application of these
    benchmarks, stating that this would assist a great number of hearing
    aid users.[^108] These additional benchmarks, especially the new
    benchmarks for inductive coupling capability, should provide
    valuable benefits to affected consumers with profound hearing loss.
    Regardless of size and product line, every service provider has
    customers who need hearing aid-compatible phones,[^109] and it is
    incumbent upon each wireless service provider to make arrangements
    and allocate the resources that are necessary to meet their needs.

46. We conclude that a three-month extension of deadlines for meeting
    these benchmarks, however, is appropriate with regard to service
    providers that are not Tier I nationwide providers, including
    regional and smaller providers, such as Tier II and Tier III
    carriers, and other service providers such as resellers and MVNOs.
    Five non-Tier I commenting parties argue that if they are subjected
    to new deployment benchmarks, they should receive extended deadlines
    of six months to one year following Tier I carriers'
    deadlines.[^110] We agree with the position of consumer advocate
    groups, however, that a three-month delay is more appropriate.[^111]
    While we recognize that smaller service providers may reasonably
    require some additional time to obtain up-to-date compliant products
    through vendors, we are concerned that a longer delay would
    unnecessarily and unacceptably deny the benefits of our rules to
    consumers. Moreover, a three-month delay is consistent with past
    instances where the Commission has recognized that waivers of up to
    approximately three months for non-Tier I service providers have
    often been justified, but has generally denied requests for longer
    periods.[^112] For the reasons the Commission has previously stated,
    we find that an extension beyond three months may only serve to
    excuse poor planning, inferior oversight, or some other factor
    within a service provider's control. Indeed, given that service
    providers have known for years that they would likely become subject
    to a 50 percent benchmark for handset models with RF interference
    reduction, which will remain the operative requirement for many of
    them, and at most they will have to obtain one additional handset
    model to satisfy the first new benchmark for inductive coupling
    capability, we would arguably be justified, at least for the 2008
    benchmarks, to afford no extension at all beyond that granted Tier I
    service providers. We therefore conclude that a three-month delay
    will provide ample time for service providers not in Tier I to
    obtain the compliant handset models that they need to satisfy both
    the 2008 and future benchmarks.

### New Requirements for Handset Deployment

47. As an integral part of the handset deployment objectives we set
    forth today, we also adopt two new rules that together will
    facilitate the offering of not just more handsets, but also a range
    of compatible handset models throughout the manufacturer-to-consumer
    supply and distribution channels. The annual product refresh rule
    for manufacturers and the requirement that service providers offer
    handset models with different functionality levels should provide
    consumers with access to hearing aid-compatible handsets with the
    newest features, as well as more economical models. These proposals
    are an essential part of the Joint Consensus Plan,[^113] and they
    are broadly supported in the record. Indeed, the record demonstrates
    that hard of hearing consumers demand an increased selection of
    popular and innovative handsets.[^114] While requirements to deploy
    minimum numbers or percentages of hearing aid-compatible handset
    models are essential to ensure that such phones will be available to
    consumers, we find, based on the record and experience under the
    existing rules, that these additional requirements are necessary to
    enable consumers to select a wireless phone that is not only
    compatible with a given hearing aid, but that also meets their other
    needs as a consumer, such as offering the latest features.
    Accordingly, we adopt the product refresh rule for manufacturers and
    the functionality level rule for service providers discussed below.

#### Product Refresh Rule for Manufacturers

48. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Notice*, we tentatively concluded
    that our rules should require equipment manufacturers to meet a
    "product refresh" requirement, as recommended in the *Staff Report*
    and described in the Joint Consensus Plan.[^115] This proposal would
    mandate that manufacturers meet RF interference reduction thresholds
    for acoustic coupling compatibility in some of their new models each
    year, enough so that, for manufacturers offering four or more
    handset models using a given air interface, one-half of the minimum
    required number of M3-rated or higher handset models would be new
    models introduced during the calendar year. To make this
    calculation, the number of new compliant models to be produced would
    be 50 percent of the total required number of compliant models,
    rounded up to the nearest whole number. For manufacturers that
    produce three total M3-rated models per air interface, at least one
    new M3-rated (or higher) model would be required every other
    calendar year. If a manufacturer does not introduce a new model in a
    calendar year, then under the proposed rule it would not be required
    to refresh its list of compliant handsets.

49. [Discussion.]{.underline} Every commenter to address the issue
    supports adoption of the proposed product refresh requirement
    without modification.[^116] We therefore adopt this rule as set
    forth in Section 20.19(c)(1)(ii) in Appendix C. As discussed above,
    we find that this rule is necessary to ensure that service providers
    will be able to offer to consumers a selection of hearing
    aid-compatible models including those with the latest features. We
    further find that the rule will not cause undue costs to
    manufacturers. Indeed, all commenters representing equipment
    manufacturers supported the rule on grounds that it would permit
    them to provide consumers with a variety of devices.[^117]

#### Rule Requiring Service Providers to Offer Models with Differing Levels of Functionality

50. [Background.]{.underline} We also tentatively concluded in the
    *Notice* that our rules should require that Tier I carriers offer to
    consumers hearing aid-compatible handsets with differing levels of
    functionality.[^118] The proposed requirement would obligate Tier I
    carriers to offer handset models from "multiple tiers," and include
    a concomitant requirement that these providers' reports "include
    information on the carriers' implementation of 'tiering.'"[^119] We
    referenced the Joint Consensus Plan's statement that the demarcation
    of tiers should be left to the industry.[^120] In the context of the
    language in the Joint Consensus Plan stating that carriers will
    self-define their tiers, we indicated that we would interpret the
    term "tiers" to refer to levels of functionality.[^121] We further
    stated that we intended functionality to include the extent to which
    a handset model has the capability to operate over multiple
    frequency bands for which hearing aid compatibility standards have
    been established. Finally, we sought comment on whether these
    requirements relating to functionality should be extended to service
    providers not in Tier I.[^122]

51. [Discussion.]{.underline} Upon consideration of the record, we adopt
    the handset functionality rule as proposed and apply it to all
    service providers. As applied to Tier I carriers, all commenters
    representing Tier I carriers support a handset functionality
    rule.[^123] We therefore adopt the rule in order to ensure that
    hearing aid users can select from a variety of compliant handset
    models, with varying features and prices. Moreover, these commenters
    agree that service providers should have flexibility to define their
    product levels because, as ATIS states, "\[i\]t is not feasible to
    identify a uniform set of 'tiers' for all carriers that will
    appropriately apply to each carrier's unique set of product
    offerings."[^124] We concur that given the great variety and
    continual development in handset features, any effort on our part to
    define criteria of functionality would be infeasible and might deter
    innovation, and we therefore prescribe no criteria. We do, however,
    stand by our guidance that a handset's level of functionality may
    include its capability to operate over multiple frequency bands.
    While RIM objects that the availability or unavailability of a
    particular frequency band does not represent anything of value to a
    consumer,[^125] we disagree on the ground that the ability to access
    additional frequency bands may increase the circumstances under
    which the consumer can use the phone. We clarify that no service
    provider is required to offer phones that operate over multiple
    bands, and that this is simply one factor a service provider may use
    to distinguish the functionality of its handset models. In addition,
    as discussed below, we adopt Gallaudet/RERC's suggestion to require
    service providers to disclose their functionality criteria in their
    reports to the Commission and on their websites, in order that both
    the Commission and the public may understand the basis for their
    distinctions.[^126]

52. Finally, we determine to apply the rule to all service providers,
    not only nationwide Tier I carriers. Several regional and smaller
    service providers do not support such a requirement,[^127] arguing,
    for example, that such a requirement would be intrusive and that the
    statute does not require the Commission to ensure that hearing aid
    users have feature-rich phones.[^128] Other commenters, however,
    contend that the functionality level rule should be applied
    universally.[^129] For the same reasons discussed above with respect
    to the handset deployment benchmarks, we conclude that consumers
    with hearing loss should not be deprived of a choice of handset
    features based simply on their place of residence or their service
    provider. Moreover, given flexibility to define levels, even service
    providers with relatively small product lines should be able to
    distinguish among their handset models in a manner that permits them
    to define levels of functionality appropriate to their situation. We
    do not expect a provider with four hearing aid-compatible models,
    for example, necessarily to offer as many levels of functionality or
    as broad a range of product offerings as a Tier I carrier with eight
    or more models, but we do expect such a provider to draw some
    distinctions.

### Implementation Issues

**a. Definition of a Model**

53. [Background.]{.underline} Hearing aid compatibility obligations
    under Section 20.19 require manufacturers and mobile service
    providers to offer a certain number of hearing aid-compatible
    "models," but the Commission has not previously addressed what
    constitutes a "model" for purposes of compliance with Section 20.19.
    In the *Notice*, we raised this issue in the context of seeking
    comment on manufacturers' future obligations to report the status of
    their compliance with hearing aid compatibility obligations.[^130]
    We proposed to accept the manufacturer's determination of whether a
    device is a distinct model consistent with the manufacturer's
    marketing practices, so long as models that have no distinguishing
    variations of form, features, or user capabilities, or that only
    differentiate units sold to a particular carrier, are not counted as
    distinct models to customers.[^131]

54. RIM supports the proposal to accept a manufacturer's determination
    of whether a device is a distinct model.[^132] PerrineCrest Radio
    asserts that we should further define a model, or that at a minimum,
    manufacturers should explain how they distinguish their
    models.[^133] PerrineCrest Radio argues that this would help in
    monitoring the effectiveness of our requirements.[^134] It does not
    offer any suggestion regarding how we should define a model,
    however.

55. [Discussion.]{.underline} We conclude that our proposal represents
    the right approach to determinations of what constitutes a "model"
    under our rule.  Consistent with our proposal, we determine that,
    for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules, a manufacturer
    may not characterize as separate models any devices that do not in
    fact possess any distinguishing variation in form, features, or
    capabilities.[^135] Otherwise, we find it appropriate to defer to
    manufacturers regarding which devices constitute distinct models,
    consistent with how those devices are marketed to the public,
    because manufacturers are best positioned to determine when and how
    to market their own devices as distinct models. We note that we
    have, to date, deferred to manufacturer designation of distinct
    model lines and have not come across any instance in which such
    designations were made in bad faith to escape hearing aid
    compatibility obligations or did not otherwise reflect legitimate
    differences between devices. We have no reason to believe that
    manufacturers will not continue to act in good faith in this regard.
    Accordingly, we will accept manufacturers' determination of whether
    a device is a distinct model, subject only to the restrictions noted
    above.

56. While we do not generally establish specific requirements regarding
    model distinctions, we specify one circumstance in which we require
    a device to be given a distinct model designation. Specifically,
    where changes are made to a device that result in a change in the
    hearing aid compatibility rating, we require manufacturers, and
    service providers down the distribution chain, to provide the
    altered device a model name/number that is distinct from the
    original device's designation. Based on our previous experience and
    the need for service providers and consumers to determine easily the
    compatibility of particular handset models, manufacturers and
    service providers should not be simultaneously offering two or more
    identically designated models with different hearing aid
    compatibility ratings.[^136]

57. We will not require a new model designation where a change in rating
    is not the product of a change in the device but is simply the
    result of certifying for hearing aid compatibility a model that was
    not previously so certified. We further clarify that in such an
    instance, once the model has been certified, service providers
    offering that model may offer it to satisfy their deployment
    obligations, even if the particular units they offer were obtained
    from the manufacturer prior to date of certification. They must,
    however, ensure that such models comply with hearing aid
    compatibility labeling obligations, if necessary by contacting the
    manufacturer and requesting appropriate external labeling and
    inserts. Further, they may not count any model as hearing
    aid-compatible for periods prior to the date on which the model was
    certified for hearing aid compatibility.

### b. Multi-Mode and Multi-Band Handsets {#b.-multi-mode-and-multi-band-handsets .unnumbered}

58. [Background.]{.underline} The Commission has held that, to meet the
    Commission's requirements for hearing aid compatibility, a handset
    operating over several frequency bands must be hearing
    aid-compatible in each frequency band over which it operates.[^137]
    In the *Notice*, we proposed to codify this multi-band principle and
    to extend the principle to handsets with multiple air interfaces as
    well as those with multiple bands. Specifically, we tentatively
    concluded to adopt the proposal in the Joint Consensus Plan that a
    handset operating over multiple air interfaces (multi-mode handset)
    will not be counted as a hearing aid-compatible handset unless it is
    compatible in all air interfaces over which it operates.[^138] We
    also proposed that a multi-band or multi-mode handset would not
    count as hearing aid-compatible if it operates over frequency bands
    or air interfaces for which technical standards for determining
    hearing aid compatibility have not yet been established, even if it
    meets hearing aid compatibility standards over all of its operating
    frequency bands and air interfaces for which standards have been
    established.[^139] We did not specifically propose an exception to
    this principle for handsets with Wi-Fi capability, but did seek
    comment elsewhere in the *Notice* on the extent to which hearing aid
    compatibility requirements should apply to handsets incorporating
    Wi-Fi and other emerging technologies.[^140]

59. Commenters generally support the proposal that a handset be
    considered hearing aid-compatible only if it is compatible in all
    frequency bands and modes over which it operates and for which there
    are established standards.[^141] RCA, however, opposes the proposal,
    arguing that it will reduce availability of hearing aid-compatible
    handsets, and will particularly harm small service providers whose
    access to such handsets is already limited.[^142]

60. In addition, although most manufacturers and service providers
    support the basic multi-band/mode proposal where hearing aid
    compatibility technical standards already exist, they oppose the
    proposal in the *Notice* to automatically treat multi-band and
    multi-mode handsets as non-compatible if they operate over frequency
    bands or modes without established standards.[^143] They assert that
    the proposal may inhibit or delay deployment of new technologies and
    converged devices,[^144] and that there is no evidence that new
    frequency bands or air interfaces will cause interference
    problems.[^145] In particular, some commenters express concerns
    regarding the effect of such a rule on deployment of multi-mode
    handsets that offer Wi-Fi capability.[^146] Commenters further
    assert that the proposal will mislead consumers with hearing loss
    into concluding that all handsets operating over new frequency bands
    or using new technology are incompatible with hearing aid use, even
    if the handsets can be certified compatible in all operating modes
    and frequency bands that have established standards.[^147] Finally,
    they argue that the proposal violates the Commission's statutory
    obligation to "ensure that regulations adopted to implement this
    section encourage the use of currently available technology and do
    not discourage or impair the development of improved
    technology,"[^148] and would also exceed our statutory authority by
    effectively imposing hearing aid compatibility requirements in the
    absence of established standards for such compatibility.[^149]
    Instead of the proposed rule, they recommend that the Commission
    provide ANSI time to identify actual interference concerns and offer
    specific standards or recommendations, and otherwise permit handsets
    to be designated hearing aid-compatible so long as they have been
    certified to meet hearing aid compatibility standards in all
    frequency bands and operating modes that have established
    standards.[^150]

61. Gallaudet/RERC supports the proposal in the *Notice*, arguing that
    consumers who purchase handsets labeled hearing aid-compatible have
    an expectation that such phones are compatible in all of their
    operations, and that the proposed rule will therefore prevent
    consumer confusion regarding hearing aid compatibility when the
    phone is operating over frequency bands or air interfaces that do
    not have standards.[^151] Gallaudet/RERC further argues that the
    rule will provide incentives to the wireless industry to establish
    standards in a timely fashion.[^152] Commenters in opposition
    respond that the Commission can address confusion concerns with
    disclosure requirements,[^153] and that there is no reason to
    believe that the rule will hasten development of standards.[^154]
    These commenters also disagree that the rule is justified to induce
    more rapid adoption of new standards.[^155]

62. More recently, a filing on behalf of both industry and consumer
    group representatives has asked that we hold the record open to
    enable them to develop a consensus proposal regarding multi-mode and
    multi-band phones that operate in part over air interfaces or
    frequency bands for which no hearing aid compatibility standards
    exist.[^156] As set forth in this filing, members of ATIS' Incubator
    Solutions #4 (AISP.4-HAC) state that they have agreed with
    representatives of consumers with hearing loss to develop such a
    proposal.[^157] The filing also states that AISP.4-HAC "anticipates
    filing general principles regarding this consensus plan within
    three (3) months of the release of \[the Commission's\] Order, with
    more specific information regarding this proposal to be filed within
    six (6) months of the release of the Order."[^158] ATIS states that,
    with the exception of devices incorporating Wi-Fi capability, it is
    unaware of any phones currently available that operate over multiple
    air interfaces or frequency bands, some of which have hearing aid
    compatibility standards and some of which do not.[^159] Finally,
    with regard to devices that incorporate Wi-Fi capability, the filing
    states that the members of AISP.4-HAC support allowing such devices
    to be labeled as hearing aid-compatible if they satisfy hearing aid
    compatibility standards for all other frequency bands and air
    interfaces over which they operate.[^160]

63. [Discussion.]{.underline} In order to both protect consumers and
    provide clarity to industry with respect to handset offerings that
    already exist, while allowing further consideration of the
    longer-term issues, we take the following steps at this time. First,
    we adopt the Joint Consensus Plan's proposal to clarify that, to be
    counted as compatible, a handset model must be hearing
    aid-compatible for each air interface and frequency band it uses as
    long as standards exist for each of those bands and interfaces.
    Second, at this time we leave the record open for further
    submissions in the near term, including an anticipated consensus
    proposal, regarding whether a phone that operates in part in bands
    or air interfaces for which no standards exist should be counted as
    compatible, if it is compatible in all bands and air interfaces for
    which hearing aid compatibility standards exist. Finally, because
    there already exist a large number of handset models that operate
    over the Wi-Fi air interface as well as in bands and air interfaces
    for which there are hearing aid compatibility standards, we will
    allow such phones on an interim basis to be counted as hearing
    aid-compatible if they otherwise qualify as hearing aid-compatible
    under our rules, but will require consumers to be informed that
    those phones have not been rated for hearing aid compatibility with
    respect to their Wi-Fi operations.

64. We first adopt the Joint Consensus Plan's proposal and establish
    that, to be offered as hearing aid-compatible under Section 20.19, a
    handset must be hearing aid-compatible for every frequency band and
    air interface that it uses for which standards have been adopted by
    the Commission.[^161] As we indicated in the *Notice*, we find that
    requiring a hearing aid-compatible handset to be hearing
    aid-compatible in all such frequencies and modes of operation will
    better conform to the expectations of consumers that purchase such
    handsets. Conversely, allowing manufacturers and carriers to satisfy
    their deployment requirements with partially-compatible handsets
    where hearing aid compatibility standards exist, would likely cause
    significant confusion to consumers who purchase handsets that are
    labeled and offered as hearing aid-compatible, and who perhaps
    experience compatibility when the handset is tested in-store, only
    to discover later that the handset's compatibility varies depending
    on which of its frequency bands or air interfaces is in use at any
    particular moment. We note that we emphasized last year the benefits
    to hard-of-hearing consumers of being able to rely on a full range
    of functionality in their hearing aid-compatible handsets and of not
    having to learn all the technical details, such as the frequencies
    on which their phones operate.[^162] Further, although RCA expresses
    concern that the rule will discourage the manufacture of hearing
    aid-compatible multi-mode handsets, we note that those manufacturers
    to comment on the issue all support the rule as proposed in the
    Joint Consensus Plan, some expressly indicating that the rule will
    not impede the development of technology.[^163]

65. Second, except for our interim ruling below with respect to the
    Wi-Fi air interface, we do not here resolve whether, or to what
    extent, multi-band and multi-mode handsets should be counted as
    hearing aid-compatible if they operate in part over frequency bands
    or air interfaces for which technical standards have not yet been
    established. As discussed above, the record contains arguments both
    in favor of and against treating such handsets as hearing
    aid-compatible. Moreover, according to industry representatives, no
    such handsets currently exist, with the exception of devices
    incorporating Wi-Fi capability.[^164] We accept the proposal
    endorsed by both industry and consumer representatives to leave the
    record open so that they may develop a consensus plan on this issue
    in the near term.[^165] We look forward to receiving from the
    parties to the consensus discussions general principles within three
    months of the release of this Report and Order and a detailed
    proposal within six months, and we also invite the views of other
    parties.[^166] We anticipate acting on a final order shortly after
    receiving the detailed consensus proposal. Because our decision to
    take additional time to resolve this issue turns in part on the
    current unavailability of such handsets, we expect handset
    manufacturers to keep us up to date regarding the status of
    developments of such handsets, and we ask the parties to the
    consensus discussions to include that information as part of their
    filings in three and six months. If such handsets are made available
    in the interim, we will act expeditiously to address the hearing aid
    compatibility status of those handsets.[^167]

66. Finally, we adopt an interim rule to allow handsets with Wi-Fi
    capability that otherwise meet hearing aid compatibility standards
    to be certified as hearing aid-compatible. Unlike the situation with
    future air interfaces and anticipated frequencies (*e.g.*, the 700
    MHz band), many handset models are already being produced and
    offered to consumers with Wi-Fi capability, including a significant
    proportion of the newest handset models.[^168] Moreover, we have not
    yet addressed the extent to which hearing aid compatibility
    requirements should apply to handset models in various
    configurations incorporating Wi-Fi capability (which was not
    originally developed for voice transmissions), an issue on which we
    sought comment in the *Notice*.[^169] Therefore, we adopt an interim
    measure to provide certainty and avoid discouraging the use of
    currently-available Wi-Fi technology during the period until we
    address the status of Wi-Fi. Specifically, we will not at present
    preclude a handset model that incorporates a Wi-Fi air interface
    from being offered as hearing aid-compatible so long as the handset
    otherwise qualifies as hearing aid-compatible under our rules.

