Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 01-309         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Section 68.4(a) of the           | ) | RM-8658                      |
| Commission's Rules               | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible |   |                              |
| Telephones                       | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted:** October 29, 2001 **Released:** November 14, 2001

Comments due by: January 11, 2002 Reply Comments due by: February 11,
2002

By the Commission, Commissioners Abernathy and Copps issuing separate
statements:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we reexamine our exemption,
    pursuant to direction of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988,
    of public mobile service phones from the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements of that Act. This Notice is being taken pursuant to our
    obligation under that Act to assess periodically whether the
    exemptions from the hearing aid compatibility requirement continue
    to be warranted.

2.  Currently, many people who use hearing aids or who have cochlear
    implants have difficulty finding a digital wireless mobile telephone
    that functions effectively with those devices because of