67. To reduce consumer confusion as much as possible, however, we also
    will require manufacturers and service providers, where they provide
    hearing aid compatibility ratings for handset models that
    incorporate operations using a Wi-Fi air interface, to clearly
    disclose to consumers that the handset has not been rated for
    hearing aid compatibility with respect to its Wi-Fi operation.[^170]
    We recognize that such disclosure is not likely to fully relieve
    potential customer confusion regarding handsets that meet
    established hearing aid compatibility standards for all of their
    operations except Wi-Fi. As discussed above, however, given the
    current circumstances, we believe the better course is to require
    disclosure of the lack of a hearing aid compatibility rating over
    the Wi-Fi air interface rather than preclude handset models that
    incorporate a Wi-Fi air interface from being considered hearing
    aid-compatible.[^171] To give manufacturers and service providers
    sufficient time to develop and implement effective means to disclose
    this information (*e.g.*, inclusion of call-out cards or other
    media, revisions to their packaging materials, supplying of
    information on websites) where hearing aid compatibility ratings are
    provided, this requirement will become effective six months after
    the effective date of the rules adopted in this order. We also note
    that Working Group 6 of the ATIS incubator is developing language to
    inform consumers when otherwise hearing aid-compatible phones
    operate in part over frequency bands or air interfaces that do not
    have hearing aid compatibility standards.[^172]

68. When we subsequently address the application of hearing aid
    compatibility requirements to Wi-Fi operations, we will consider an
    appropriate transition regime to bring any requirements into
    effect.[^173] Given that Wi-Fi-capable handsets are currently
    available, we ask whether we should allow a period of time before
    any requirements to meet hearing aid compatibility standards for
    handsets that incorporate Wi-Fi capability become effective, and if
    so what that time period should be. We note that some commenters
    have argued, without any specific showing, that, due to their low
    power, Wi-Fi operations are unlikely to cause significant
    interference to hearing aids.[^174] We invite further submissions to
    elucidate these matters as we consider hearing aid compatibility
    issues relating to Wi-Fi operations. If those operations are
    generally unlikely to cause interference, it may reduce the amount
    of time necessary to develop a hearing aid compatibility standard
    and to certify handset models as meeting that standard.

### c. *De minimis* Rule {#c.-de-minimis-rule .unnumbered}

69. [Background.]{.underline} Section 20.19 provides a *de minimis*
    exception to hearing aid compatibility obligations for those
    manufacturers and mobile service providers that only offer a small
    number of handset models.[^175] Specifically, Section 20.19(e)(1)
    provides that manufacturers and mobile service providers offering
    two handset models or fewer in the United States are exempt from the
    requirements of Section 20.19.[^176] Section 20.19(e)(2) provides
    that manufacturers or mobile service providers that offer three
    handset models must offer at least one compliant model.[^177] In the
    2005 *Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further
    Notice*, the Commission clarified that the *de minimis* exception
    applies on a per air interface basis rather than across a
    manufacturer's or service provider's entire product line.[^178] It
    also sought comment on whether the *de minimis* exception should be
    narrowed in certain respects.[^179]

70. We addressed the resulting record in the *Second Report and Order*
    that was issued together with the *Notice*, and concluded that the
    record did not support any change to the *de minimis* exception at
    that time.[^180] We also noted, however, that we were seeking
    comment in the *Notice* on the Joint Consensus Plan, including its
    proposals regarding the *de minimis* exception.[^181] Specifically,
    the Joint Consensus Plan proposed that the Commission retain the *de
    minimis* exception but clarify that it applies on a per-air
    interface basis rather than across a manufacturer's or service
    provider's entire product line.[^182] As noted above, the Commission
    issued such an interpretation in 2005, but did not codify the
    clarification. In the *Notice*, we therefore proposed codifying this
    pre-existing interpretation as part of Section 20.19(e).[^183]

71. Most commenters addressing the issue support the Joint Consensus
    Plan proposal to retain the exception and to codify that the
    exception applies on a per air interface basis.[^184] HLAA/TDI and
    Gallaudet/RERC propose, however, that the exception be modified so
    that it not apply on a permanent basis to large businesses that
    produce only one or two handsets with mass appeal, such as Apple's
    iPhone.[^185] Gallaudet/RERC argues that, if the exception applied
    to companies like Apple that do not routinely manufacture handsets,
    their handsets might be subject to the exception indefinitely, and
    consumers with hearing loss might never have the opportunity to use
    such devices.[^186] It further argues that the exception was not
    intended to permanently relieve large and prosperous companies
    "whose handsets produce handsome profits" from the obligations of
    Section 20.19.[^187] It therefore suggests that the exception be
    applicable in such cases only for a certain period of time.[^188]
    HLAA/TDI similarly argues that the exception was only intended to
    protect small businesses, and should therefore be limited in its
    application to large businesses like Apple.[^189] In response,
    several commenters oppose the limitations suggested by
    Gallaudet/RERC and HLAA/TDI, arguing that the exception was not
    intended to be limited to small businesses, and that the proposed
    limitations risk undermining the rule's objective of preserving
    competition and innovation from new entrants.[^190]

72. [Discussion.]{.underline} We adopt the proposal of the Joint
    Consensus Plan to retain the existing *de minimis* exception, which
    in most of its applications was not opposed in the record. We
    further adopt the proposal to codify that the exception applies on a
    per air interface basis. No commenter has objected to applying the
    exception on a per air interface basis, and we see no reason to
    depart from our earlier decision that adopted that interpretation.
    As the Commission indicated in the *Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Reconsideration Order and Further Notice*, a per air interface
    approach to the *de minimis* exception to the handset deployment
    obligations follows from the deployment obligations themselves,
    which are also applied on a per air interface basis (*i.e.*,
    manufacturers and service providers must offer the specified number
    of handsets for each air interface in their product lines).[^191] If
    we were to apply the exception to the total number of handsets
    across a manufacturer's total product line while requiring the
    specified number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible handsets
    for each air interface, a manufacturer that offered just one handset
    each for four different interfaces would fall outside the exception
    for each of the four interfaces. This result would force the
    manufacturer in question to either significantly increase the number
    of handsets in its product line to meet a multiple-handset
    deployment obligation for each air interface or else withdraw some
    of its existing products from the U.S. wireless market, which "could
    have the effect of retarding technological progress and limiting
    competition."[^192]

73. While we do not adopt at this time the new limitation proposed by
    HLAA/TDI and Gallaudet/RERC, we leave the record open for further
    comment. We recognize HLAA/TDI's and Gallaudet/RERC's concern that
    if a manufacturer produces only one or two models of a popular
    handset that is not hearing aid-compatible, consumers with hearing
    loss may be denied access to attractive features of that handset
    indefinitely. At the same time, as we have stated previously, the
    exception was not adopted solely for the benefit of small
    businesses, but for businesses of any size that sell only a small
    number of digital wireless handsets in the United States.[^193] We
    are concerned that the rule not be limited in a manner that would
    compromise its effectiveness in promoting innovation and
    competition.[^194] We also note that large manufacturers with highly
    successful initial devices may not continue indefinitely to produce
    only two or fewer handset models, but instead may expand their
    product offerings in response to consumer demand for new and
    different features, thereby bringing themselves under the hearing
    aid compatibility rules and benefiting consumers both with and
    without hearing loss.[^195] It is also unclear exactly how the
    changes proposed by Gallaudet/RERC and HLAA/TDI would operate in
    practice. How would "large business," "handsome profits," or "mass
    appeal" be defined? To the extent the rule's application would
    depend on the volume and profitability of sales during the first
    year, would manufacturers have sufficient ability to anticipate the
    obligations to which they would be subject and plan accordingly? We
    therefore leave the record open for commenters to address these
    questions pursuant to our *ex parte* procedures.[^196] In
    particular, we invite parties to discuss with specificity the
    operational details and effects of any limitation on the *de
    minimis* exception that they may propose, as well as the need for
    the limitation to protect consumers' access to phones with advanced
    or desirable technologies and features. We intend to address this
    issue further, taking into consideration any *ex parte* submissions
    we receive, in the upcoming Report and Order.

74. In addition, regardless of whether or how we subsequently modify the
    application of the *de minimis* exception, we strongly encourage all
    manufacturers, including those falling within the *de minimis*
    exception, to consider hearing aid compatibility as an integral and
    early part of their handset design process and to incorporate
    hearing aid compatibility into their new designs wherever feasible.
    We also strongly encourage all manufacturers, including new entrants
    as well as established companies, to participate in the
    standards-setting process so as to keep abreast of developments in
    this area, and to incorporate any revisions in the hearing aid
    compatibility standard at an early stage when designing and testing
    their handsets.

### M4/T4 Standards

75. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on the
    possibility of establishing additional deadlines or deployment
    milestones beyond those contained in the Joint Consensus Plan.[^197]
    In particular, we asked commenters to address whether we should
    adopt some requirement to deploy M4- or T4-rated handsets before our
    next review of the rules.[^198] Most commenters that address this
    issue advise against the adoption of such requirements,[^199] or
    state a preference to wait until the 2010 review to consider any
    such standards.[^200] Wireless RERC states, on the other hand, that
    "the FCC needs to expand the rules . . . to increase the number of
    models available with M4/T4 compatibility."[^201] HIA states
    generally that it supports mandating M4/T4 performance by handsets
    "if and when such performance is reasonably achievable."[^202]

76. [Discussion]{.underline}. Given the weight of the record, especially
    the fact that no commenter submitted any specific proposals for new
    standards or rules, we determine not to impose any additional
    benchmarks based on hearing aid compatibility standards more
    stringent than the M3 / T3 standards in our rules and in the Joint
    Consensus Plan. Without more, we find that technology and the market
    are not yet fully enough developed to support a specific requirement
    at this time. Nevertheless, we agree with Gallaudet/RERC that the
    matter of requirements to deploy M4- or T4-rated handsets should be
    "on the agenda" for the rulemaking review that we plan to initiate
    in 2010.[^203] In the meantime, given the surveys and studies
    submitted by Wireless RERC, and the comments of HIA, we encourage
    manufacturers and service providers, including new entrants, to
    develop and deploy wireless phones that meet M4 and T4 standards in
    order to give greater options to consumers with hearing loss.[^204]
    In our 2010 review, we will look closely at the extent to which
    these handsets are commercially available, whether achieving these
    standards is technically feasible for all interfaces and frequency
    bands, and the degree to which hearing aid technologies may have
    improved so as to make achieving such standards unnecessary.

    **B. 2007 ANSI C63.19 Technical Standard**

    **1. Adoption of the 2007 Standard and Phase-in**

77. [Background.]{.underline} Section 20.19(b) of the Commission's rules
    contains the current technical standards defining hearing aid
    compatibility.[^205] In the 2003 *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*,
    the Commission adopted the performance levels in the 2001 version of
    the ANSI C63.19 technical standard as the basis for ensuring hearing
    aid compatibility of digital wireless handsets.[^206] In finding
    that the technical standard in Section 20.19(b) met the
    "established" requirement set forth in the Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Act,[^207] the Commission analyzed and relied on numerous
    submissions supporting ANSI C63.19 as an established technical
    standard.[^208] The Commission determined that the standard presents
    a workable approach to measuring levels of interference that digital
    wireless handsets could cause to hearing aids and the inductive
    coupling capability of wireless handsets, as well as for measuring
    the interference immunity of hearing aids.[^209] The Commission
    further ruled that codification of ANSI C63.19 served the public
    interest because the manufacture of digital wireless handsets
    comporting with this standard would ensure that "a greater number of
    hearing aid and cochlear implant users will be able to find digital
    wireless phones that will work for them."[^210]

78. To ensure that the standard codified in the rules would remain
    viable, the Commission delegated to the Chief of WTB, in
    coordination with the Chief of OET, the authority to approve future
    versions of the standard that do not raise major compliance
    issues.[^211] Where major changes to the standard are made that
    could affect compliance, the Commission stated that it would
    initiate an appropriate rulemaking proceeding to consider adoption
    of updated versions. The Commission also encouraged ANSI to work
    with the relevant stakeholders to review the standard periodically
    to determine whether improvements to the standard are
    warranted.[^212] As a result, acting on delegated authority in 2005,
    OET clarified that applicants for certification of equipment could
    rely on either the 2001 or a draft 2005 update of the ANSI C63.19
    standard.[^213] In addition, in 2006, WTB and OET released a public
    notice on delegated authority stating that OET would accept
    applications for certification of equipment tested and rated under a
    2006 revised standard (ANSI C63.19-2006) for wireless phone hearing
    aid compatibility.[^214] WTB and OET also explained that applicants
    for certification may rely on only one of the three versions (2001,
    2005, or 2006) of the ANSI C63.19 standard.[^215]

79. On June 25, 2007, the American National Standards Institute
    Accredited Standards Committee C63® filed a petition seeking
    adoption of the 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 technical standard
    in place of the 2001, 2005 draft, and 2006 versions of the technical
    standard. ANSI stated in its petition that further improvements have
    been made to the technical standard to reflect changes in
    technology, and efficiencies and improvements in testing
    procedures.[^216] The Joint Consensus Plan also recommended adoption
    of the new standard, together with a transition plan under which use
    of either the 2007 or 2006 standard would be permitted immediately,
    and the 2007 standard would become mandatory for grants of equipment
    authorization beginning January 1, 2010.[^217]

80. Because the standard that has been adopted by ANSI is stricter in
    some respects than prior versions,[^218] and is the result of broad
    participation from diverse groups,[^219] we proposed in the *Notice*
    that the standard be codified in our rules in order to better
    promote the development of hearing aid-compatible handsets that
    hearing-impaired consumers can readily use. We also proposed to
    adopt and sought comment on the phase-in process as outlined in the
    Joint Consensus Plan.[^220] We further asked whether we should
    require handsets certified under earlier versions of the standard to
    be recertified, and whether we should permit use of the 2001 and
    2005, as well as 2006, versions of the standard during the
    transition period.[^221] Seventeen of the 35 comments and replies
    address these issues. All of these commenters support adoption of
    the 2007 standard, and none are opposed to any aspect of the
    proposed transition plan.[^222]

81. [Discussion]{.underline}. Consistent with the Joint Consensus Plan
    and the unanimous view of commenters, we adopt the 2007 ANSI C63.19
    standard as a replacement for the 2001, 2005, and 2006 versions of
    the standard. We conclude that the use of the most current testing
    and rating techniques will best ensure that consumers with hearing
    loss can obtain wireless phones that meet their needs. We also adopt
    the transition schedule set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan,
    agreeing with commenters that this affords manufacturers appropriate
    time to begin producing phones to the new standard.[^223] We further
    determine not to require recertification of handsets previously
    certified under one of the older standards, but instead to continue
    recognizing such phones as hearing aid-compatible even after the
    2007 standard becomes mandatory for new certifications. As AT&T
    observes, older models are likely to be "phased out of circulation
    through marketplace attrition," which should obviate the
    issue.[^224] Finally, no commenter addressed whether the 2001 and
    2005 versions of the standard should continue to be permissible for
    new certifications during the transition period until 2010. To the
    contrary, the comments consistently assume that the choice during
    the transition period is between the 2006 and 2007 versions of the
    standard.[^225] As proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, therefore,
    we do not provide for the continued use of earlier versions.

82. In its comments, ANSI notes that the phase-in requirement contains
    an unspoken assumption, that "this would require any given mobile
    phone handset to be qualified under a complete version of either the
    2006 or 2007 standard."[^226] We agree. Accordingly, we clarify that
    a party can use either the 2006 or 2007 standard for new
    certifications through 2009, but must use a single version for all
    certification tests and criteria for both the M and T ratings with
    respect to a given device. The particular version of the standard
    used should be specified in the party's application for equipment
    certification.

83. To summarize, under the rules we adopt today, a newly-certified
    handset model or a handset model submitted for a permissive change
    relating to hearing aid compatibility will have to meet, at minimum,
    an M3 rating (for radio frequency interference reduction) or T3
    rating (for inductive coupling capability) as set forth in either
    the 2006 or 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 standard to be
    considered compatible. Grants of equipment certification previously
    issued under earlier versions of the standard will remain valid for
    hearing aid compatibility purposes, and if a permissive change is
    submitted for a reason not related primarily to a handset model's
    hearing aid compatibility status, the analysis of the effect of that
    change on a phone's compliance status may use the version of the
    ANSI C63.19 standard under which the hearing aid compatibility
    certification for that model was first made.[^227] However, a
    manufacturer that is required to meet a T3 rating for 20 percent of
    its models under Section 20.19(d)(1)(i) will only be able to count
    toward this requirement one model manufactured after January 1,
    2009, and certified under a pre-2007 standard.[^228] Then, beginning
    on January 1, 2010, we will only permit use of the 2007 version of
    the standard for obtaining new grants of equipment certification,
    while continuing to recognize the validity of existing grants under
    previous versions of the standard.[^229]

### 2. Application to Services in the 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz Bands {#application-to-services-in-the-800-950-mhz-and-1.6-2.5-ghz-bands .unnumbered}

84. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Notice*, we observed that the 2007
    version of the ANSI C63.19 standard includes target values for
    hearing aid compatibility procedures for operation over specific air
    interfaces at frequencies in the ranges of 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5
    GHz, a broader range of frequencies than is currently covered by
    Section 20.19(a).[^230] We had previously stated that, once
    technical standards were established for a new frequency band, we
    would establish a timetable for deployment.[^231] Accordingly, we
    tentatively concluded in the *Notice* to revise the hearing aid
    compatibility rule to include services operating over any
    frequencies within these two bands, to the extent they employ air
    interfaces for which technical standards have been established, and
    sought comment on this conclusion.[^232] No commenter discussed the
    issue.

85. [Discussion.]{.underline} We adopt our proposal to revise the rule
    to include services over any frequency band within the range covered
    by the ANSI C63.19-2007 standard, specifically, the 800-950 MHz and
    1.6-2.5 GHz bands, to the extent that they employ air interfaces for
    which technical standards are established in that standard.[^233] We
    note that no commenter objects to this revision or indicates that
    any delay is necessary to meet hearing aid compatibility obligations
    within this frequency range. Accordingly, as of the effective date
    of these rules, providers of commercial mobile radio services that
    are operating over these frequency bands and are otherwise within
    the scope of Section 20.19, as well as manufacturers of wireless
    phones used in the delivery of such services, will be subject to the
    same benchmark requirements that providers of cellular, PCS, and SMR
    services have to deploy hearing aid-compatible handset models as
    determined using either the 2006 or 2007 version of ANSI standard
    C63.19.[^234]

    **3. Future Revisions and Extensions to the Technical Standard**

86. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*,
    the Commission, as noted above, delegated to the Chief of WTB, in
    coordination with the Chief of OET, the authority to approve future
    versions of the standard that do not raise major compliance
    issues.[^235] In the *Notice*, we sought comment on whether we
    should establish a mechanism under which hearing aid compatibility
    obligations would become applicable to additional frequency bands as
    soon as or within a defined period after applicable technical
    standards are established, without the need for an additional
    rulemaking.[^236] We asked commenters whether such standards should
    be established upon promulgation by ANSI ASC Committee C63®, or
    whether there should additionally be a process for Commission review
    and approval.[^237]

87. [Discussion.]{.underline} To help ensure that our rules continue to
    reflect the most current standard as ANSI adopts new revisions to
    the standard, we again delegate to the Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, and the Chief, Office of Engineering and
    Technology, the authority to jointly adopt future versions of the
    ANSI C63.19 standard to the extent that the changes to the standard
    do not raise major compliance issues. In addition, as indicated
    below, we expand our delegation to a limited extent, *i.e.*, to
    allow Commission staff to administer a mechanism by which new
    frequency bands and air interfaces for which technical standards do
    not currently exist may be made subject to hearing aid compatibility
    obligations once such standards have been established. Specifically,
    where future versions of the ANSI C63.19 standard have been
    promulgated that provide technical standards for additional
    frequency bands or air interfaces not covered by previous versions,
    we direct the Chief, WTB, and the Chief, OET, to initiate a
    rulemaking proceeding, adopting the standards as established
    technical standards for the new frequency bands or air interfaces if
    they determine, based on the record, that the standards do not
    impose with respect to such frequency bands or air interfaces
    materially greater obligations than those imposed on services
    already subject to Section 20.19. To ensure that manufacturers and
    service providers have adequate time to comply with their
    obligations, we further impose a limitation that WTB and OET may not
    require manufacturers and Tier I carriers to meet deployment
    requirements for the relevant bands or air interfaces until at least
    one year after release of an order adopting standards for those
    bands or air interfaces, and may not require service providers other
    than Tier I carriers to meet such requirements sooner than 15 months
    after release of such order. However, manufacturers will be able to
    obtain hearing aid compatibility certification of handsets that can
    operate over the new bands or air interfaces, consistent with the
    multi-band/multi-mode rule discussed elsewhere, immediately upon the
    effective date of the rules adopted in such order.[^238]

88. Our action in this regard is broadly supported by the record. In
    particular, every commenter that addresses the issue generally
    supports establishment of a streamlined mechanism for the approval
    of revised standards that provide tests for new frequency bands and
    air interfaces.[^239] Moreover, our process addresses concerns
    expressed by some commenters that the Commission should provide the
    public an opportunity to comment on the new standard before formally
    approving the standard in cases where the approval of the standard
    will result in extending hearing aid compatibility requirements to
    new bands or air interfaces.[^240] TIA advocates that we allow at
    least a two year period after adoption of a new standard before
    requiring compliance.[^241] We find, however, that a one year
    interval is generally both sufficient for industry and necessary in
    order to bring the benefits of hearing aid-compatible handsets
    promptly to consumers.[^242] Because manufacturers are already on
    notice that new bands and air interfaces will be subject to hearing
    aid compatibility requirements upon the establishment of standards,
    and given that manufacturers will likely be involved themselves in
    the standards development process, we expect that they will be in a
    position to at least begin the process of developing hearing
    aid-compatible handsets for the new bands and air interfaces even
    before the relevant standards are approved by ANSI, not to mention
    during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding. Furthermore, the
    industry's years of experience with hearing aid compatibility in
    other bands and air interfaces will enable them to achieve hearing
    aid-compatible designs more quickly than before. We therefore adopt
    a minimum one year period for manufacturers and Tier I carriers in
    order to ensure the offering of hearing aid-compatible handsets for
    new bands and air interfaces as early as reasonably possible.
    Consistent with our recognition elsewhere of the difficulties
    smaller service providers may have in procuring up-to-date handsets,
    we prescribe a 15-month minimum interval for service providers other
    than Tier I carriers to begin offering hearing aid-compatible
    handsets for new bands and/or air interfaces.

89. Thus, in order to ensure that our rules continue to protect the
    ability of consumers with hearing loss to utilize services over all
    frequency bands and air interfaces for which standards exist, we
    delegate authority to WTB and OET to implement rule changes to
    conform our rules to ANSI standards. We take this action pursuant to
    Section 5(c)(1) of the Communications Act, which grants the
    Commission authority to delegate any of its functions, with certain
    exceptions not relevant here.[^243] We find that such rule changes
    do not involve novel questions of fact, law, or policy, and
    therefore are appropriately made under delegated authority.[^244] We
    amend Sections 0.241(a)(1), 0.331(d), and 20.19 of our rules to
    provide the Chiefs of WTB and OET with this delegated
    authority.[^245] These amendments pertain to agency organization,
    procedure and practice. Consequently, the notice and comment
    provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act contained in 5 U.S.C.
    § 553(b) are inapplicable.[^246]

    **C. Reporting, Information, and Outreach**

    **1. Reporting**

90. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*,
    the Commission established a schedule requiring manufacturers and
    wireless service providers to report on compliance efforts every six
    months from 2004 through 2006, and then annually in 2007 and 2008.
    Thus, manufacturers and wireless service providers filed their most
    recent compliance reports on November 19, 2007.[^247] These reports
    include a variety of required information describing manufacturers'
    and service providers' efforts aimed at complying with Commission
    requirements for hearing aid compatibility.[^248]

91. As the Commission has stated, these reports are intended to serve
    dual purposes. First, the reports assist the Commission in
    monitoring handset deployment progress. In addition, the reports
    provide valuable information to the public concerning the technical
    testing and commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible
    handsets,[^249] both for consumers, particularly those with hearing
    disabilities, and for service providers seeking information
    regarding the hearing aid compatibility of manufacturers'
    products.[^250]

92. The Joint Consensus Plan proposed to retain the requirement that
    manufacturers and service providers file annual reports with the
    Commission. It further proposed certain refinements to the contents
    of the reports so as to render them more helpful to consumers and
    others. The Joint Consensus Plan proposed a staggered schedule
    whereby manufacturers would be required to provide an annual status
    report to the Commission beginning November 30, 2007, Tier I
    carriers would be required to provide an annual status report to the
    Commission six months later beginning May 30, 2008, and Tier II and
    Tier III carriers would be required to provide an annual status
    report beginning May 30, 2009.[^251] These reporting requirements
    would continue annually through the November report in 2012.[^252]

93. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on the reporting provisions of
    the Joint Consensus Plan and on potential additional content
    requirements, including requiring both manufacturers and service
    providers to provide the model number and FCC ID number directly
    associated with each model that they are reporting as compatible,
    together with the "M" and "T" rating that each such model has been
    certified as achieving under the ANSI C63.19 standard.[^253] We also
    sought comment on the proposed reporting schedule. In particular, we
    sought comment on the appropriate start date for new reports, given
    that the November 2007 reports under the existing rules were
    expected to be filed on time, and on the appropriateness of delaying
    for a year or more the next reports for service providers other than
    Tier I carriers.[^254] We further proposed to delegate to WTB
    authority to develop a standardized format for these reports, and we
    sought comment on this and related issues.[^255]

94. Although there is broad support among commenters on the need for
    additional reporting beyond 2007,[^256] some commenters advocate
    limiting the reporting information to that listed in the Joint
    Consensus Plan, asserting that additional content requirements for
    the reports would be burdensome.[^257] ATIS supports retaining the
    original schedule, with manufacturers reporting on November 30, and
    service providers on May 30.[^258] RCA supports having
    non-nationwide service providers (Tier II /Tier III carriers) begin
    reporting a year later than Tier I carriers.[^259]

95. [Discussion]{.underline}. We adopt substantially the reporting
    requirements proposed in the *Notice*, along with certain additions
    and changes. First, we elaborate on the required content of the
    reports in order to ensure that they will provide complete
    information to the Commission and to consumers. We further determine
    to require the same content from all providers, regardless of size.
    Furthermore, we clarify that the reporting requirements apply to all
    manufacturers and service providers, including those that come under
    the *de minimis* exception to the deployment benchmarks. We
    establish new timelines for the filing of the reports. Finally, we
    delegate authority to prescribe a template, including the authority
    to require electronic filing, to WTB.

96. Initially, we adopt the reporting content requirements proposed in
    the *Notice* with certain elaborations and clarifications. These
    revised requirements will help ensure that the reports enable the
    Commission to fulfill its responsibilities in monitoring the status
    of access to hearing aid-compatible handsets and verifying
    compliance with our rules, and will ensure that the public has
    additional useful information on compatible handsets. Specifically,
    we clarify that manufacturers and service providers must provide the
    dates on which they began and ended offering specific models during
    the past 12 months in order to demonstrate compliance over time,
    instead of providing a once a year "snapshot." We further require
    manufacturers to indicate if devices that they market under separate
    model numbers constitute a single model for purposes of the hearing
    aid compatibility rules. This information will enable us to verify
    compliance with all of the hearing aid compatibility rules at all
    relevant times. Finally, we require each service provider to include
    an explanation of its methodology for dividing its hearing
    aid-compatible phones into different levels of functionality, which
    will help the Commission as well as the public know the range of
    compatible handsets that are being made available.[^260] As
    discussed more fully below, we require that these reports be filed
    by all manufacturers and service providers, even those that fall
    within the *de minimis* exception, although not all data categories
    will apply to *de minimis* entities.

97. The revised report content requirements are as follows:

    [Manufacturers:]{.underline}

    \(1\) digital wireless phone handset models tested since the most
    recent report;

    \(2\) compliant phone models offered to service providers since the
    most recent report,[^261] identified by marketing model
    name/number(s) and FCC ID number;

    \(3\) for each such model, the air interface(s) and frequency
    band(s) over which it operates, the hearing aid compatibility
    ratings under ANSI C63.19 for each frequency band and air interface,
    the ANSI C63.19 version used, and the months in which the model was
    available since the most recent report;

    \(4\) non-compliant phone models offered to service providers since
    the most recent report, identifying each model by marketing model
    name/number(s) and FCC ID number;

    \(5\) for each non-compliant model, the air interface(s) over which
    it operates and the months in which the model was available since
    the most recent report;

    \(6\) total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone models
    offered to service providers for each air interface as of the time
    of the report;

    \(7\) any instance, as of the date of the report or since the most
    recent report, in which multiple compliant or non-compliant devices
    are marketed under separate model name/numbers but constitute a
    single model for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules,
    identifying each device by marketing model name/number and FCC ID
    number;

    \(8\) status of product labeling; and

    \(9\) outreach efforts.

    [Service providers:]{.underline}

    \(1\) compliant digital wireless phone handset models offered to
    customers since the most recent report, identified by marketing
    model name/number(s) and FCC ID number;

    \(2\) for each such model, the air interface(s) and frequency
    band(s) over which it operates, the hearing aid compatibility
    ratings under ANSI C63.19 for each frequency band and air interface,
    and the months in which the model was available since the most
    recent report;

    \(3\) non-compliant phone models offered since the most recent
    report, identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s) and
    FCC ID number;

    \(4\) for each non-compliant model, the air interface(s) over which
    it operates and the months in which the model was available since
    the most recent report;

    \(5\) total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone models
    offered to customers for each air interface over which the provider
    offers service as of the time of the report;

    \(6\) information related to the retail availability of compliant
    phones;

    \(7\) status of product labeling;

    \(8\) outreach efforts; and

    \(9\) the levels of functionality into which the compliant phones
    fall and an explanation of the service provider's methodology for
    determining levels of functionality.

98. We further determine that the same reporting requirements should
    apply to all service providers. We reject arguments by RCA and
    SouthernLINC that less information should be required of service
    providers that are not Tier I carriers.[^262] We find that uniform
    application of reporting requirements is necessary to inform all
    consumers, and we are unconvinced by arguments that the reports will
    impose unreasonable burdens. In this regard, we disagree with those
    commenters that suggest that some of this information can be
    difficult to obtain or verify. Rather, in light of the requirements
    we adopt today, this information should be readily available to
    service providers either from the manufacturer's previous reports to
    the Commission, from the manufacturer's own website, or from the
    manufacturer directly. We further reject the proposition that some
    of this information, in particular the frequency bands and air
    interfaces over which a phone operates, is unnecessary. To the
    contrary, this information is essential to ensure correct
    application of our rules requiring deployment of hearing
    aid-compatible phones on a per-air interface basis, as well as our
    requirements that phones meet hearing aid compatibility standards
    for all air interfaces and frequency bands over which they operate.
    We note that even if a provider offers service over only one air
    interface, hearing aid compatibility over multiple air interfaces
    may be important to its customers who may use their phones when
    roaming.

99. Furthermore, we clarify that even manufacturers and service
    providers that come under the *de minimis* exception to the
    deployment benchmarks are under an obligation to file reports to the
    Commission. Even though these entities may be exempt from other
    requirements under Section 20.19, it is still necessary to obtain
    information from them in order to form a complete picture of the
    availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets, as well as to
    inform consumers. For instance, consumers would benefit, if *de
    minimis* entities do produce or market handset models that have been
    tested and found to be hearing aid-compatible, from having access to
    information about those handsets. In addition, information regarding
    all handset models that these entities offer will enable us to
    verify their eligibility for the exception. Entities that come under
    the *de minimis* exception will not be required to provide
    information other than that relating to the handset models that they
    offer. For example, as they are not subject to product labeling
    requirements, they need not provide information on labeling.

100. In addition, we require each manufacturer and service provider that
     is required to offer one or more hearing aid-compatible handset
     models to identify in its report, if it maintains a public website,
     the specific website address at which it provides information
     relating to the hearing aid-compatible handsets that it
     offers.[^263]

101. We require manufacturers and service providers to file their
     initial reports under the new rules on January 15, 2009.
     Thereafter, the reports will be filed annually beginning July 15,
     2009, for manufacturers and January 15, 2010, for service
     providers. The information in the reports shall be current through
     the end of the calendar month preceding the filing date, and the
     reports shall include historical information for the period since
     the entity filed its last report (which in most instances will be
     12 months). In order to afford sufficient time for manufacturers
     and service providers to transition to the new data collecting and
     reporting regime, however, the reports filed in January 2009 will
     need to include information relating to compliant and non-compliant
     handset models offered only for the previous six months (*i.e.*,
     beginning July 2008).

102. We find that this schedule appropriately balances manufacturers'
     and service providers' need for time to collect the information
     that will be required under the new reports with the public's
     interest in maintaining a steady flow of information. In
     particular, requiring the first reports to be filed in January
     2009, two months after the next reports would have been filed under
     our existing rules and 14 months after the most recent reports,
     affords manufacturers and service providers a reasonable period to
     begin collecting the new information. Although this schedule
     departs from the November and May dates proposed in the Joint
     Consensus Plan, the differences are not great, and indeed our
     adopted rule expands the period of time some entities are afforded
     before making their first reports.[^264] This time period also
     gives WTB an opportunity to devise and promulgate a standard
     electronic format for reporting. Consistent with the Joint
     Consensus Plan, we find that staggering the deadlines after the
     initial reports will allow service providers better to incorporate
     more recent manufacturer information into their reports, as well as
     facilitating efficient administrative review. In addition, we
     disagree with the Joint Consensus Plan's provision for a year's
     delay in reporting for service providers that are not Tier I
     carriers, particularly in light of our decision not to require any
     reports until January 2009.[^265] We note that in the past all
     service providers have had the same reporting obligations, and find
     that this proposal would create an unacceptable and unnecessary gap
     in the availability of information. Only one party, RCA, filed
     comments supporting this aspect of the Joint Consensus Plan, and
     one smaller service provider, i wireless, specifically rejected the
     year's delay.[^266]

103. Finally, we delegate authority to prescribe a template, including
     the authority to require electronic filing, to WTB. We find that a
     standardized form would improve the quality and utility of the
     reports for the Commission, industry, and the public. Although at
     least one commenter prefers to rely on a narrative report
     format,[^267] we conclude that a standardized format will assist
     the Commission and the public in understanding and analyzing the
     reports.

> **2. Information and Outreach**

104. [Background.]{.underline} In addition to the reports, the *Notice*
     sought comment on other ways to increase the availability of
     hearing aid compatibility information to consumers, service
     providers, and other interested parties.[^268] As explained in the
     *Staff Report*, the Commission's and industry's existing databases
     and websites are of limited value for these purposes.[^269]

105. The *Notice* sought comment both on possible changes to the
     Commission's website and databases and possible new requirements on
     manufacturers and service providers. For example, it is difficult,
     particularly for an inexperienced user, to search for information
     on hearing aid compatibility certification in the OET equipment
     authorization databases[^270] because the information is based on
     FCC ID numbers, not model numbers, and many of the data points of
     interest to consumers are reported in narrative sections, which
     cannot be searched automatically and which may vary in wording. We
     therefore sought comment on ways to improve the utility of this
     database, as well as the disability access website maintained by
     the Commission's Disability Rights Office (DRO). We specifically
     sought comment on whether we should require manufacturers to
     include in their equipment certification filings the handset model
     name/numbers associated with each FCC ID number and to update this
     information when they introduce new models, and whether we should
     adopt new Part 2 rules to require a filing for permissive changes
     that includes trade names and model numbers.[^271] Moreover, we
     requested comment on whether to require manufacturers and service
     providers subject to the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
     rules to follow the same procedures as those applicable to
     complaints regarding access to telecommunications services by
     persons with disabilities under Section 255 of the Communications
     Act,[^272] in particular whether to have the Commission publish
     hearing aid compatibility designated agents' contact information on
     its DRO website. In addition, we solicited comment on whether to
     require manufacturers and service providers to post certain
     information on their websites, and generally on other means to
     improve the availability of hearing aid compatibility information
     to the public.[^273]

106. In their comments, HLAA and Gallaudet/RERC offer several proposals
     for changes to the Commission's website and databases, as well as
     proposed requirements and recommendations for manufacturers and
     service providers.[^274]

107. [Discussion.]{.underline} We agree with HLAA and Gallaudet/RERC
     that improvements in the outreach activities of the Commission,
     manufacturers, and service providers would enhance the ability of
     consumers easily to obtain information about hearing aid-compatible
     handsets that meet their needs. We therefore take action on their
     recommendations, as described below.

108. First, HLAA and Gallaudet/RERC propose several changes to the
     Commission's website, databases, and processes, including:

-   Develop a single location or website where hearing aid users can
    find the ratings and model numbers of compliant handsets offered by
    manufacturers and service providers;

-   Add a search function to the FCC's equipment authorization database
    that will enable consumers to browse among phone features by
    category;

-   Add links to manufacturers' and service providers' websites from
    DRO's web page; and

-   Adopt a consumer-friendly method of handling hearing aid
    compatibility complaints that (1) requires FCC resolution within 90
    days; (2) provides for a separate and identifiable electronic and
    telephonic FCC receptacle for hearing aid compatibility complaints;
    and (3) facilitates the filing of formal hearing aid compatibility
    complaints.

109. We direct CGB, OET, and WTB to take these recommendations under
     advisement and to implement them to the extent feasible. We
     conclude that all of these recommended actions, if feasible, would
     assist consumers. In particular, we direct the Commission's DRO to
     include, on its website, links to the website addresses maintained
     by manufacturers and service providers that provide information on
     the hearing aid-compatible models that they offer.[^275] The idea
     that consumers should be able to access as much information as
     possible through easily accessible connections to relevant material
     is a fundamental one. We note, however, that because OET's database
     and the Part 2 rules were designed to serve the equipment
     authorization process, there may be limits to their adaptability to
     provide accessible information on hearing aid compatibility
     certifications. [^276] We decline at this time, in the absence of a
     more complete record, to require that hearing aid compatibility
     complaints be resolved within a particular time period, such as 90
     days. We do, however, expect that staff will make every effort to
     resolve such complaints within the shortest reasonable time frame,
     ideally within 90 days. We also note that, with its recent
     implementation of FCC Form 2000 online, the Commission has taken
     additional action to improve the manner in which it handles
     consumer complaints. In particular, FCC Form 2000C, the portion of
     Form 2000 that is used for disability access complaints, includes
     specific provisions for complaints relating to the hearing aid
     compatibility of wireless telephone equipment and service. The form
     is designed to be user-friendly, asking consumers targeted
     questions intended to facilitate processing of the complaint.[^277]

110. HLAA specifically advocates adopting in the context of hearing aid
     compatibility complaints the contact information requirements for
     manufacturers and service providers that currently apply to
     complaints under Section 255.[^278] Nokia and AT&T oppose this
     proposal, stating that "\[a\]dditional actions by the Commission
     are not necessary," and that "manufacturers should not be required
     to comply with Section 255's reporting requirements in the
     \[hearing aid compatibility\] context."[^279]

111. After review of the record, we adopt the proposal in the *Notice*
     and amend our rules accordingly. Contrary to the arguments of some
     parties, the proposal from the *Notice* was not to create a new
     mandate, but simply to alter the process under the existing Part 68
     mandate governing public complaints regarding hearing aid
     compatibility to make it conform to the Part 6 rules that govern
     complaints under Section 255.[^280] Under the Commission's Part 68
     complaint procedures, which are applicable to wireless hearing aid
     compatibility complaints,[^281] manufacturers and service providers
     are required to designate a service agent to the Administrative
     Council for Terminal Attachment (ACTA).[^282] A consumer wishing to
     make a complaint must first approach ACTA to secure the contact
     information for the relevant industry entity, only after which can
     the consumer actually file a complaint. This differs from the
     process for Section 255 complaints in Part 6 of the rules, under
     which the contact information is provided directly to the
     Commission and made available to the public via the DRO
     website.[^283] We conclude that requiring provision of hearing aid
     compatibility contact information directly to the Commission for
     posting on our website -- without otherwise changing the procedures
     for handling such complaints -- will assist consumers and will
     impose little if any additional burden on manufacturers and service
     providers, who are already required to make the same information
     available to a third party.

112. In addition to improvements to the Commission's website, databases,
     and processes, we find it essential to the proper functioning of
     our hearing aid compatibility rules that manufacturers and service
     providers make certain limited categories of up-to-date information
     available on their websites. Specifically, we require manufacturers
     and service providers, beginning January 15, 2009, to post a list
     of the hearing aid-compatible models that they offer (identified by
     marketing model name/number(s)), the hearing aid compatibility
     ratings of those models, and an explanation of the rating system.
     In addition, as suggested by Gallaudet/RERC, we require service
     providers to post the level of functionality for each model and an
     explanation of the service provider's methodology for designating
     levels of functionality.[^284] This list and related information
     should be updated within thirty days of any relevant changes.
     Although manufacturers and service providers are also required to
     provide this information annually to the Commission, such
     information will inevitably become dated over the course of a year.
     Thus, updated website postings are necessary both so that consumers
     can obtain up-to-date hearing aid compatibility information from
     their service providers and so that service providers can readily
     obtain such information from their manufacturer suppliers. Because
     all of the information that we are requiring to be posted on
     websites is already required either in annual reports or on product
     packaging and inserts, we disagree with assertions that it would be
     unduly burdensome for manufacturers and service providers to
     procure and maintain such information.[^285] As noted above with
     respect to service providers' annual reports, although information
     regarding handset compatibility is in the first instance under the
     control of manufacturers, the requirement that manufacturers post
     the information means it should be readily accessible for service
     providers to post as well. Consistent with our decision regarding
     reporting requirements above, in order to afford manufacturers and
     service providers time to compile the requisite information and
     make the necessary changes to their websites, we delay the
     effective date of these posting requirements until January 15,
     2009.

113. As noted above, we also require manufacturers and service providers
     to include in their annual reports to the Commission the website
     address at which this information is posted.[^286] Further, if this
     website address ceases to be functional at any time prior to the
     next report, we require the manufacturer or service provider to
     inform the DRO of the revised address within 30 days of the change.
     These reporting requirements will enable the DRO to maintain
     up-to-date links for the public on its website.[^287]

114. In addition to this required information, HLAA advocates that we
     "strongly encourage\[ \]" industry to post certain other
     information on their websites, including:

-   A search function for hearing aid compatibility data to allow
    consumers to browse within the category for features they want;

-   A listing of hearing aid compatibility ratings for all handset
    models, not just those with ratings of 3 and 4 (because hearing aid
    ratings are now available to consumers);[^288]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Volume control levels on phones;

-   Vibrating feature on phones;

-   Ring tones most suitable for people with hearing loss -- those with
    low frequencies;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Devices with QWERTY keyboards that can make it easier to send emails
    and instant messages that supplement hearing aid compatibility;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Other features and functions on handsets;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A downloadable version of a brochure on hearing aid-compatible
    handsets developed by ATIS WG6 (print version of brochure should be
    available in every store, including independent stores); and

-   A downloadable version of a phone evaluation tool that the RERC at
    Gallaudet is now testing[^289] on its websites and in its
    advertising.

115. We agree that this information would be useful to consumers, and we
     urge manufacturers and service providers to include it on their
     websites and in other publicity to the extent feasible. In
     recognition of the great variety of products, marketing practices,
     and website designs, however, we do not at present require the
     posting of any specific information other than that described
     above.[^290]

116. Finally, we clarify that under the labeling requirement in Section
     20.19(f), the M and T ratings that are required on the label are
     the overall, worst case ratings for the handset. We recognize that
     a multi-band or multi-mode handset may have different hearing aid
     compatibility ratings for different frequency bands or air
     interfaces. Consistent with our holding above regarding the
     compatibility status of multi-band and multi-mode handsets, we find
     that the most useful information for consumers is a single "worst
     case" rating constituting the handset's lowest rating for any air
     interface or frequency band. Accordingly, while we expect that the
     reports to the Commission will include all hearing aid
     compatibility ratings assigned to a particular model, the labeling
     accompanying a hearing aid-compatible handset, as well as the
     information on a manufacturer or service provider's website, shall
     include only the lowest such rating as the rating for the handset.

     **D. 2010 Review**

117. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on when to conduct the next
     review of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules for
     digital wireless services and handsets. The Joint Consensus Plan
     proposes that we establish a further review of the hearing aid
     compatibility rules in 2010.[^291] We tentatively concluded to
     adopt this proposal, and sought comment, including on whether such
     a review would be more appropriate at a later date, such as in
     2012.[^292] No commenters objected to the 2010 date, although AT&T
     suggested that 2012 would be appropriate as well.[^293] We
     therefore conclude to begin a further review of the Commission's
     hearing aid rules in 2010, after the May 2010 deployment benchmarks
     have passed.

# CONCLUSION

118. In this Report and Order, we adopt a number of inter-related
     changes to our wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, largely
     based on proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan. These changes
     update the requirements regarding deployment of hearing
     aid-compatible handsets, reporting, and outreach, as well as the
     standards by which hearing aid compatibility will be determined. We
     conclude that the changes will improve access to wireless
     telecommunications services for persons with hearing disabilities,
     which continues to be a critical goal of the Commission as society
     increasingly relies on wireless services for social, business, and
     emergency communications.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Regulatory Flexibility Act

119. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
     (RFA),[^294] the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory
     Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic
     impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in
     this item. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.

## Paperwork Reduction Analysis

120. This document contains new and modified information collection
     requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
     Public Law 104-13.  It will be submitted to the Office of
     Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the
     PRA.  OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are
     invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
     requirements contained in this proceeding.

121. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
     Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. §
     3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the
     Commission might "further reduce the information collection burden
     for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees."

122. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the
     reporting requirements we have imposed on manufacturers and service
     providers, and find that the information required should be readily
     available even to businesses with fewer than 25 employees, and that
     it is important to obtain this information in order to monitor
     compliance with the hearing aid compatibility requirements and to
     provide consumers with adequate information regarding the handsets
     available from particular service providers.[^295]

123. Similarly, we have assessed the effects of requiring manufacturers
     and service providers to post certain information regarding the
     hearing aid-compatible handsets they offer on their websites.[^296]
     We note that this requirement would apply only to entities that
     maintain a public website and is further subject to the *de
     minimis* exception. Both restrictions should limit, to some extent,
     the application of the requirement to small businesses with fewer
     than 25 employees. Moreover, we have concluded that maintaining the
     limited information required, primarily a list of currently offered
     hearing aid-compatible handsets along with the associated ratings,
     will not be unduly burdensome, and that this requirement will
     significantly benefit consumers by ensuring convenient access to
     up-to-date information regarding compliant handset availability.

124. Finally, we have determined that requiring manufacturers to provide
     hearing aid compatibility contact information directly to the
     Commission will impose little if any additional burden on
     businesses with fewer than 25 employees. [^297] This requirement
     may even decrease these burdens, to the extent that it will allow
     consumers wishing to file a complaint to obtain that information
     from the Commission's website rather than contacting ACTA to obtain
     it from the service provider.

## Congressional Review Act. 

125. The Commission will send a copy of this *First 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).

## Accessible Formats

126. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
     disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio
     format), send an e-mail to
     [[FCC504@fcc.gov]{.underline}](mailto:FCC504@fcc.gov) or call the
     Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice),
     202-418-0432 (TTY).

# ORDERING CLAUSES

127. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i),
     303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
     U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and 610, this Report and Order IS HEREBY
     ADOPTED.

128. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 0, 20 and 68 of the Commission's
     Rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 0, 20 and 68, are AMENDED as specified in
     Appendix C, effective 30 days after publication of the Order in the
     Federal Register.

129. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the information collections contained in
     this Report and Order WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE following approval by
     the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a
     document at a later date establishing the effective date.

130. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the
     First Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
     Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Parties Filing Comments**

**[Comments]{.underline}**

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS)

American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee
C63® (ANSI ASC C63®)

(Two submissions, one labeled "Technical Comments")

AT&T, Inc. (AT&T)

Chinook Wireless (Chinook)

Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC)

Gallaudet University Technology Access program and Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access
(Gallaudet/RERC)

Hearing Industries Association (HIA)

Hearing Loss Association of America and Telecommunications for the Deaf
and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (HLAA/TDI)

MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS)

Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)

Nokia Inc. (Nokia)

Radioshack Corporation

Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies
(Wireless RERC)

Research in Motion Limited (RIM)

Rural Cellular Association (RCA)

The Satellite Industry Association (SIA)

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (Sony Ericsson)

T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)

**[Reply Comments]{.underline}**

ANSI ASC C63®\
Apple, Inc. (Apple)

AT&T

ATIS

CTIA -- The Wireless Association (CTIA)

Iowa Wireless Services, LLC (i wireless)\
MetroPCS\
Motorola\
Nokia

PerrineCrest Radio Consulting (PerrineCrest Radio)

RIM\
SouthernLINC Wireless (SouthernLINC)\
T-Mobile

Verizon Wireless (Verizon)

Voice on the Net Coalition (VON)\
Virgin Mobile, USA, L.P. (Virgin Mobile)

**APPENDIX B**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^298] 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 policies and rules considered in the *Notice*
    in WT Docket No. 07-250.[^299] The Commission sought written public
    comment on the *Notice* in this docket, including comment on the
    IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
    the RFA.

2.  Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000
    provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive
    bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band,[^300]
    the Commission believes that it would serve the public interest to
    analyze the possible significant economic impact of the proposed
    policy and rule changes in this band on small entities. Accordingly,
    this FRFA contains an analysis of this impact in connection with all
    spectrum that falls within the scope of this *First Report and
    Order*, including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band.

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

3.  In the *First Report and Order*,[^301] the Commission revises
    Section 20.19 of the rules containing the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements applicable to providers of public mobile services and
    manufacturers of digital wireless handsets used in the delivery of
    those services. Specifically, the Commission adopts benchmark
    requirements for future deployment of hearing aid-compatible
    handsets,[^302] and related requirements,[^303] based on the
    proposals set forth in the *Notice* and based on a Joint Consensus
    Plan developed by an Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
    Solutions (ATIS) working group that included nationwide carriers,
    handset manufacturers, and several organizations representing the
    interests of consumers with hearing loss.[^304] The Commission finds
    that these new handset deployment obligations for both manufacturers
    and service providers will ensure that its rules continue to be
    effective in an evolving marketplace of new technologies and
    services. Because service providers not in the Tier I category[^305]
    were not included in the Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission sought
    comment on and adopts in the *First Report and Order* similar rule
    changes, with modified deadlines, for these entities.[^306] These
    requirements and deadlines are intended both to promote the
    accessibility of hearing aid-compatible handsets to all deaf and
    hard of hearing consumers, and to recognize the impediments to
    smaller and regional service providers obtaining the most recent
    handset models. In order to facilitate the continuing availability
    of a variety of hearing aid-compatible handset models to consumers,
    the Commission also adopts a requirement that manufacturers annually
    "refresh" their hearing aid-compatible offerings with new models,
    and a requirement that service providers offer hearing
    aid-compatible models with differing levels of functionality.[^307]
    The Commission further adopts an interim measure whereby phones with
    Wi-Fi capability that otherwise meet hearing aid compatibility
    standards may be counted as hearing aid-compatible, but the
    manufacturer and service provider must clearly disclose that they
    have not been rated with respect to their Wi-Fi operation.[^308]
    Finally, the Commission revises the annual reporting obligations of
    manufacturers and service providers. These amendments will, among
    other things, render the reports more useful to consumers who wish
    to know the compatibility ratings of different handset models that
    have been certified as hearing aid-compatible. In addition, to
    ensure the availability of such information on a more current basis
    to service providers and consumers wishing to offer or purchase
    hearing aid-compatible handsets, the Commission requires
    manufacturers and service providers to provide up-to-date
    information on their websites regarding their hearing aid-compatible
    handset models.[^309]

4.  The Commission states that these inter-related changes, taken
    together and largely supported by manufacturers, service providers,
    and consumers with hearing loss, will further the statutory
    objective to "ensure reasonable access to telephone service by
    persons with impaired hearing."[^310] Among other things, the
    Commission explains that the most disadvantaged wireless users in
    the deaf and hard of hearing community, who are more likely to rely
    on telecoil-equipped hearing aids, will benefit from rule changes
    that increase requirements to offer handsets with inductive coupling
    capability. The Commission further states that that the requirements
    that manufacturers refresh their product offerings annually and that
    service providers offer hearing aid-compatible handset models at
    differing functionality levels will help to ensure that consumers
    with hearing loss have a variety of handsets available to them,
    including handsets with innovative user features, a goal that the
    Commission has sought to promote since 2003.[^311] Finally, the
    Commission notes its objective to ensure that the impact of the
    rules remains as technology-impartial as possible while also
    ensuring availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to
    consumers.[^312]

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

5.  No comments specifically addressed the IRFA. Nonetheless, small
    entity issues raised in comments are addressed in this FRFA in
    Sections D and E.

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

6.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
    feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^313] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^314] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^315] 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).[^316]

7.  **Wireless Communications Services.** This service can be used for
    fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting
    satellite uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The
    Commission defined "small business" for the wireless communications
    services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of
    \$40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a "very
    small business" as an entity with average gross revenues of \$15
    million for each of the three preceding years.[^317] The SBA has
    approved these definitions.[^318] The Commission auctioned
    geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, which
    commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 1997, there were
    seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as very small
    business entities, and one bidder that won one license that
    qualified as a small business entity.

8.  **700 MHz Guard Bands Licenses.** In the *700 MHz Guard Bands
    Order*, the Commission adopted size standards for "small businesses"
    and "very small businesses" for purposes of determining their
    eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
    installment payments.[^319] A small business in this service is an
    entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
    principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$40 million
    for the preceding three years.[^320] Additionally, a "very small
    business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more
    than \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^321] SBA approval
    of these definitions is not required.[^322] An auction of 52 Major
    Economic Area (MEA) licenses for each of two spectrum blocks
    commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21,
    2000.[^323] Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to
    nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a
    total of 26 licenses. A second auction of remaining 700 MHz Guard
    Bands licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on
    February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to
    three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a
    total of two licenses.[^324] Subsequently, in the *700 MHz Second
    Report and Order*, the Commission reorganized the licenses pursuant
    to an agreement among most of the licensees, resulting in a spectral
    relocation of the first set of paired spectrum block licenses, and
    an elimination of the second set of paired spectrum block licenses
    (many of which were already vacant, reclaimed by the Commission from
    Nextel).[^325] A single licensee that did not participate in the
    agreement was grandfathered in the initial spectral location for its
    two licenses in the second set of paired spectrum blocks.[^326]
    Accordingly, at this time there are 54 licenses in the 700 MHz Guard
    Bands and there is no auction data applicable to determine which are
    held by small businesses.

9.  **700 MHz Band Commercial Licenses.** There is 80 megahertz of
    non-Guard Band spectrum in the 700 MHz Band that is designated for
    commercial use: 698-757, 758-763, 776-787, and 788-793 MHz Bands.
    With one exception, the Commission adopted criteria for defining two
    groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their
    eligibility for bidding credits at auction. These two categories
    are: (1) "small business," which is defined as an entity that has
    attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed \$40
    million during the preceding three years; and (2) "very small
    business," which is defined as an entity with attributed average
    annual gross revenues that do not exceed \$15 million for the
    preceding three years.[^327] In Block C of the Lower 700 MHz Band
    (710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz), which was licensed on the basis of
    734 Cellular Market Areas, the Commission adopted a third criterion
    for determining eligibility for bidding credits: an "entrepreneur,"
    which is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more
    than \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^328] The SBA has
    approved these small size standards.[^329]

10. An auction of 740 licenses for Blocks C (710-716 MHz and 740-746
    MHz) and D (716-722 MHz) of the Lower 700 MHz Band commenced on
    August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740
    licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102
    winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small
    business, very small business, or entrepreneur status and won a
    total of 329 licenses.[^330] A second auction commenced on May 28,
    2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: five
    EAG licenses and 251 CMA licenses.[^331] Seventeen winning bidders
    claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and
    nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154
    licenses.[^332]

11. The auction for the remaining 62 megahertz of commercial spectrum
    began on January 24, 2008. A total of 214 applicants were found to
    be qualified bidders, of which 38 applicants claimed status as small
    businesses and 81 applicants claimed status as very small
    businesses.

12. **Government Transfer Bands.** The Commission adopted small business
    size standards for the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and
    the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands.[^333]
    Specifically, with respect to these bands, the Commission defined an
    entity with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding
    years not exceeding \$40 million as a "small business," and an
    entity with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding
    years not exceeding \$15 million as a "very small business."[^334]
    SBA has approved these small business size standards for the
    aforementioned bands.[^335] Correspondingly, the Commission adopted
    a bidding credit of 15 percent for "small businesses" and a bidding
    credit of 25 percent for "very small businesses."[^336] This bidding
    credit structure was found to have been consistent with the
    Commission's schedule of bidding credits, which may be found at
    Section 1.2110(f)(2) of the Commission's rules.[^337] The Commission
    found that these two definitions will provide a variety of
    businesses seeking to provide a variety of services with
    opportunities to participate in the auction of licenses for this
    spectrum and will afford such licensees, who may have varying
    capital costs, substantial flexibility for the provision of
    services.[^338] The Commission noted that it had long recognized
    that bidding preferences for qualifying bidders provide such bidders
    with an opportunity to compete successfully against large,
    well-financed entities.[^339] The Commission also noted that it had
    found that the use of tiered or graduated small business definitions
    is useful in furthering its mandate under Section 309(j) to promote
    opportunities for and disseminate licenses to a wide variety of
    applicants.[^340] An auction for one license in the 1670-1674 MHz
    band commenced on April 30, 2003 and closed the same day. One
    license was awarded.

13. **Advanced Wireless Services.** In the *AWS-1 Report and Order*, the
    Commission adopted rules that affect applicants who wish to provide
    service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands.[^341] The
    Commission anticipated that the services that will be deployed in
    these bands may have capital requirements comparable to those in the
    broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS), and that the
    licensees in these bands will be presented with issues and costs
    similar to those presented to broadband PCS licensees. Further, at
    the time the broadband PCS service was established, it was similarly
    anticipated that it would facilitate the introduction of a new
    generation of service. Therefore, the *AWS-1 Report and Order*
    adopts the same small business size definition that the Commission
    adopted for the broadband PCS service and that the SBA
    approved.[^342] In particular, the *AWS-1 Report and Order* defines
    a "small business" as an entity with average annual gross revenues
    for the preceding three years not exceeding \$40 million, and a
    "very small business" as an entity with average annual gross
    revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding \$15 million.
    The *AWS-1 Report and Order* also provides small businesses with a
    bidding credit of 15 percent and very small businesses with a
    bidding credit of 25 percent.

14. **Wireless Cable Systems***.* The SBA small business size standard
    for the broad census category of "Wireless Telecommunications
    Carriers-except satellite" appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS.
    The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
    category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^343] Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies
    of the Broadband Radio Service ("BRS"), formerly Multipoint
    Distribution Service ("MDS"),[^344] and the Educational Broadband
    Service ("EBS"), formerly Instructional Television Fixed Service
    ("ITFS"),[^345] to transmit video programming and provide broadband
    services to residential subscribers.[^346] These services were
    originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video
    programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over
    the past several years licensees have focused their operations
    instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access
    services.[^347] The Commission estimates that the number of wireless
    cable subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local
    Multipoint Distribution Service ("LMDS") is a fixed broadband
    point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way
    video telecommunications.[^348] The SBA small business size standard
    for the broad census category of Wireless Telecommunications
    Carriers appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS.[^349] To gauge
    small business prevalence for MDS, ITFS and LMDS, the Commission
    must, as discussed below, use current census data that are based on
    the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and
    its associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms
    having \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^350] This data
    was gathered when Cable and Other Program Distribution was the
    applicable NAICS Code size standard under SBA.

15. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in
    the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS
    auction,[^351] the Commission defined a small business as an entity
    that had annual average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in
    the previous three calendar years.[^352] This definition of a small
    entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the
    SBA.[^353] In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the
    67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this
    time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS
    auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to
    the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are
    approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues
    that are not more than \$40 million and are thus considered small
    entities.[^354] MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did
    not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under
    the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program
    Distribution. Information available to us indicates that there are
    approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not
    generate revenue in excess of \$13.5 million annually. Therefore,
    the Commission estimates that there are approximately 850 small
    entity MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the
    Commission's auction rules.

16. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small
    entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small
    business size standard for ITFS (now EBS).[^355] The Commission
    estimates that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees,
    and all but 100 of the licenses are held by educational
    institutions. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 1,932
    ITFS licensees are small entities.

17. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions,[^356] the Commission defined a
    small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues
    of less than \$40 million in the previous three calendar
    years.[^357] Moreover, the Commission added an additional
    classification for a "very small business," which was defined as an
    entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than \$15
    million in the previous three calendar years.[^358] These
    definitions of "small business" and "very small business" in the
    context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^359] In
    the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104
    auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small
    businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses.
    Based on this information, the Commission believes that the number
    of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the
    first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a
    total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and
    the Commission's auction rules.

18. **Cellular Licensees.** The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for small businesses in the category "Wireless
    Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)."[^360] Under that
    SBA category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^361] For the census category of "Cellular and Other
    Wireless Telecommunications," Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
    there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^362] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^363] Thus, under this category and size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

19. **Broadband Personal Communications Service.** The broadband
    Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
    frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
    auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business
    size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross
    revenues of less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar
    years.[^364] For Block F, an additional small business size standard
    for "very small business" was added and is defined as an entity
    that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of
    not more than \$15 million for the preceding three calendar
    years.[^365] These small business size standards, in the context of
    broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.[^366] No
    small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size
    standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There
    were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the
    Block C auctions. A total of 93 "small" and "very small" business
    bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for
    Blocks D, E, and F.[^367] On March 23, 1999, the Commission
    reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 small
    business winning bidders.[^368] On January 26, 2001, the Commission
    completed the auction of 422 C and F PCS licenses in Auction
    35.[^369] Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as
    "small" or "very small" businesses. Subsequent events concerning
    Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted
    in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant.

20. **Specialized Mobile Radio.** The Commission awards "small entity"
    bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
    geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms
    that had revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the three
    previous calendar years.[^370] The Commission awards "very small
    entity" bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than
    \$3 million in each of the three previous calendar years.[^371] The
    SBA has approved these small business size standards for the 900 MHz
    Service.[^372] The Commission has held auctions for geographic area
    licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction
    began on December 5, 1995, and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty
    bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the
    \$15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the
    900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels
    began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997.
    Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under
    the \$15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for
    the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band.[^373] A second
    auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10, 2002 and closed
    on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder
    claiming small business status won five licenses.[^374]

21. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for
    the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was
    completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic
    area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR
    band qualified as small businesses under the \$15 million size
    standard. In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of
    2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz
    SMR service were sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed "small
    business" status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three
    auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz
    SMR band claimed status as small business.

22. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees
    and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800
    and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms
    provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended
    implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have
    annual revenues of no more than \$15 million, or have no more than
    1,500 employees. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. The
    Commission believes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the
    remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held
    by small entities, as that small business size standard is
    established by the SBA.

23. **Rural Radiotelephone Service.** The Commission uses the SBA
    definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
    (except satellite)," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^375] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are
    1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
    herein.

24. **Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.** The Commission uses the SBA
    definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
    (except satellite)," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^376] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
    Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that
    almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA
    definition.

25. **Offshore Radiotelephone Service.** This service operates on
    several ultra high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast channels that are
    not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states
    bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55
    licensees in this service. The Commission uses the SBA definition
    applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
    satellite)," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^377] The Commission is unable at this time to estimate the
    number of licensees that would qualify as small entities under the
    SBA definition. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this
    analysis, that all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that
    term is defined by the SBA.

26. **Mobile Satellite Service Carriers.** Neither the Commission nor
    the U.S. Small Business Administration has developed a small
    business size standard specifically for mobile satellite service
    licensees. The appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA
    standard for Satellite Telecommunications, which provides that such
    entities are small if they have \$13.5 million or less in annual
    revenues.[^378] Currently, the Commission's records show that there
    are 31 entities authorized to provide voice and data MSS in the
    United States. The Commission does not have sufficient information
    to determine which, if any, of these parties are small entities. The
    Commission notes that small businesses are not likely to have the
    financial ability to become MSS system operators because of high
    implementation costs, including construction of satellite space
    stations and rocket launch, associated with satellite systems and
    services.

27. **Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers**. The SBA has
    established a small business size standard for wireless
    communications equipment manufacturers. Under the Radio and
    Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
    Manufacturing standard, firms are considered small if they have 750
    or fewer employees.[^379] Census Bureau data for 1997 indicates
    that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215
    establishments[^380] in this category.[^381] Of those, there were
    1,150 that had employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had
    employment of 500 to 999. The Commission estimates that the majority
    of wireless communications equipment manufacturers are small
    businesses

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

28. The Commission adopts reporting and outreach requirements that will
    involve some recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for
    small entities. Under the decision in the *First Report and Order*,
    manufacturers and service providers, including those that are small
    entities, will continue to file regular reports with the Commission
    detailing their hearing aid compatibility efforts. In order to
    improve the existing reports for consumers and industry and meet the
    Commission's hearing aid compatibility objectives (see Section A
    above), however, the Commission adopts new content requirements for
    these reports.[^382] The Commission also adopts a new outreach
    obligation for manufacturers and service providers that maintain
    public websites to post up-to-date information involving some of
    this content, and to report and keep updated to the Commission a
    working link to the web location at which this information is
    posted.[^383] Finally, because many handset models are currently
    being offered that operate over both established CMRS interfaces and
    the Wi-Fi air interface for which no established hearing aid
    compatibility standards exist, the Commission allows such phones on
    an interim basis to be counted as hearing aid-compatible if they
    otherwise qualify as hearing aid-compatible under its rules, but
    requires consumers to be informed that those phones have not been
    rated for hearing aid compatibility with respect to their Wi-Fi
    operations.[^384] Section E below summarizes additional detail about
    these reporting and outreach requirements that the Commission adopts
    in the *First Report and Order*.[^385]

29. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
    requirements resulting from the *First Report and Order* will apply
    to all entities in the same manner. As discussed in Section E
    below,[^386] the Commission finds that applying the same rules
    equally to all entities in this context promotes fairness. The
    Commission does not believe that the costs and/or administrative
    burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden small entities.
    Moreover, any costs and burdens assumed by small entities will be
    offset by the benefits obtained by consumers. The revisions the
    Commission adopts should benefit consumers by giving them more
    information and more options for gaining access to hearing aid
    compatibility information.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

30. The RFA requires an agency to describe in the IRFA any significant
    alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed
    approach, which may include (among others) the following four
    alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or
    reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
    resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification,
    consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting
    requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
    performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
    from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
    entities.[^387] The Commission considered these alternatives with
    respect to all of the requirements that it is imposing on small
    entities in the *First Report and Order*, and this FRFA incorporates
    by reference all discussion in the *First Report and Order* that
    considers the impact on small entities of the rules adopted by the
    Commission. In addition, the Commission's consideration of those
    issues as to which the impact on small entities was specifically
    discussed in the record is summarized below:

31. [Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment Benchmarks and
    Deadlines]{.underline}. In accordance with its objective of
    furthering the availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to
    the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, the Commission considered
    several different proposals for handset deployment benchmarks and
    deadlines. These alternatives balanced several different approaches
    to improving wireless services for deaf and hard-of-hearing
    consumers. For example, the Commission considered the possibility of
    applying to small entities different benchmarks for offering handset
    models meeting M3 and T3 (or higher) hearing aid compatibility
    ratings. Six parties representing regional or smaller service
    providers submitted comments in favor of lower benchmarks for
    smaller service providers.

32. Ultimately, the Commission adopted identical benchmark alternatives
    for all manufacturers and all service providers (including small
    manufacturers and service providers). The Commission decided on a
    single set of deployment benchmark alternatives for all service
    providers (other than those coming under the *de minimis* exception)
    in accordance with its objective of furthering the availability of
    hearing aid-compatible handsets for all consumers regardless of
    where they reside. Under these alternatives for both M3 and T3
    ratings, service providers may meet hearing aid compatibility
    standards for either a minimum number or minimum percentage of the
    handset models that they offer, whichever is less. Thus, under the
    percentage alternative, service providers with smaller product
    lines, including many small entities, are relieved of the burden of
    having to offer larger numbers of hearing aid-compatible models
    required of larger service providers. The Commission considered the
    alternative of reducing the benchmarks still further for smaller
    service providers, but determined that the increased relief of
    burdens that would be achieved by doing so was outweighed by the
    public interest in ensuring availability of hearing aid-compatible
    handsets to all consumers who need them, which is the primary
    objective of this proceeding.

33. In addition, to minimize the economic burden to service providers
    that are small entities, the Commission extended future hearing aid
    compatibility compliance deadlines for non-nationwide service
    providers by three months. The Commission provided this additional
    time in recognition that smaller service providers have few handset
    options and more difficulty in obtaining the newest offerings than
    their nationwide counterparts. In reaching this decision, the
    Commission considered and rejected other alternatives. In
    particular, five non-nationwide carriers submitted comments asking
    for extended deadlines of six months to one year following Tier I
    carriers' deadlines. The Commission did not agree with the extension
    of deadlines beyond three months, because it determined that such
    action would amount to an unacceptable and unnecessary denial of
    handset benefits to consumers. The Commission noted that the
    extension of three months is consistent with past orders where it
    has found that many smaller service providers justified waivers of
    approximately three months from prior hearing aid compatibility
    deadlines, but denied most requests for longer periods of delay.

34. In considering these deployment benchmarks and deadlines, the
    Commission also adopted the proposal of the Joint Consensus plan to
    retain the existing *de minimis* exception. Under this exception,
    manufacturers and service providers that offer two or fewer digital
    wireless handset models in the U.S. per air interface are exempt
    from hearing aid compatibility requirements (other than certain
    reporting requirements), and those offering three handset models per
    air interface are required to offer one hearing aid-compatible
    model. The Commission kept this rule, which minimizes economic
    impact on certain small entities, in recognition that exempting from
    hearing aid compatibility requirements all companies with very small
    product lines promotes innovation and competition.

35. [Other Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment
    Obligations]{.underline}. In addition to handset deployment
    benchmarks and deadlines, the Commission adopted rules requiring
    handset manufacturers to refresh their hearing aid-compatible
    product offerings annually, and requiring service providers to offer
    to consumers hearing aid-compatible handsets with differing levels
    of functionality. The objective of these rules is to ensure that
    hearing aid users can select from a variety of complaint handset
    models, with varying features and prices. In adopting these rules,
    the Commission considered comments of several smaller service
    providers that the requirement to offer compatible models with
    differing levels of functionality is unnecessary and intrusive as
    applied to non-nationwide service providers. In response, the
    Commission acknowledged that it does not expect a service provider
    with four hearing aid-compatible models, for example, necessarily to
    offer as many levels of functionality or as broad a range of product
    offerings as a provider with eight or more models. Therefore, the
    Commission crafted the rule to afford service providers flexibility
    to define their levels of functionality in a manner appropriate to
    their situation. Nonetheless, the Commission determined that even
    the smallest service providers should be able to distinguish among
    their offerings in some manner, and that requiring them to do so
    offers benefits to consumers that outweigh the relatively small
    burden on small entities.

36. [Reporting, Information, and Outreach]{.underline}. As noted in
    Section D above, the Commission adopted reporting and other
    compliance requirements that will apply to all entities irrespective
    of their size. The *First Report and Order* requires manufacturers
    and all service providers to file reports annually. This requirement
    to file annual reports continues a requirement that exists under the
    current rules. However, the *First Report and Order* adds new
    required content to the reports, including: (1) model name/numbers
    and FCC ID numbers; (2) the air interfaces and frequency bands over
    which each model operates; (3) information regarding handset models
    offered throughout the period since the previous report, including
    the months during which each model was available; and (4) for
    service providers, their models' levels of functionality and their
    methodology for dividing hearing aid-compatible handset models into
    different levels of functionality.

37. The Commission in the past has stated that annual hearing aid
    compatibility reports serve a dual purpose of assisting the
    Commission in monitoring handset deployment progress and providing
    valuable information to the public concerning the technical testing
    and commercial availability of hearing aid compatible handsets for
    consumers.[^388] The new content requirements in the *First Report
    and Order* will result in better information to the Commission and
    to consumers. Some comments on the *Notice* asserted that additional
    reporting requirements would be burdensome, particularly to smaller
    service providers, and the Commission considered whether any
    alternatives could serve consumers' needs in a manner less
    burdensome to small entities. As the Commission found, however, all
    of the information to be included in the reports is either within
    the service provider's control or can be readily gathered from
    manufacturers' websites or their previous reports. Thus, the
    Commission found that these reports will not impose any unreasonable
    burden on manufacturers and service providers, whether large or
    small. Furthermore, in order to ensure proper implementation of the
    hearing aid compatibility rules and to inform consumers, the
    Commission found it extremely important to obtain the information in
    question from all service providers without exception. Accordingly,
    the Commission found that other alternatives would not provide it
    with the information necessary to accomplish its objectives.

38. The Commission also considered whether, as advocated by one
    commenter, the initial reports under the new rules should be delayed
    by one year for service providers that are not Tier I carriers. The
    Commission found that this proposal would create an unacceptable and
    unnecessary gap in the availability of information. Moreover, in
    order to ease the burden of compliance for all manufacturers and
    service providers, the Commission determined not to require the next
    reports from any entities until January 15, 2009.

39. The Commission further authorized the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau to prescribe a uniform template for the annual reports and
    require electronic filing. The Commission considered whether to
    allow regulated entities, including small entities, alternatively to
    use a narrative format. To assist the Commission and consumers in
    understanding and analyzing the reports, it concluded that a
    uniform, electronic format will not impose a significant increase in
    economic burdens.

40. In addition to regular reporting, the *First Report and Order* will
    require manufacturers and service providers that have public
    websites to post certain information, including the hearing
    aid-compatible handset models that they offer, the ratings of those
    models, an explanation of the rating system, and, for service
    providers, those models' levels of functionality and their
    methodology for determining levels of functionality. This
    information must be kept current within 30 days. In addition,
    service providers must include this web address in their reports to
    the Commission, and inform the Commission within 30 days if the
    address ceases to be functional. As with the annual reports, the
    Commission considered whether it could adopt less burdensome
    requirements for small entities, and concluded that it needed to
    impose the same requirements on all manufacturers and service
    providers to serve the purpose of providing critical information to
    all consumers. Moreover, because all of the information to be posted
    is also required in the reports to the Commission or in packaging
    inserts, the burden of maintaining it on the website should be
    small. Finally, as with the reports, the Commission eased the burden
    of coming into compliance for all entities by delaying the effective
    date of this requirement until January 15, 2009.

## Report to Congress

41. The Commission will send a copy of the *First Report and Order*,
    including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the
    Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
    Review Act.[^389] In addition, the Commission will send a copy of
    the *First Report and Order*, including this FRFA, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the *First Report and
    Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
    Federal Register.[^390]

    **APPENDIX C**

**Final Rules**

**Part 0 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

1\. The authority citation for Part 0 reads as follows:

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

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

**§ 0.241 Authority delegated.**

(a) \* \* \*

\(1\) Notices of proposed rulemaking and of inquiry and final orders in
rulemaking proceedings, inquiry proceedings and non-editorial orders
making changes, except that:

\(i\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is delegated
authority to make the revisions to the filing system and template
necessary to improve the efficiency of reporting and to reduce, where
reasonably possible, the time for providers to prepare, and for the
Commission staff to review, the communications disruption reports
required to be filed pursuant to part 4 of this chapter; and

\(ii\) The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology is
delegated authority, together with the Chief of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, to adopt certain technical standards
applicable to hearing aid compatibility under § 20.19 of this chapter,
as specified in § 20.19(k).

3\. Section 0.331 is amended by adding a new sentence after the second
sentence in paragraph (d) to read as follows:

**§ 0.331 Authority delegated.**

> \* \* \* \* \*

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

\* \* \* \* \*

**Part 20 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

4\. The authority citation for Part 20 reads as follows:

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

5\. Section 20.19 is amended by replacing the existing text of Section
20.19 with the following:

**§ 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.**

\(a\) *Scope of section; definitions.*

\(1\) The hearing aid compatibility requirements of this section apply
to providers of digital CMRS in the United States to the extent that
they offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that is
interconnected with the public switched network and utilizes an
in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse
frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls, and
such service is provided over frequencies in the 800-950 MHz or 1.6-2.5
GHz bands using any air interface for which technical standards are
stated in the standard document "American National Standard for Methods
of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices
and Hearing Aids," American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
C63.19-2007 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (b)(5)).

\(2\) The requirements of this section also apply to the manufacturers
of the wireless handsets that are used in delivery of the services
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

\(3\) *Definitions*. For purposes of this section:

\(i\) "Manufacturer" refers to a wireless handset manufacturer to which
the requirements of this section apply.

\(ii\) "Model" refers to a wireless handset device that a manufacturer
has designated as a distinct device model, consistent with its own
marketing practices. However, if a manufacturer assigns different model
device designations solely to distinguish units sold to different
carriers, or to signify other distinctions that do not relate to either
form, features, or capabilities, such designations shall not count as
distinct models for purposes of this section.

\(iii\) "Service provider" refers to a provider of digital CMRS to which
the requirements of this section apply.

\(iv\) "Tier I carrier" refers to a CMRS provider that offers such
service nationwide.

\(b\) *Hearing aid compatibility; technical standards*. A wireless
handset used for digital CMRS only over the frequency bands and air
interfaces referenced in paragraph (a)(1) is hearing aid-compatible with
regard to radio frequency interference or inductive coupling if it meets
the applicable technical standard(s) set forth in paragraphs (b)(1)-(2)
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 Section 2.1033(d) of this
chapter. A wireless handset that incorporates a Wi-Fi air interface is
hearing aid-compatible if the handset otherwise satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph.

\(1\) For radio frequency interference*.*

\(i\) *Applicable technical standards prior to 2010.* Beginning \[INSERT
DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE **FEDERAL REGISTER**\] and
until January 1, 2010, a wireless handset submitted for equipment
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid
compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the M3 rating associated with the
technical standard set forth in either the standard document "American
National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between
Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids," ANSI C63.19-2006
(published June 12, 2006) (incorporated by reference, see paragraph
(b)(5)) or ANSI C63.19-2007 (published June 8, 2007) (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (b)(5)) -- each available for purchase from the
American National Standards Institute \-- or the M3 rating associated
with any subsequently adopted version of ANSI C63.19 as may be permitted
pursuant to paragraph (b)(3). Any grants of certification issued before
\[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE **FEDERAL
REGISTER**\] under previous versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for
hearing aid compatibility purposes.

\(ii\) *Applicable technical standards beginning in 2010*. On or after
January 1, 2010, a wireless handset submitted for equipment
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid
compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the M3 rating associated with the
technical standard set forth in ANSI C63.19-2007 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (b)(5)), or any subsequently adopted version as
may be permitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(3). Any grants of
certification issued before January 1, 2010, under the earlier versions
of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes.

\(2\) For inductive coupling.

\(i\) *Applicable technical standards prior to 2010.* Beginning \[INSERT
DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE **FEDERAL REGISTER\]** and
until January 1, 2010, a wireless handset submitted for equipment
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid
compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the T3 rating associated with the
technical standard set forth in either the standard document "American
National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between
Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids," ANSI C63.19-2006
(published June 12, 2006) (incorporated by reference, see paragraph
(b)(5)) or ANSI C63.19-2007 (published June 8, 2007) (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (b)(5)) -- available for purchase from the
American National Standards Institute -- or the T3 rating associated
with any subsequently adopted version of ANSI C63.19 as may be permitted
pursuant to paragraph (b)(3). Any grants of certification issued before
\[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE **FEDERAL
REGISTER**\] under previous versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for
hearing aid compatibility purposes.

\(ii\) *Applicable technical standards beginning in 2010*. On or after
January 1, 2010, a wireless handset submitted for equipment
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid
compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the T3 rating associated with the
technical standard set forth in ANSI C63.19-2007 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (b)(5)), or any subsequently adopted version as
may be permitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(3). Any grants of
certification issued before January 1, 2010, under the earlier versions
of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes.

\(3\) *Applicability of subsequently adopted versions of ANSI C63.19 for
radio frequency interference or inductive coupling.* Versions of
technical standards for radio frequency interference or inductive
coupling adopted subsequently to ANSI C63.19-2007 also will be
applicable for purposes of determining whether a wireless handset meets
the appropriate rating, provided that the changes do not raise major
compliance issues and provided that the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology have, by public
notice, approved the use, in the alternative, of such versions of
standard document ANSI C63.19 to establish hearing aid compatibility.

\(4\) All factual questions of whether a wireless handset meets the
technical standard(s) of this subsection shall be referred for
resolution to the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.

\(5\) The standards listed in this paragraph are incorporated by
reference in this section. These incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. § 552(a) and 1 C.F.R. part 51. These materials are incorporated
as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in
these materials will be published in the Federal Register. The materials
are available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), 445 12th St., SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554 and at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of these
materials at NARA, call 202--741--6030, or go to:
<http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html>.

The materials are also available for purchase from
<http://www.ieee.org/portal/site>.

\(i\) American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards
Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility, C63® , "American National
Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless
Communication Devices and Hearing Aids," ANSI C63.19-2006 (published
June 12, 2006), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
publisher, IBR approved for § 20.19.

\(ii\) American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards
Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility, C63® , "American National
Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless
Communication Devices and Hearing Aids," ANSI C63.19-2007 (published
June 8, 2007), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
publisher, IBR approved for § 20.19.

\(c\) *Phase-in of requirements relating to radio frequency
interference.* The following applies to each manufacturer and service
provider that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the
services specified in paragraph (a) and that does not fall within the
*de minimis* exception set forth in paragraph (e).

\(1\) *Manufacturers.*

\(i\) *Number of hearing aid-compatible handset models offered.* For
each digital air interface for which it offers wireless handsets to
service providers, each manufacturer of wireless handsets must:

\(A\) If it offers four to six models, ensure that at least two of its
handset models offered to service providers comply with the requirements
set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or

\(B\) If it offers more than six models, ensure that at least one-third
of its handset models offered to service providers (rounded down to the
nearest whole number) comply with the requirements set forth in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

\(ii\) *Refresh requirement.* Beginning in calendar year 2009, and for
each year thereafter that it elects to produce a new model, each
manufacturer that offers any new model for a particular air interface
during the calendar year must "refresh" its offerings of hearing
aid-compatible handset models by offering a mix of new and existing
models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section according to
the following requirements:

\(A\) For manufacturers that offer three models per air interface, at
least one new model rated M3 or higher shall be introduced every other
calendar year.

\(B\) For manufacturers that offer four or more models operating over a
particular air interface, the number of models rated M3 or higher that
must be new models introduced during that calendar year is equal to
one-half of the minimum number of models rated M3 or higher required for
that air interface (rounded up to the nearest whole number).

\(2\) *Tier I carriers.* For each digital air interface for which it
offers wireless handsets to customers, each Tier I carrier must either:

\(i\) Ensure that at least fifty (50) percent of the handset models it
offers comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, calculated based on
the total number of unique digital wireless handset models the carrier
offers nationwide; or

\(ii\) Ensure that it offers, at a minimum, the following specified
number of handset models that comply with paragraph 20.19(b)(1) of this
section:

\(A\) prior to February 15, 2009, at least eight (8) handset models;

\(B\) beginning February 15, 2009, at least nine (9) handset models; and

\(C\) beginning February 15, 2010, at least ten (10) handset models.

\(3\) *Service providers other than Tier I carriers.* For each digital
air interface for which it offers wireless handsets to customers, each
service provider other than a Tier I carrier must:

\(i\) Prior to \[INSERT DATE FOUR MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE **FEDERAL REGISTER**\], include in the handset models it offers at
least two handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this
section;

\(ii\) Beginning \[INSERT DATE FOUR MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE **FEDERAL REGISTER**\], either:

\(A\) ensure that at least fifty (50) percent of the handset models it
offers comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, calculated based on
the total number of unique digital wireless handset models the service
provider offers nationwide; or

\(B\) ensure that it offers, at a minimum, the following specified
number of handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this
section:

[(1)]{.underline} until May 15, 2009, at least eight (8) handset models;

[(2)]{.underline} beginning May 15, 2009, at least nine (9) handset
models; and

[(3)]{.underline} beginning May 15, 2010, at least ten (10) handset
models.

\(4\) *All service providers.* The following requirements apply to Tier
I carriers and all other service providers.

\(i\) *In-store testing.* Each service provider must make available for
consumers to test, in each retail store owned or operated by the
provider, all of its handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.

\(ii\) *Offering models with differing levels of functionality*. Each
service provider must offer its customers a range of hearing
aid-compatible models with differing levels of functionality (e.g.,
operating capabilities, features offered, prices). Each provider may
determine the criteria for determining these differing levels of
functionality, and must disclose its methodology to the Commission
pursuant to paragraph (i)(3)(G) of this section.

\(d\) *Phase-in of requirements relating to inductive coupling
capability*. The following applies to each manufacturer and service
provider that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the
services specified in paragraph (a) and that does not fall within the
*de minimis* exception set forth in paragraph (e).

\(1\) *Manufacturers.* Each manufacturer offering to service providers
four or more handset models in a digital air interface for use in the
United States or imported for use in the United States must ensure that
it offers to service providers, at a minimum, the following number of
handset models that comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, whichever number is greater in any given year:

\(i\) at least two (2) handset models in that air interface; or

\(ii\) at least the following percentage of handset models (rounded down
to the nearest whole number):

\(A\) beginning February 15, 2009, at least twenty (20) percent of its
handset models in that air interface, provided that, of any such models
introduced during calendar year 2009, one model may be rated using ANSI
C63.19-2006 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (b)(5)), and all
other models introduced during that year or subsequent years shall be
rated using ANSI C63.19-2007 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph
(b)(5)) or subsequently adopted version;

\(B\) beginning February 15, 2010, at least twenty-five (25) percent of
its handset models in that air interface; and

\(C\) beginning February 15, 2011, at least one-third of its handset
models in that air interface.

\(2\) *Tier I carriers.* For each digital air interface for which it
offers wireless handsets to service providers, each Tier I carrier must:

\(i\) Ensure that at least one-third of the handset models it offers
comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, calculated based on the
total number of unique digital wireless handset models the carrier
offers nationwide; or

\(ii\) Ensure that it offers, at a minimum, the following specified
number of handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this
section:

\(A\) prior to February 15, 2009, at least three (3) handset models;

\(B\) beginning February 15, 2009, at least five (5) handset models;

\(C\) beginning February 15, 2010, at least seven (7) handset models;
and

\(D\) beginning February 15, 2011, at least ten (10) handset models.

\(3\) *Service providers other than Tier I carriers.* For each digital
air interface for which it offers wireless handsets to customers, each
service provider other than a Tier I carrier must:

\(i\) Prior to \[INSERT DATE FOUR MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE **FEDERAL REGISTER**\], include in the handset models it offers at
least two handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this
section;

\(ii\) Beginning \[INSERT DATE FOUR MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE **FEDERAL REGISTER**\], either:

\(A\) ensure that at least one-third of the handset models it offers
comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, calculated based on the
total number of unique digital wireless handset models the carrier
offers nationwide; or

\(B\) ensure that it offers, at a minimum, the following specified
number of handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this
section:

[(1)]{.underline} until May 15, 2009, at least three (3) handset models;

[(2)]{.underline} beginning May 15, 2009, at least five (5) handset
models;

[(3)]{.underline} beginning May 15, 2010, at least seven (7) handset
models; and

[(4)]{.underline} beginning May 15, 2011, at least ten (10) handset
models.

\(4\) *All service providers.* The following requirements apply to Tier
I carriers and all other service providers.

\(i\) *In-store testing.* Each service provider must make available for
consumers to test, in each retail store owned or operated by the
provider, all of its handset models that comply with paragraph (b)(2) of
this section.

\(ii\) *Offering models with differing levels of functionality.* Each
service provider must offer its customers a range of hearing
aid-compatible models with differing levels of functionality (e.g.,
operating capabilities, features offered, prices). Each provider may
determine the criteria for determining these differing levels of
functionality, and must disclose its methodology to the Commission
pursuant to paragraph (i)(3)(G) of this section.

\(e\) *De minimis exception.*

\(1\) Manufacturers or service providers that offer two or fewer digital
wireless handsets in an air interface in the United States are exempt
from the requirements of this section in connection with that air
interface, except with regard to the reporting requirements in paragraph
(i) of this section. Service providers that obtain handsets only from
manufacturers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models in
an air interface in the United States are likewise exempt from the
requirements of this section other than subsection (i) in connection
with that air interface.

\(2\) Manufacturers or service providers that offer three digital
wireless handset models in an air interface must offer at least one
handset model compliant with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this
section in that air interface. Service providers that obtain handsets
only from manufacturers that offer three digital wireless handset models
in an air interface in the United States are required to offer at least
one handset model in that air interface compliant with paragraphs (b)(1)
and (b)(2).

\(f\) *Labeling and disclosure requirements.*

\(1\) *Labeling requirements.* Manufacturers and service providers shall
ensure that handsets that are hearing aid-compatible, as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section, clearly display the rating, as defined in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, on the packaging material
of the handset. In the event that a hearing aid-compatible handset
achieves different radio interference or inductive coupling ratings over
different air interfaces or different frequency bands, the RF
interference reduction and inductive coupling capability ratings
displayed shall be the lowest rating assigned to that handset for any
air interface or frequency band. An explanation of the ANSI C63.19
rating system must also be included in the device's user's manual or as
an insert in the packaging material for the handset.

\(2\) *Disclosure requirement relating to handsets with Wi-Fi
capability.* Beginning \[INSERT DATE SEVEN MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE **FEDERAL REGISTER**\], each manufacturer and service
provider shall ensure that, wherever it provides hearing aid
compatibility ratings for a handset model that incorporates a Wi-Fi air
interface, it discloses to consumers, by clear and effective means
(e.g., inclusion of call-out cards or other media, revisions to
packaging materials, supplying of information on websites) that the
handset has not been rated for hearing aid compatibility with respect to
Wi-Fi operation.

\(g\) *Model designation requirements.* Where a manufacturer has made
physical changes to a handset that result in a change in the hearing aid
compatibility rating under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section,
the altered handset must be given a model designation distinct from that
of the handset prior to its alteration.

\(h\) *Website requirements.* Beginning January 15, 2009, each
manufacturer and service provider subject to this section that operates
a publicly-accessible website must make available on its website a list
of all hearing aid-compatible models currently offered, the ratings of
those models, and an explanation of the rating system. Each service
provider must also specify on its website, based on the levels of
functionality that the service provider has defined, the level that each
hearing aid-compatible model falls under as well as an explanation of
how the functionality of the handsets varies at the different levels .

\(i\) *Reporting requirements.*

\(1\) *Reporting dates.* Manufacturers shall submit reports on efforts
toward compliance with the requirements of this section on January 15,
2009 and on July 15, 2009, and on an annual basis on July 15 thereafter.
Service providers shall submit reports on efforts toward compliance with
the requirements of this section on January 15, 2009, and annually
thereafter. Information in the reports must be up-to-date as of the last
day of the calendar month preceding the due date of the report.

\(2\) *Content of manufacturer reports.* Reports filed by manufacturers
must include:

\(A\) Digital wireless handset models tested, since the most recent
report, for compliance with the applicable hearing aid compatibility
technical ratings;

\(B\) Compliant handset models offered to service providers since the
most recent report, identifying each model by marketing model
name/number(s) and FCC ID number;

\(C\) For each compliant model, the air interface(s) and frequency
band(s) over which it operates, the hearing aid compatibility ratings
for each frequency band and air interface under ANSI Standard C63.19,
the ANSI Standard C63.19 version used, and the months in which the model
was available to service providers since the most recent report;

\(D\) Non-compliant models offered to service providers since the most
recent report, identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s)
and FCC ID number;

\(E\) For each non-compliant model, the air interface(s) over which it
operates and the months in which the model was available to service
providers since the most recent report;

\(F\) Total numbers of compliant and non-compliant models offered to
service providers for each air interface as of the time of the report;

\(G\) Any instance, as of the date of the report or since the most
recent report, in which multiple compliant or non-compliant devices were
marketed under separate model name/numbers but constitute a single model
for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules, identifying each
device by marketing model name/number and FCC ID number;

\(H\) Status of product labeling;

\(I\) Outreach efforts; and

\(J\) If the manufacturer maintains a public website, the website
address of the page(s) containing the information regarding hearing
aid-compatible handset models required by paragraph (h) of this section.

NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (i)(2): For reports due on January 15, 2009,
information provided with respect to paragraphs (i)(2)(B)-(E) and
(i)(2)(G)-(H) need be provided only for the six-month period from July 1
to December 31, 2008.

\(3\) *Content of service provider reports.* Reports filed by service
providers must include:

\(A\) Compliant handset models offered to customers since the most
recent report, identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s)
and FCC ID number;

\(B\) For each compliant model, the air interface(s) and frequency
band(s) over which it operates, the hearing aid compatibility ratings
for each frequency band and air interface under ANSI Standard C63.19,
and the months in which the model was available since the most recent
report;

\(C\) Non-compliant models offered since the most recent report,
identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s) and FCC ID
number;

\(D\) For each non-compliant model, the air interface(s) over which it
operates and the months in which the model was available since the most
recent report;

\(E\) Total numbers of compliant and non-compliant models offered to
customers for each air interface over which the service provider offers
service as of the time of the report;

\(F\) Information related to the retail availability of compliant
handset models;

\(G\) The levels of functionality into which the compliant handsets fall
and an explanation of the service provider's methodology for determining
levels of functionality;

\(H\) Status of product labeling;

\(I\) Outreach efforts; and

\(J\) If the service provider maintains a public website, the website
address of the page(s) containing the information regarding hearing
aid-compatible handset models required by paragraph (h) of this section.

NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (i)(3): For reports due on January 15, 2009,
information provided with respect to paragraphs (i)(3)(A)-(D) and
(i)(3)(F)-(H) need be provided only for the six-month period from July 1
to December 31, 2008.

\(4\) *Format.* The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is delegated
authority to approve or prescribe formats and methods for submission of
these reports. Any format that the Bureau may approve or prescribe shall
be made available on the Bureau's website.

\(j\) *Enforcement.* Enforcement of this section is hereby delegated to
those states that adopt this section and provide for enforcement. The
procedures followed by a state to enforce this section shall provide a
30-day period after a complaint is filed, during which time state
personnel shall attempt to resolve a dispute on an informal basis. If a
state has not adopted or incorporated this section, or failed to act
within six (6) months from the filing of a complaint with the state
public utility commission, the Commission will accept such complaints. A
written notification to the complainant that the state believes action
is unwarranted is not a failure to act. The procedures set forth in Part
68, Subpart E of this chapter are to be followed.

\(k\) *Delegation of rulemaking authority.* The Chief of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and the Chief of the Office of Engineering and
Technology are delegated authority, by notice-and-comment rulemaking, to
issue an order amending this section to the extent necessary to adopt
technical standards for additional frequency bands and/or air interfaces
upon the establishment of such standards by ANSI Accredited Standards
Committee C63®, provided that the standards do not impose with respect
to such frequency bands or air interfaces materially greater obligations
than those imposed on other services subject to this section. Any new
obligations on manufacturers and Tier I carriers pursuant to paragraphs
(c)-(i) of this section as a result of such standards shall become
effective no less than one year after release of the order adopting such
standards, and any new obligations on other service providers shall
become effective no less than 15 months after the release of such order.

**Part 68 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

6\. The authority citation for Part 68 reads as follows:

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

7\. Section 68 is amended by replacing the existing text of Section
68.418(b) with the following:

**§ 68.418 Procedure; Designation of Agents for Service.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

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

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

 *Re:    Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing-Aid
Compatible Telephones, Petition of American National Standards Institute
Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63®,* WT Docket No.
07-250.

I am pleased to vote for today's item, which will improve the access of
Americans with hearing loss to cutting-edge wireless handsets. As I have
stated many times before, one of the FCC's most solemn responsibilities
is to ensure that ***all*** Americans have access to the nation's
communications system. Our ongoing work in creating hearing aid
compatibility (HAC) requirements for wireless digital phones is a
critical part of fulfilling that mission. I am pleased that today's item
continues the FCC's commitment to ensuring that Americans with
hearing-loss will benefit from the exciting and on-going advances in the
wireless marketplace.

I am especially pleased that the HAC framework we adopt today arises out
of a Joint Consensus Plan developed by consumer advocates, wireless
carriers and handset manufacturers. I know it took a great deal of hard
work and dedication by the parties to reach this common ground, and I
salute them for their efforts. This example of partnership among diverse
stakeholders---as well as the private and the public sector---is a
valuable and important model that I hope the Commission can encourage
and replicate in other areas of its responsibility.

I also am glad that we provide a mechanism for these stakeholders to
continue to work together to develop a proposal for how to deal with
multi-mode handsets that use air interfaces and frequency bands (other
than Wi-Fi) for which HAC standards have not yet been developed. I look
forward to receiving this proposal within 3 months (and a more detailed
proposal within 6 months) and then working with my colleagues to issue
rules on this subject shortly thereafter. This timeframe permits us to
resolve this important issue, in a way that provides clear rules of the
road for consumers and industry, well before any such phones are brought
to market.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets; Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's
Rules Governing Hearing Aid Compatible Telephones; Petition of American
National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63
(EMC)ANSI ASC C63®; WT Docket No. 07-250*.

I support today's Report and Order because it makes great advances
towards improving the access to digital mobile wireless phones by those
Americans who use hearing aids. It is essential that the rights of those
with hearing impairments always remain in the forefront of our
decisions, so I'm pleased that we have taken to heart our obligations to
address such an important public interest issue.

In addition to adopting new benchmarks and deadlines through 2011 for
hearing aid compatible handsets, it is significant that we also adopt
today a new product refresh requirement for manufacturers, as well as a
requirement for differing handset functionality levels for service
providers. Together, these requirements will greatly improve the
accessibility to and available options for digital wireless
telecommunications by those with hearing impairments.

I would like to thank the extraordinary efforts of the hearing aid
community, consumer advocacy groups and those in industry that worked
diligently to develop the recommendations in the Joint Consensus Plan --
the recommendations from which we formulated core aspects of our order.
I am also pleased that we have incorporated a further review of our
hearing aid requirements in the second half of 2010, and I look forward
to tracking the progress of our decision and its positive impact on the
hearing impaired community over the upcoming years.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

*Re: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets; Petition of American National Standards
Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63®, WT
Docket No. 07-250.*

Today's item provides another example of the importance of input from
consumers, especially those who may be most dependent on new
technologies for education, work, or help in an emergency. Government's
best work is done through cooperation and collaboration, whether
public-private partnerships or, as in this case, through recommendations
of the Joint Consensus Plan. Accordingly, I am pleased to vote for
today's item, which provides important clarifications and modifications
to the Commission's hearing aid compatibility (HAC) rules. The
recommendations of the Joint Consensus Plan, upon which these rules are
based, are the result of a cooperative effort by representatives of
wireless service providers and device manufacturers, as well as those
representing consumers with hearing loss, especially the Hearing Loss
Association of America and Gallaudet University. These parties have the
best knowledge, both of the needs of the hearing impaired and of the
technologies that can help meet those needs. Following their
recommendations is a victory for good policymaking.

As the Commission continues to consider the needs of consumers with
hearing loss, I encourage the continued involvement of all parties
involved in crafting the Joint Consensus Plan. Going forward, for
example, the Commission must consider appropriate rules for multi-band
devices when HAC standards have not been developed for all bands in
which such devices operate. I value the input of those involved in this
process and anticipate that future rules, like those adopted today, will
effectively serve consumers with hearing loss.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

*Re: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets; Petition of American National Standards
Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63®, WT
Docket No. 07-250.*

I would like to thank my fellow commissioners for taking the time to
work with me to ensure that this order correctly captures the requests
of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Joint Consensus Working Group. I
commend this group, comprised of organizations representing the
interests of consumers with hearing loss, wireless carriers and handset
manufacturers, for its hard work on these important issues. In adopting
the Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission is not only advancing the goals
established by Congress in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act, we are
also recognizing the working group's expertise and rewarding its
dedication. Common sense has prevailed.

History has taught us time and time again that government is no match
for the private sector. Collaborative partnerships are far better
equipped to quickly resolve technical challenges and satisfy consumer
demand than government mandates. This is especially true at a time when
wireless technologies are evolving so rapidly. For instance, I question
the wisdom in seeking to impose additional regulations on voice-based
capabilities given the surge toward broadband, data-based applications,
which may ultimately be of greater value to Americans with hearing loss.

Given the ongoing nature of this proceeding, I am hopeful that the
working group will continue its efforts, and will expand to include new
entrants to the manufacturing and carrier industries. We must all work
together to ensure that consumers with hearing loss can improve their
lives and transform their futures through use of the innovative products
and services developed and offered by the wireless marketplace.

[^1]: Tier I carriers are Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
    providers with nationwide footprints. *See* Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems; Phase II Compliance Deadlines for
    Non-Nationwide Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-102, *Order to Stay*, 17
    FCC Rcd 14841, 14843 ¶ 7 (2002). In contrast, Tier II carriers are
    non-nationwide mid-sized CMRS providers, specifically providers with
    greater than 500,000 subscribers as of the end of 2001, while Tier
    III carriers are non-nationwide small CMRS providers with no more
    than 500,000 subscribers as of the end of 2001. *See* *id.* at
    14846-48 ¶¶ 19-24.

[^2]: *See* Supplemental Comments of ATIS in WT Docket No. 06-203 (filed
    June 25, 2007) (Joint Consensus Plan).

[^3]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid
    Compatible Mobile Handsets, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's
    Rules Governing Hearing Aid Compatible Telephones, and Petition of
    American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee
    C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63®, WT Dockets No. 01-309 and 07-250, *Second
    Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 22 FCC Rcd
    19670 (2007) (*Second Report and Order* and *Notice*, respectively).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(a).

[^5]: *See* Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket 01-309, *Report and Order*, 18
    FCC Rcd 16753, 16781 ¶ 70 (2003) (*Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Order*).

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(e).

[^7]: The 2001 version of ANSI C63.19, which the Commission adopted in
    the *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, used a "U" nomenclature for
    RF interference reduction, and this nomenclature is referenced in
    Section 20.19 of the Commission's rules. Subsequently, the 2006
    version of this standard substituted the "M" nomenclature. The 2006
    version of ANSI C63.19 substituted a "T" nomenclature for the "UT"
    terminology that was used in the 2001 version of the standard for
    inductive coupling capability.

[^8]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83 ¶
    74.

[^9]: *Id.* at 16783 ¶ 74. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 610(f).

[^10]: *See* Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, WT Docket No.
    06-203, *Report on the Status of Implementation of the Commission's
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements*, 22 FCC Rcd 17709 (WTB 2007)
    (*Staff Report*).

[^11]: *See*, *e.g.*, Joint Consensus Plan at 4.

[^12]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19706 ¶ 98-99.

[^13]: Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) is a wireless local area network access
    protocol that is specified by the Institute of Electrical and
    Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard.

[^14]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19702-06 ¶¶ 89-97.

[^15]: *See* Joint Consensus Plan at 6-10.

[^16]: *See* Pub. L. No. 100-394, 102 Stat. 976 (1988), codified at 47
    U.S.C. § 610 (Hearing Aid Compatibility Act).

[^17]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(A)(i). The statute references "public
    mobile service," which is defined to include certain services
    covered under Part 22 of our rules. 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(4)(B); 47
    C.F.R. § 68.3. In 1994, Congress amended Section 332 of the
    Communications Act, replacing the public mobile service and private
    radio service categories with commercial mobile \[radio\] services
    (CMRS) and private mobile \[radio\] service (PMRS). *See Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16764-65 ¶ 26.

[^18]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C). In addition, the existence of an
    established, applicable technical standard is a statutory
    requirement for imposing hearing aid compatibility obligations.
    *See* 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(1).

[^19]: *See* *generally* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd
    16753.

[^20]: Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, *Order on
    Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 20 FCC
    Rcd 11221 (2005) (*Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order
    and Further Notice)*.

[^21]: *Second Report and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19679 ¶ 22.

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(a); *see* *also* In the Matter of Service Rules
    for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket 06-150,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 22 FCC
    Rcd 8064, 8117-18 ¶ 142 (2007) (*700 MHz Service Report and
    Order*)*.* CMRS is defined as mobile service that is provided for
    profit, interconnected, and available to the public. 47 C.F.R. §
    20.3; *see* 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1).

[^23]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b); *700 MHz Service Report and Order*,
    22 FCC Rcd at 8119 ¶¶ 145-147.

[^24]: *700 MHz Service Report and Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 8117-20 ¶¶
    142-150. The *700 MHz Service Report and Order* specifically
    identified, as examples of CMRS providers to which these
    requirements would apply, providers of such service in the 700 MHz,
    Advanced Wireless Services, and Broadband Radio Service/Educational
    Broadband Service bands.

[^25]: *Id.* at 8119-20 ¶¶ 148-150. Specifically, we established a
    24-month timetable for interested stakeholders to develop standards
    in these bands. *See id.* We stated that once the appropriate
    technical standards are established, the Commission would initiate a
    further proceeding to establish a specific timetable for deployment
    of hearing aid-compatible handsets for services in the relevant
    bands. *Id.* at 8119 ¶ 148.

[^26]: The *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order* described acoustic coupling
    as follows:

    > In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding
    > sounds, desired and undesired, and converts them into electrical
    > signals. The electrical signals are amplified as needed and then
    > converted back into sound by the hearing aid speaker.

    *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16763 ¶ 22.

[^27]: In telecoil mode, with the microphone turned off, the telecoil
    picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field generated by the
    voice coil of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible
    telephones, audio loop systems, or powered neck loops. The hearing
    aid converts the magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies
    them as needed, and converts them back into sound via the speaker.
    Using a telecoil avoids the feedback that often results from putting
    a hearing aid up against a telephone earpiece, can help prevent
    exposure to over amplification, and eliminates background noise,
    providing improved access to the telephone.

[^28]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1)-(2).

[^29]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of
    Engineering and Technology Clarify Use of Revised Wireless Phone
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard, *Public Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd 6384
    (WTB/OET 2006).

[^30]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779 ¶ 63.

[^31]: *See id.* at 16780 ¶ 65. The term air interface refers to the
    system that ensures compatibility between mobile radio service
    equipment, such as handsets, and the service provider's base
    stations. Currently, the leading air interfaces include Code
    Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for Mobile
    Communications (GSM), Integrated Dispatch Enhanced Network (iDEN),
    Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and Wideband Code Division
    Multiple Access (WCDMA). We note that WCDMA is also known as
    Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS).

[^32]: *See id.*; 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1), (c)(1)-(3). The 2001 version
    of ANSI C63.19, which the Commission adopted in the *Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Order*, used a "U" nomenclature for RF interference
    reduction, and this nomenclature is referenced in Section 20.19 of
    the Commission's rules. Subsequently, the 2006 version of this
    standard substituted the "M" nomenclature. For purposes of clarity,
    we will use the "M" nomenclature throughout this item when referring
    to RF interference reduction ratings, unless referring to specific
    text that uses the "U" nomenclature.

[^33]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65;
    47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(2), (d). The 2006 version of ANSI C63.19
    substituted "T" nomenclature for the "UT" terminology that was used
    in the 2001 version of the standard. For purposes of clarity, we
    will use the "T" terminology throughout this item when referring to
    inductive coupling compatibility ratings.

[^34]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii).

[^35]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19708 ¶ 107.

[^36]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(1)-(2). *See also Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Reconsideration Order and Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244 ¶ 53.

[^37]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 ¶¶
    89-91.

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(f). Phone packaging material for hearing
    aid-compatible models must display the compatibility ratings, and
    the owner's manual or a packaging insert must contain information on
    the rating system.

[^39]: *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 65.
    "Carriers must make available all of their phone models that comply
    with the requirements of this paragraph for consumers to test in
    each retail store that carriers own or operate." *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    20.19(c)(2)(i)(A), (c)(2)(i)(B)(1), (c)(3)(i)(A), (c)(3)(i)(B),
    (d)(2).

[^40]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83 ¶
    74.

[^41]: *Id.*

[^42]: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be
    Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, *Public Notice,* 21
    FCC Rcd 13136 (WTB 2006).

[^43]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19679 ¶ 21.

[^44]: The one exception is the proposal in the Joint Consensus Plan for
    delaying reporting requirements for Tier II and III carriers. *See*
    Joint Consensus Plan at 11.

[^45]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19683-90 ¶¶ 36-57.

[^46]: *Id*. at 19690 ¶¶ 58-62; *see also* Petition of American National
    Standards Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards Committee C63
    (EMC) - ANSI ASC C63 filed on June 25, 2007, in WT Docket No. 01-309
    (ANSI Petition).

[^47]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19693-702 ¶¶ 63-88.

[^48]: *See* Joint Consensus Plan at 15; *see also id*. at 15-16
    (stating "\[a\]s a result, all elements of this proposal, regardless
    of how small, are critical to its success").

[^49]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19687-88 ¶¶ 50-51.

[^50]: *Id*. at 19706 ¶¶ 98-99.

[^51]: A full list of commenters and the short forms by which they are
    referenced is in Appendix A.

[^52]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c), (d).

[^53]: *Id*. § 20.19(c).

[^54]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19685 ¶ 42.

[^55]: *Id*. at 19685-86 ¶ 44.

[^56]: The Joint Consensus Plan only contains deployment deadline rule
    changes for Tier I carriers. *Id*. at 19687-88 ¶ 50.

[^57]: *Id*.

[^58]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d).

[^59]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19686-87 ¶¶ 46-47.

[^60]: *Id*.

[^61]: *Id*. at 19687 ¶ 48.

[^62]: *Id*. at 19687-88 ¶ 50.

[^63]: *See generally* ATIS Comments at 5-6; Sony Ericsson Comments at
    3-4; Motorola Comments at 2, 4-5; Nokia Comments at 2, 3-4; RIM
    Comments at 5-6; TIA Comments at 2-4; T-Mobile Comments at 4-6; AT&T
    Comments at 2-3; HLAA/TDI Comments at 2; Gallaudet/RERC Comments at
    4-5; Verizon Reply Comments at 1-2; CTIA Reply Comments at 4; i
    wireless Reply Comments at 1; RCA Comments at 2; *but see* AT&T
    Comments at 4 (preferring a deviation from the Joint Consenus Plan
    involving staggered deadlines for manufacturers and service
    providers after 2008).

[^64]: *See, e.g*., ATIS Comments at 2-5; T-Mobile Comments at 2; AT&T
    Comments at 2; CTIA Reply Comments at 2-4; Motorola Comments at 2-3;
    Nokia Comments at 2; RIM Comments at 3-4; TIA Comments at 2.

[^65]: *See generally* RCA Comments at 2-5; i wireless Reply Comments at
    3-5; Virgin Mobile Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^66]: *See generally* Chinook Comments at 2; MetroPCS Comments at 2-5;
    SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 3-5.

[^67]: *See, e.g.*, i wireless Reply Comments at 5 ("fifty percent of
    the quotas proposed for Tier I carriers"); MetroPCS Comments at 6
    ("halving the number of \[Tier I\] handsets . . . and providing for
    a percentage alternative"); RCA Comments at 4 ("\[i\]in keeping with
    prior ratios, the M3 benchmarks . . . should be about half that for
    Tier I carriers"); SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 5 ("FCC should cut
    the Tier I . . . requirements approximately in half"); *see also*
    Virgin Mobile Reply Comments at 5.

[^68]: *See, e.g*., i wireless Reply Comments at 4; Chinook Comments at
    2; RCA Comments at 2-3; MetroPCS Comments at 3; SouthernLINC Reply
    Comments at 4; Virgin Mobile Reply Comments at 4.

[^69]: *See, e.g*., i wireless Reply Comments at 2-3; MetroPCS Comments
    at 3-4, 7; Chinook Comments at 1-2; RCA Comments at 2-5;
    SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 4; Virgin Mobile Reply Comments at
    3-4.

[^70]: *See* HLAA/TDI Comments at 3 (stating that a maximum phase-in of
    3 months for Tier II/III carriers may be reasonable); Gallaudet/RERC
    Comments at 5 (stating no opposition to six week to three month
    staggering for Tier II/III carriers).

[^71]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19685-87 ¶¶ 41-48.

[^72]: In consideration of the need for certainty, and in order to
    provide appropriate notification to manufacturers and service
    providers as regards the hearing aid compatibility obligations, the
    Commission stayed enforcement of the 50 percent benchmark for
    deployment of handsets meeting an M3 (or higher) rating for RF
    interference reduction that would have become effective on February
    18, 2008, for 60 days, until April 18, 2008. *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC
    Rcd at 19706 ¶¶ 98-99. However, given the rule changes we adopt
    here, the need for a stay is moot and it need not be extended.

[^73]: If one-third of the total number of models offered over an air
    interface is a fraction, manufacturers may round this number down,
    except that manufacturers offering four or five handset models over
    an air interface must offer at least two models meeting an M3 (or
    higher) rating.

[^74]: For both manufacturers and service providers, these percentage
    and numerical obligations will remain in effect until such time as
    they may be changed by future Commission rulemaking action.

[^75]: The Joint Consensus Plan proposed that these and other deadlines
    would fall on the 18th of the month. For ease of administration, we
    change these deadlines to the 15th.

[^76]: We note that under the revisions we are adopting to Section
    20.19, these service providers remain required to offer two handset
    models per air interface rated M3 or higher until the new
    requirements become effective to them.

[^77]: For both manufacturers and service providers, these percentage
    and numerical obligations will remain in effect until such time as
    they may be changed by future Commission rulemaking action.

[^78]: Prior to February 15, 2009, manufacturers remain subject to the
    current requirement to offer at least two models rated T3 or higher
    per air interface.

[^79]: We note that under the revisions we are adopting to Section
    20.19, these service providers remain required to offer two handset
    models per air interface rated T3 or higher until the new
    requirements become effective to them.

[^80]: *See* HLAA/TDI Comments at 2; Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 4.

[^81]: *See supra* note 63 (citing commenters discussing agreement and
    compromise at core of Joint Consensus Plan); s*ee also* *Notice*, 22
    FCC Rcd at 19683 ¶ 34 ("The Joint Consensus Plan contains many
    interrelated provisions, and we note the emphasis that its
    proponents place on adopting the plan as a whole in order to
    maintain the balance achieved during negotiations by its various
    member participants.").

[^82]: *See, e.g*., ATIS Comments at 5-6; T-Mobile Comments at 5; AT&T
    Comments at 3; RIM Comments at 5 n.10; TIA Comments at 3; HLAA/TDI
    Comments at 2; RCA Comments at 2-3.

[^83]: *See infra* section IV.A.2.

[^84]: HLAA/TDI Comments at 2.

[^85]: *See id*.; *see also* *Staff Report*, 22 FCC Rcd at 17719-20 ¶
    21.

[^86]: HLAA/TDI Comments at 2 ("The current requirement for two T mode
    handsets is inadequate in the absence of a mechanism to increase the
    quantity.").

[^87]: Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 4.

[^88]: ATIS Comments at 6.

[^89]: AT&T Comments at 4.

[^90]: *Id*. We also note that ATIS, while supporting a unified
    deadline, states that it "would not be opposed" to a six week
    interval between deadlines for manufacturers and service providers.
    ATIS Comments at 6.

[^91]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19679 ¶ 21.

[^92]: *See supra* para. 33 (discussing split in record).

[^93]: Several proposals support reducing the Tier I requirements by 50
    percent (or some other significant proportion) for service providers
    other than Tier I carriers. *See supra* note 67 (quoting commenters'
    general positions and/or citing portions of comments proposing
    alternative deployment regimes for non-Tier I service providers.)

[^94]: *See supra* para. 35-36 (describing delayed M3 and T3 deadline
    dates).

[^95]: *See, e.g.*, HLAA/TDI Comments at 3; *cf.* *Staff Report*, 22 FCC
    Rcd at 17722 ¶¶ 29-30.

[^96]: *See supra* note 69 (citing comments of service providers not in
    Tier I asserting reasons why they have less access to hearing
    aid-compatible handsets than Tier I carriers).

[^97]: *See, e.g.*, i wireless Reply Comments at 4; MetroPCS Comments at
    3; Chinook Comments at 2; RCA Comments at 4-5, 9; SouthernLINC Reply
    Comments at 4; Virgin Mobile Reply Comments at 4. Several of these
    commenters argue that imposing the same benchmarks would reverse the
    policy previously set by the Commission to adopt higher deployment
    targets for M3-rated handset models for Tier I carriers. *See,
    e.g.*, RCA Comments at 4; SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 3.

[^98]: The incremental benefits to consumers of requiring more than
    eight to 10 compatible models are diminished, and are outweighed by
    the burdens on the service provider.

[^99]: *See, e.g.,* RCA Comments at 3-4.

[^100]: *See* Metro PCS Comments at 3-4; Metro PCS Reply Comments at
    3-4, 5; Chinook Comments at 1-2; Virgin Mobile Reply Comments at
    3-4; SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 4-5; i wireless Reply Comments
    at 2-5; RCA Comments at 3-4.

[^101]: Moreover, the percentage requirement for T3-rated (or higher)
    models would not become effective for such a provider until May
    2009. Until then, the service provider could satisfy the rule by
    offering the numerical alternative of three models meeting this
    standard.

[^102]: *See, e.g.,* RCA Comments at 3-4.

[^103]: Section 20.19(e)(1) provides that manufacturers and mobile
    service providers offering two handset models or fewer in the United
    States are exempt from the requirements of section 20.19. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(1).

[^104]: *See* *Staff Report*, 22 FCC Rcd at 17720 ¶ 26 (citing 79 CDMA
    models rated M3 or higher, 34 CDMA models rated T3 or higher, 20 GSM
    models rated M3 or higher, and 12 GSM models rated T3 or higher
    available from manufacturers); *see also* ATIS November 2007
    Compliance Report at 7 (listing 103 hearing aid-compatible CDMA
    devices and 30 hearing aid-compatible GSM devices as of November
    2007).

[^105]: As we have stated in the past, we expect that, if a service
    provider's usual vendors cannot supply appropriate handset models,
    it will make arrangements with other suppliers. *See* Section
    68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
    Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, Petitions for Waiver of Section
    20.19 of the Commission's Rules, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 22
    FCC Rcd 20459, 20473 ¶ 31 (2007).

[^106]: *See* Virgin Mobile Reply Comments at 3 (stating without any
    detail that hearing aid compatibility is "generally available only
    on more expensive handset models" and "\[m\]anufacturers have yet to
    offer a wide range of low-priced handsets").

[^107]: *See* In the Matter of Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules
    Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Petitions for Waiver of
    Section 20.19 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 01-309,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, FCC 08-067 (rel. Feb. 27, 2008) at
    ¶72. (*Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order*)

[^108]: *See* HLAA/TDI Comments at 2, 3; Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 4-5.

[^109]: *See, e.g.,* Wireless RERC Comments at 3.

[^110]: *See* i wireless Reply Comments at 3; SouthernLINC Reply
    Comments at 5; Virgin Mobile Reply Comments at 5; RCA Comments at
    4-5; MetroPCS Reply Comments at 6 n.20.

[^111]: *See* HLAA/TDI Comments at 3; Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 5.

[^112]: *See* Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing
    Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, Petitions
    for Waiver of Section 20.19 of the Commission\'s Rules, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 7171 (2007); *Inductive Coupling
    Compatibility Waiver Order*.

[^113]: *See* Joint Consensus Plan at 9-10, 12.

[^114]: *See, e.g*., HLAA/TDI Comments at 3.

[^115]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19689 ¶ 54.

[^116]: *See, e.g*., ATIS Comments at 6-7; Sony Ericsson Comments at 8;
    Motorola Comments at 5; Nokia Comments at 3-4; RIM Comments at 9;
    TIA Comments at 4-5; T-Mobile Comments at 6; AT&T Comments at 2;
    HLAA/TDI Comments at 3; Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 6; CTIA Reply
    Comments at 5. To the extent these comments address the definition
    of a model for these purposes, we discuss that below in Section
    IV.A.3.a.

[^117]: We do correct an apparent typographical error in the rule as
    proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan. As reproduced in the *Notice*,
    the Joint Consensus Plan states that the number of new models to be
    produced is to be determined by "multiplying the total number of new
    \[hearing aid-compatible\] models offered in the United States by
    fifty percent." *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19712 App. B. We
    hereby correct this to clarify that the relevant figure is 50
    percent of the total required number of hearing aid-compatible
    models. *See* Joint Consensus Plan at 9 (stating "one-half *of the
    M3-or-better models* should be new models introduced in that
    calendar year") (emphasis added).

[^118]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19690 ¶ 56.

[^119]: *Id.*

[^120]: *Id.*

[^121]: Moreover, to avoid confusion with the tiers defining carrier
    size, we stated that a different term such as "levels of
    functionality" may be preferable. *Id*. at 19690 ¶ 56 n.119.

[^122]: *Id*. at 19690 ¶ 57.

[^123]: *See, e.g*., T-Mobile Comments at 6-7; AT&T Comments at 2;
    Verizon Reply Comments at 1-2; CTIA Reply Comments at 5.

[^124]: ATIS Comments at 7-8.

[^125]: *See* RIM Comments at 10-11.

[^126]: Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 6-7; *see also infra* Section IV.C.

[^127]: *See, e.g.*, MetroPCS Reply Comments at 7; RCA Comments at 6;
    SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 3, 7.

[^128]: *See* RCA Comments at 6 (stating "\[s\]uch activity is beyond
    the Congressional directive of the \[Hearing Aid Compatibility\] Act
    'to ensure reasonable access to telephone service by persons with
    impaired hearing," *citing* 47 U.S.C. §610(b)).

[^129]: *See, e.g*., HLAA/TDI Comments at 3; Gallaudet/RERC Comments at
    7.

[^130]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19696 ¶ 68.

[^131]: *Id.*

[^132]: RIM Comments at 13.

[^133]: PerrineCrest Radio Reply Comments at 2.

[^134]: *Id.*

[^135]: Thus, under some circumstances, handsets assigned different
    model numbers by the manufacturer may count as a single model under
    our rules, such as where multiple model numbers are assigned to the
    same handset to distinguish units sold to different carriers, or are
    used to designate other distinctions that do not relate to either
    form, features, or capabilities.

[^136]: *See Inductive Coupling Compatibility Waiver Order*, ¶ 66 and n.
    217 (discussing Motorola\'s offering of two different versions of
    its V3i handset with different hearing aid compatibility ratings).

[^137]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19675 ¶ 11 (*citing* Section 68.4(a)
    of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
    Telephones, Cingular Wireless LLC Petition for Waiver of Section
    20.19(c)(3)(i)(A) of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 01-309,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 15108, 15115 ¶ 17 (2005)
    (*Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order*)). *See also* Section 68.4(a) of the
    Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones,
    Petitions for Waiver of Section 20.19 of the Commission's Rules, WT
    Docket No. 01-309, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 20459,
    20468-69 ¶ 19 ("dual-band GSM handset models certified under the
    *Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order* cannot be used to satisfy the
    obligations of either the manufacturer or the carrier under Section
    20.19(c) unless they both meet an M3 rating and have been formally
    recertified in both bands").

[^138]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19701 ¶ 84.

[^139]: *See id.* at 19700 ¶ 81.

[^140]: *Id.* at 19702-05 ¶¶ 89-94.

[^141]: *See*, *e.g.*, ATIS Comments at 11; HIA Comments at 3; Motorola
    Comments at 3 (supporting the adoption of the Joint Consensus Plan
    "in its entirety"); RIM Comments at 15; T-Mobile Comments at 7; Sony
    Ericsson Comments at 7; Nokia Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^142]: *See* RCA Comments at 6-7.

[^143]: *See* Motorola Comments at 7-8; Nokia Comments at 6-8; RIM
    Comments at 17; T-Mobile Comments at 7-8; Sony Ericsson Comments at
    5-6; Apple Reply Comments at 5-6; AT&T Reply Comments at 7-8; CTIA
    Reply Comments at 5-6; Verizon Reply Comments at 3; VON Reply
    Comments at 10.

[^144]: *See* Nokia Comments at 7-8 (rule will result in delayed
    deployment); RIM Comments at 16 (rule will create "significant
    disincentives"); Sony Ericsson Comments at 6 (rule "could slow down
    the roll out of new technologies in the U.S. market"); Apple Reply
    Comments at 7 (proposal will "delay the adoption of new
    technologies"); AT&T Reply Comments at 8 (rule could inhibit or
    delay introduction of new technology); CTIA Reply Comments at 5;
    Nokia Reply Comments at 4 (proposal will "stifle industry incentives
    to develop new equipment"); Verizon Reply Comments at 3 (rule will
    reduce access to new technology); VON Reply Comments at 10.

[^145]: *See* Motorola Comments at 8; Nokia Comments at 7; RIM Comments
    at 16; Sony Ericsson Comments at 6; Apple Reply Comments at 7
    (proposal will constrain multi-mode and multi-band devices "whether
    or not the new frequency bands or modes actually cause any
    interference"); Nokia Reply Comments at 4. *See also* ANSI ASC C63®
    Reply Comments at 3 ("the concern being expressed is theoretical and
    not founded in field reports of interference to hearing aids").

[^146]: *See, e.g.,* CTIA Reply Comments at 5; T-Mobile Reply Comments
    at 5-6.

[^147]: *See* Nokia Comments at 7 (consumers with hearing loss "may be
    inhibited from taking advantage of new multi-mode devices that
    incorporate a \[hearing aid-compatible\] interface and new air
    interfaces"); T-Mobile Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^148]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(e). *See* Apple Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^149]: *See* RIM Comments at 16; Apple Reply Comments at 6. *See also*
    Motorola Reply Comments at 7-8.

[^150]: *See* Motorola Comments at 8; Sony Ericsson Comments at 6; Apple
    Reply Comments at 8; Nokia Reply Comments at 4. *See also* Nokia
    Comments at 7 (recommending that the Commission "allow the industry
    to investigate and evaluate each new technology on a case-by-case
    basis for interference issues").

[^151]: *See* Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 14.

[^152]: *See id.* *See also* HIA Comments at 3-4 (stating that it is
    "especially important that \[hearing aid compatibility\]
    certification be granted only to handsets that are compliant in all
    frequency bands and modes in which they operate" for reasons similar
    to those expressed by Gallaudet/RERC).

[^153]: *See* Motorola Comments at 8 (allow manufacturers to declare
    handsets hearing aid-compatible but note any bands or technology for
    which hearing aid compatibility standards do not exist and for which
    compliance therefore could not be measured); Sony Ericsson Comments
    at 6; Apple Reply Comments at 7 (confusion can be alleviated by a
    label clearly informing consumers that phones have not been tested
    for hearing aid compatibility for operations for which no standards
    exist).

[^154]: *See* Apple Reply Comments at 7.

[^155]: *See* RIM Comments at 17; Apple Reply Comments at 7.

[^156]: E-mail from Tom Goode, General Counsel, ATIS, to Bruce Gottlieb,
    Legal Advisor to Commissioner Copps, *et al.* (dated Feb. 14, 2008)
    (ATIS Feb. 14, 2008 E-Mail), *attached to* Letter from Deirdre Y.
    Cheek, Attorney, ATIS, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed
    February 20, 2008) at 3. *See also* Letter from Thomas Goode,
    General Counsel, ATIS, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed
    Feb. 13, 2008) at 1 (noting that AISP.4-HAC is discussing a
    "possible way forward" on the multi-mode/band issue "that would
    address the concerns of wireless service providers, manufacturers,
    and representatives of consumers with hearing loss").

[^157]: ATIS Feb. 14, 2008 E-Mail.

[^158]: *Id.*

[^159]: *Id.*

[^160]: *Id.*

[^161]: We note that this includes all frequencies in the 800-950 MHz
    and 1.6-2.5 GHz bands. *See infra* Section IV.B.2.

[^162]: *See 700 MHz Service Report and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8117 ¶
    143*.*

[^163]: *See*, *e.g.*, ATIS Comments at 11; HIA Comments at 3; Motorola
    Comments at 3 (supporting the adoption of the Joint Consensus Plan
    "in its entirety"); RIM Comments at 15; T-Mobile Comments at 7; Sony
    Ericsson Comments at 7; Nokia Reply Comments at 3-4 (stating that
    the rule "represents a reasonable standard for hearing-aid
    compatibility evaluation of multi-mode handsets, and this proposal
    does not impede advances in technology for the benefit of
    consumers"). With regard to RCA's concerns regarding availability of
    handsets to small carriers, we address this issue elsewhere in this
    Report and Order.

[^164]: ATIS Feb. 14, 2008 E-Mail.

[^165]: *See id.*

[^166]: We note that the Commission has followed a similar procedure on
    prior occasions. *See* Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities, CC Docket Nos. 98-67 and 03-123, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 20 FCC Rcd 13140, 13155 n.111 (2005); Development
    of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting
    Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication
    Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Third
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    19844, 19855 ¶ 25 (2000).

[^167]: *See* E-mail from Tom Goode, General Counsel, ATIS, to Bruce
    Gottlieb, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Copps, *et al.* (dated Feb.
    15, 2008), *attached to* Letter from Deirdre Y. Cheek, Attorney,
    ATIS, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed February 20, 2008)
    at 4.

[^168]: *See*
    <http://certifications.wi-fi.org/wbcs_certified_products.php?lang=en>
    (listing 45 models in the category "Phone, dual-mode (Wi-Fi and
    cellular)," and 84 models in the category "Smartphone, dual-mode
    (Wi-Fi and cellular)") (last visited Feb. 8, 2008).

[^169]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19702 ¶ 89.

[^170]: This includes phones that may be used to provide Voice over
    Internet Protocol using a Wi-Fi air interface.

[^171]: In addition, we expect service providers to train the sales
    staff at their owned or operated retail outlets regarding the lack
    of a rating for Wi-Fi operations and its implications.

[^172]: *See* Letter from Karen Peltz Strauss, Legal Consultant, KPS
    Consulting, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Feb. 8, 2008)
    at 1; Letter from Thomas Goode, General Counsel, ATIS, to Marlene
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed February 13, 2008) at 1-2.

[^173]: *See 700 MHz Service Report and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8120 ¶ 148
    (indicating that the Commission would promulgate a timetable for
    deployment after hearing aid compatibility technical standards are
    established for 700 MHz).

[^174]: ANSI ASC C63® Comments at 2-3; *see also* TIA Comments at 8
    (noting that "many emerging technologies are designed to be used in
    close proximity to an access point or base station, allowing these
    devices to use much lower power").

[^175]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e).

[^176]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(1).

[^177]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e)(2).

[^178]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further
    Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244 ¶ 53.

[^179]: *See id.* at 11249 ¶ 66.

[^180]: *Second Report and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19681 ¶ 31.

[^181]: *Id.*

[^182]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19701 ¶ 85 (citing Joint Consensus
    Plan at 10).

[^183]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19701-02 ¶ 85.

[^184]: *See*, *e.g.*, ATIS Comments at 14; AT&T Comments at 6; RIM
    Comments at 17; Sony Ericsson Comments at 7-8; TIA Comments at 9-10;
    T-Mobile Comments at 10; VON Reply Comments at 10.

[^185]: *See* HLAA/TDI Comments at 6; Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 13-14.

[^186]: *See* Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 13.

[^187]: *Id.* at 14.

[^188]: *Id.*

[^189]: HLAA/TDI Comments at 6.

[^190]: *See* Apple Reply Comments at 2-5; AT&T Reply Comments at 4-5;
    CTIA Reply Comments at 6; Motorola Reply Comments at 5-6; TIA Reply
    Comments at 10; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 7; VON Reply Comments at
    10.

[^191]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further
    Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244 ¶ 53 ("This clarification makes
    explicit the consistency between the handset deployment benchmarks,
    which expressly apply on a per air interface basis, and the *de
    minimis* exception . . . .").

[^192]: *Id.*

[^193]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16781 ¶ 69
    (adopting *de minimis* exception in recognition that hearing aid
    compatibility requirements "could have a disproportionate impact on
    small phone manufacturers *or those that sell only a small number of
    digital wireless handsets*") (emphasis added).

[^194]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further
    Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11245 ¶ 53 (adopting per-air-interface
    interpretation to ensure that hearing aid compatibility rules do not
    "have the effect of retarding technological progress and limiting
    competition"). *See also* Apple Reply Comments at 4 & n.5 (stating
    that *de minimis* exception allowed Apple to enter the handset
    market with advanced technology, and noting that iPhone has spurred
    user interface improvements in competing handsets).

[^195]: *See* Nokia Reply Comments at 8. We note, for example, that RIM,
    whose CDMA offerings in the CMRS market initially fell under the *de
    minimis* exception, has gone on to expand its CDMA lines and as of
    November 1, 2007, offered four hearing aid-compatible CDMA handsets.
    *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further
    Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244 ¶ 52 (noting that RIM offered only one
    CDMA device); Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Telephones, WT Docket 01-309, Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Compliance Efforts Status Report #7 Submitted by the
    Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) on behalf
    of the ATIS Incubator Solutions Program #4, filed Nov. 19, 2007,
    Attach. A (RIM Status Report).

[^196]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206.

[^197]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19687 ¶ 49.

[^198]: *Id*.

[^199]: *See, e.g.*, Nokia Comments at 9; Nokia Reply Comments at 5; RIM
    Comments at 7-9.

[^200]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 3; HLAA/TDI Comments at 2;
    Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 5-6.

[^201]: Wireless RERC Comments at 5.

[^202]: HIA Comments at 2 n.2

[^203]: Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 6; *see also infra* para. 117.

[^204]: *See also* HLAA/TDI Comments at 2; Gallaudet/RERC Comments at
    5-6 (supporting doing this where "technically feasible").

[^205]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b).

[^206]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779 ¶
    63.

[^207]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(1)(B) (providing that hearing aid
    compatibility requirements shall be based on "established technical
    standards for hearing aid compatibility").

[^208]: *See* *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16770-71
    ¶ 43.

[^209]: *See id.* at 16776 ¶ 55.

[^210]: *Id.* at 16777 ¶ 57.

[^211]: *See id*. at 16779 ¶ 63.

[^212]: *See id.*

[^213]: *See* Public Notice, "OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless
    Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard Measurement Procedures and
    Rating Nomenclature," 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005).

[^214]: *See generally 2006 ANSI Standard Public Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at
    6384-85.

[^215]: *Id*.

[^216]: ANSI Petition at 2. Specifically, (1) the distance between the
    cell phone under measurement and the measuring probe to be used when
    establishing the "M" rating has been increased from 1.0 cm to 1.5
    cm, (2) the (signal+noise)-to-noise ratio to be used in determining
    the "T" rating has been increased (resulting in lower noise relative
    to the audible signal and improved performance of the wireless
    device), (3) the "T" rating for T-Coil capable wireless devices has
    been separated from the "M" rating, allowing a "T" rating that is
    greater than the "M" rating for the same wireless device, and (4)
    the axial T-coil coupling field intensity value has been changed
    from ≥ -13 dB (A/m) at 1 kHz to ≥ -18 dB (A/m) at 1 kHz, resulting
    in the same T-coil field intensity value for both the axial and
    radial test positions.

[^217]: Joint Consensus Plan at 13.

[^218]: *Id*.

[^219]: ANSI Petition at 2.

[^220]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19692 *¶* 60.

[^221]: *Id*. at ¶ 62.

[^222]: *See, e.g.*, Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 7; ATIS Comments at 8;
    HLAA Comments at 3; Research in Motion Comments at 11; Motorola
    Reply Comments at 3; TIA Comments at 5-6.

[^223]: *See, e.g*., Motorola Comments at 3; T-Mobile Comments at 10;
    CTIA Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^224]: AT&T Comments at 6. *See also* RIM Comments at 11.

[^225]: *See, e.g.*, ANSI Technical Comment at 2 (referencing 2006 and
    2007 standards).

[^226]: *Id*.

[^227]: Consistent with the requirement to use a single version of the
    standard for all tests and criteria, however, if a permissive change
    is submitted for one of the hearing aid compatibility ratings, the
    manufacturer must also reevaluate the other hearing aid
    compatibility rating using the same version of the ANSI C63.19
    standard.

[^228]: This qualification was proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan at
    page C-3 of Appendix C to the Plan. *See* Final Rules in Appendix C,
    § 20.19(d)(1)(i).

[^229]: Joint Consensus Plan at 13.

[^230]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19700 ¶ 82. We also note that the
    2006 version of the standard includes target values for operation at
    the same frequency bands.

[^231]: *700 MHz Service Report and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8119 ¶ 148.

[^232]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19700 ¶ 82.

[^233]: We note that Wi-Fi technologies often operate in the 2.4 GHz
    band, within the frequency range addressed by the ANSI C63.19
    standard. However, as noted elsewhere, we have not yet determined
    the extent to which services and operations based on emerging
    technologies such as Wi-Fi should be subject to hearing aid
    compatibility obligations. *See supra* para. 65.

[^234]: We note that the *Notice* also requested comment on how our
    rules apply to mobile satellite service (MSS) providers and whether
    any rule revisions are necessary respecting such providers. *See
    Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19700 ¶ 79. We defer these issues to a future
    Report and Order. Accordingly, the rules we adopt today do not apply
    to MSS unless they fall within the existing scope of Section
    20.19(a).

[^235]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779 ¶ 63.

[^236]: *See* *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19701 ¶ 83.

[^237]: *Id.*

[^238]: In the *700 MHz Service Report and Order*, the Commission
    established a 24-month period for the development of standards for
    all of the frequencies listed in Section 27.1(b) of the rules, and
    provided that, if such standards were promulgated within that
    period, the Commission would initiate "a further proceeding at that
    time to establish a specific timetable for deployment of hearing
    aid-compatible handsets for services in the relevant bands that meet
    the criteria discussed above." *See 700 MHz Service Report and
    Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8120 ¶ 148. Pursuant to our action today, this
    rulemaking proceeding referenced in the *700 MHz Report and Order*
    may be undertaken by WTB and OET under delegated authority.

[^239]: *See*, *e.g.*, ANSI ASC C63® Comments at 3; HLAA/TDI Comments at
    5; TIA Comments at 6-7.

[^240]: *See* Motorola Comments at 9 (notice and comment will allow
    parties to raise concerns with a standard before it is implemented,
    and is required under the Administrative Procedure Act); ATIS Reply
    Comments at 3 (Commission should seek public comment before adopting
    future revisions to the standard); RIM Reply Comments at 3
    (Commission should maintain its oversight of future revisions
    through notice and comment process).

[^241]: *See* TIA Comments at 6-7.

[^242]: *See*, *e.g.*, Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 15 (proposing that
    regulations automatically become applicable to new frequency bands
    "as soon as or within a defined period after technical standards are
    established" for an air interface).

[^243]: 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(1).

[^244]: *Cf.* 47 C.F.R. § 0.331(d) (delegating authority to WTB to issue
    orders involving certain conforming amendments to rules "where novel
    questions of fact, law, or policy are not involved").

[^245]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.241(a)(1), 0.331(d), 20.19.

[^246]: 5 U.S.C. § 553(b).

[^247]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19696 ¶ 70*.*

[^248]: *Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787 ¶ 89.

[^249]: *See id*.

[^250]: *See Staff Report,* 22 FCC Rcd at 17732-33 ¶¶ 52-53.

[^251]: Joint Consensus Plan*.* at 11.

[^252]: *Id*.

[^253]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19695 ¶ 67.

[^254]: *See* *id*. at 19696 ¶ 70.

[^255]: *Id*. at 19696 ¶ 69.

[^256]: *See, e.g.*, Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 8; Motorola Comments at
    6; HLAA Comments at 3; Research in Motion Comments at 3; ATIS
    Comments at 9; Nokia Comments at 5.

[^257]: SouthernLINC Wireless Reply Comments at 7; *see also* TIA
    Comments at 12; RCA Comments at 7 (air interface and frequency band
    information "is difficult to obtain and verify, and it is irrelevant
    to a reporting carrier's single-interface obligation").

[^258]: ATIS Comments at 9.

[^259]: RCA Comments at 7.

[^260]: *See supra* Section IV.A.2.b.

[^261]: As discussed below, information relating to compliant and
    non-complaint phone models offered in manufacturers' and service
    providers' initial reports under the new rule need only be provided
    for the previous six months.

[^262]: RCA Comments at 7; SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 6.

[^263]: *See infra* para. 112 (discussion of requirement that
    manufacturers and service providers post certain information on
    their websites).

[^264]: The Joint Consensus Plan was apparently drafted with the
    assumption that new rules would be in place before November 2007,
    and accordingly it is not clear how the proponents would intend to
    apply its proposed schedule in the current time frame. It is at
    least arguable, however, that Tier I carriers would be required to
    file their initial reports in May 2008. Manufacturers would file
    their first reports in November 2008.

[^265]: Joint Consensus Plan at 11.

[^266]: *See* RCA Comments at 6; Iowa Wireless Services Comments at 5
    (noting that a delay in reporting would not delay other obligations
    under the rule).

[^267]: *See* SouthernLINC Wireless Comments at 7; *but see* RCA
    Comments at 7 ("Provision ... of a standardized \[hearing aid
    compatibily\] report form or template is not necessary. ....
    However, RCA has no objection to staff development of an electronic
    form...").

[^268]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19698-99 ¶¶ 74-77.

[^269]: *See Staff Report*, 22 FCC Rcd at 17730 -31 ¶¶ 47-49.

[^270]: *See* §§ 2.907 ("Certification is an equipment authorization
    issued by the Commission based on representations and test data
    submitted by the applicant."); 2.1033 ("Application for
    Certification").

[^271]: *See* 47 C.F.R §§ 2.924 & 2.1043.

[^272]: 47 U.S.C. § 255.

[^273]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19698 ¶ 74.

[^274]: Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 8-11; HLAA Comments at 4-5; s*ee
    also* Nokia Comments at 10 ("The Commission can do more to
    facilitate access").

[^275]: *See infra* para. 112 (discussion of requirement that
    manufacturers and service providers post certain information on
    their websites). *Compare* TIA Comments at 11 (opposing requiring
    manufacturers and service providers to add links from the
    Commission's DRO website to their own websites).

[^276]: In the *Notice*, we sought comment on whether to amend Part 2 to
    require additional information regarding handset models in equipment
    authorization filings. We defer action on these issues to a future
    Report and Order.

[^277]: *See* FCC Form 2000C.

[^278]: *See* HLAA Comments at 4.

[^279]: Nokia Comments at 10. *See also* AT&T Reply Comments 8
    ("\[t\]here is no need for additional mandates here").

[^280]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 6.18.

[^281]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(g).

[^282]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.418(b).

[^283]: *See* http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/section255.html (last visited
    January 19, 2008); 47 C.F.R. § 6.18.

[^284]: Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 6.

[^285]: *See* SouthernLINC Reply Comments at 7; *see also* TIA Comments
    at 12; RCA Comments at 7 (air interface and frequency band
    information "is difficult to obtain and verify, and it is irrelevant
    to a reporting carrier's single-interface obligation"); CTIA Reply
    Comments at 8 (in light of ongoing voluntary outreach efforts by
    industry, "additional regulations are premature").

[^286]: *See supra* para. 100.

[^287]: *See supra* para. 109.

[^288]: We note that the Joint Consensus Plan states that, "to assist
    consumers in choosing a wireless device, the manufacturers have
    agreed voluntarily to place the \[hearing aid compatibility\]
    ratings for all devices, including those rated "M1" or "M2," on
    their web sites," and that therefore "\[m\]odification to the FCC's
    \[hearing aid compatibility\] rules is not required to implement
    this proposal." Joint Consensus Plan at 14.

[^289]: HLAA Comments at 4. *See also* Gallaudet/RERC Comments at 9.

[^290]: *See* *supra* para. 112.

[^291]: Joint Consensus Plan at 12.

[^292]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19702 ¶ 86.

[^293]: AT&T Comments at 3.

[^294]:  The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*., was amended by the
    Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121,
    110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^295]: *See supra* para. 98.

[^296]: *See* *supra* para. 112.

[^297]: *See supra* para. 111.

[^298]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^299]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, WT Docket No. 07-250, Section
    68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid Compatible
    Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, Petition of American National
    Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI
    ASC C63®, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 22 FCC Rcd 19760 (2007)
    (*Notice*).

[^300]: In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements
    imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code, Section 3 of
    the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 632) and Sections 3507 and 3512
    of Title 44, United States Code. Consolidated Appropriations Act of
    2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, App. E, Sec.
    213(a)(4)(A)-(B); *see* 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47
    U.S.C.A. § 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B).

[^301]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, WT Docket No. 07-250, Petition of
    American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee
    C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63®, *First Report and Order*, FCC 08-68 (rel.
    Feb. 27, 2008) (*First Report and Order*).

[^302]: *See id*. at ¶¶ 26-46.

[^303]: *See id*. at ¶¶ 47-76.

[^304]: *See id*. at ¶ 23 (describing Joint Consensus Plan).

[^305]: Tier I carriers are Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
    providers with nationwide footprints. *See* Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems; Phase II Compliance Deadlines for
    Non-Nationwide Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-102, *Order to Stay*, 17
    FCC Rcd 14841, 14843 ¶ 7 (2002).

[^306]: *See, e.g., First Report and Order* at ¶¶ 40-46 (discussion of
    benchmarks and deadlines for service providers not in Tier I).

[^307]: *See id*. at ¶¶ 47-52. The objective of these rules is to ensure
    that hearing aid users can select from a variety of compliant
    handset models, with varying features and prices.

[^308]: *See id.* at ¶¶ 58-68; *see also id.* at ¶¶ 77-89 (discussion of
    technical standard for hearing aid compatibility and procedures for
    adopting future revisions to the standard).

[^309]: *See id*. at ¶¶ 90-116. The Commission also adopts certain other
    changes to Section 20.19 of the rules.

[^310]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(a).

[^311]: *See, e.g., First Report and Order* at ¶ 5.

[^312]: *See, e.g., id.* at ¶ 37.

[^313]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^314]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^315]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^316]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^317]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the
    Wireless Communications Service (WCS), *Report and Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 10785, 10879 ¶ 194 (1997).

[^318]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.

[^319]: *See* Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to
    Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, *Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 5299 (2000).

[^320]: *Id*. at 5343 ¶ 108.

[^321]: *Id*.

[^322]: *Id*. at 5343 ¶ 108 n.246 (for the 746-764 MHz and 776-704 MHz
    bands, the Commission is exempt from 15 U.S.C. § 632, which requires
    Federal agencies to obtain Small Business Administration approval
    before adopting small business size standards).

[^323]: *See* "700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders
    Announced," *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 (2000).

[^324]: *See* "700 MHz Guard Bands Auctions Closes: Winning Bidders
    Announced," *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB 2001).

[^325]: *See* In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762
    and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket 06-150, *Second Report and Order,*
    22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15339-15344 ¶¶ 118-134 (2007) (*700 MHz Second
    Report and Order)*.

[^326]: *Id.*

[^327]: *See* Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Scheduled for January 24,
    2008**,** AU Docket No. 07-157, *Notice and Filing Requirements,
    Minimum Opening Bids, Reserve Prices, Upfront Payments, and Other
    Procedures for Auctions 73 and 76*, DA 07-4171 at ¶ 70 (WTB rel.
    Oct. 5, 2007); Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz
    Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), *Report and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1022, 1087-88 (2002).

[^328]: *Id.* at 1088.

[^329]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    August 10, 1999.

[^330]: *See* "Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).

[^331]: *See* "Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 18
    FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).

[^332]: *Id*.

[^333]: *See* Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 27 and 90 of the Commission's
    Rules to License Services in the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395 MHz,
    1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, AND
    2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, 17 FCC Rcd 9980 (2002)
    *(Government Transfer Bands Service Rules Report and Order*).

[^334]: *See Service Rules Notice,* 17 FCC Rcd at 2550-51 ¶¶ 144-146. To
    be consistent with the size standard of "very small business"
    proposed for the 1427-1432 MHz band for those entities with average
    gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding \$3
    million, the *Service Rules Notice* proposed to use the terms
    "entrepreneur" and "small business" to define entities with average
    gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding \$40
    million and \$15 million, respectively. Because the Commission is
    not adopting small business size standards for the 1427-1432 MHz
    band, it instead uses the terms "small business" and "very small
    business" to define entities with average gross revenues for the
    three preceding years not exceeding \$40 million and \$15 million,
    respectively.

[^335]: *See* Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated January 18, 2002.

[^336]: Such bidding credits are codified for the unpaired 1390-1392
    MHz, paired 1392-1395 MHz, and the paired 1432-1435 MHz bands in 47
    C.F.R. § 27.807. Such bidding credits are codified for the unpaired
    1670-1675 MHz band in 47 C.F.R. § 27.906.

[^337]: In the *Part 1 Third Report and Order*, the Commission adopted a
    standard schedule of bidding credits, the levels of which were
    developed based on its auction experience. *Part 1 Third Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 403-04 ¶ 47. *See also* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.2110(f)(2).

[^338]: *See Service Rules Notice,* 17 FCC Rcd at 2550-51 ¶ 145.

[^339]: *See, e.g.,* Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's
    Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems;
    Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \--
    Competitive Bidding, WT Docket No. 96-18, PR Docket No. 93-253,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report
    and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10091 ¶ 112 (1999).

[^340]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B), (4)(C)-(D). The Commission will also
    not adopt special preferences for entities owned by minorities or
    women, and rural telephone companies. The Commission did not receive
    any comments on this issue, and it does not have an adequate record
    to support such special provisions under the current standards of
    judicial review. *See* *Adarand Constructors v. Peña*, 515 U.S. 200
    (1995) (requiring a strict scrutiny standard of review for
    government mandated race-conscious measures); *United States v.
    Virginia*, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (applying an intermediate standard of
    review to a state program based on gender classification).

[^341]: Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and
    2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd
    25162 (2003) (*AWS-1 Report and Order*).

[^342]: *See* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act
    \-- Competitive Bidding, *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 175, 196 (1995);
    Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \--
    Competitive Bidding, *Fifth Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 5581-5584
    (1995); 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.320(b) and 24.720(b).

[^343]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.

[^344]: MDS, also known as Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service
    ("MMDS"), is regulated by Part 21 of the Commission's rules; *see*
    47 C.F.R. Part 21, subpart K; and has been renamed the Broadband
    Radio Service (BRS); *see* Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101
    of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and
    Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in
    the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Part 1 of the Commission\'s
    Rules - Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts
    21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the
    Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74
    to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and
    74 of the Commission\'s Rules With Regard to Licensing in the
    Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television
    Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004)
    ("*MDS/ITFS Order"*).

[^345]: ITFS systems are regulated by Part 74 of the Commission's rules;
    *see* 47 C.F.R. Part 74, subpart I. ITFS, an educational service,
    has been renamed the Educational Broadband Service (EBS); *see*
    *MDS/ITFS Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 14165. ITFS licensees, however, are
    permitted to lease spectrum for MDS operation.

[^346]: *See* *Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the
    Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Eleventh Annual
    Report,* 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2565 ¶ 131 (2006) ("*2006 Cable
    Competition Report*").

[^347]: *Id*.

[^348]: *See* Local Multipoint Distribution Service, 12 FCC Rcd 12545
    (1997).

[^349]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.

[^350]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (now superseded).

[^351]: MDS Auction No. 6 began on November 13, 1995, and closed on
    March 28, 1996. (67 bidders won 493 licenses.)

[^352]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^353]: *See ITFS* *Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9589.

[^354]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to
    incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these
    pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small
    business size standards for "other telecommunications" (annual
    receipts of \$13.5 million or less). *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,
    NAICS code 517910.

[^355]: In addition, the term "small entity" under SBREFA applies to
    small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
    jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
    districts, and special districts with populations of less than
    50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue
    data on ITFS licensees.

[^356]: The Commission has held two LMDS auctions: Auction 17 and
    Auction 23. Auction No. 17, the first LMDS auction, began on
    February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. (104 bidders won
    864 licenses.) Auction No. 23, the LMDS re-auction, began on April
    27, 1999, and closed on May 12, 1999. (40 bidders won 161 licenses.)

[^357]: *See LMDS* *Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 12545.

[^358]: *Id.*

[^359]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (FCC) from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA
    (January 6, 1998).

[^360]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.

[^361]: *Id*.

[^362]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^363]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^364]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-7852
    ¶¶ 57-60 (1996); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^365]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7852
    ¶ 60.

[^366]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.

[^367]: FCC News, "Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes," No.
    71744 (rel. January 14, 1997).

[^368]: *See* "C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes,"
    *Public Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).

[^369]: *See* "C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning
    Bidders Announced," *Public Notice,* 16 FCC Rcd 2339 (2001).

[^370]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).

[^371]: *Id*.

[^372]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    August 10, 1999. We note that, although a request was also sent to
    the SBA requesting approval for the small business size standard for
    800 MHz, approval is still pending.

[^373]: *See* "Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 'FCC Announces
    Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz
    SMR in Major Trading Areas,'" *Public Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB
    1996).

[^374]: *See* "Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).

[^375]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.

[^376]: *Id.*

[^377]: *Id*.

[^378]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System ("NAICS") code 517410.

[^379]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^380]: The number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of
    small business prevalence in this context than would be the number
    of "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the number given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    break-out data for firms or companies only gives the total number of
    such entities for 1997, which was 1,089.

[^381]: U.S. Census Bureau, *1997 Economic Census*, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Industry Statistics by Employment Size," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334220 (issued August 1999).

[^382]: *See First Report and Order* at ¶¶ 90-103.

[^383]: *See id*. at ¶¶ 104-116.

[^384]: *See id*. at ¶¶ 58-68.

[^385]: *See infra* Section E. Section E also discusses the steps taken
    and alternatives considered for these rule changes.

[^386]: *See infra* Section E.

[^387]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^388]: *See also supra* Section A.

[^389]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^390]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).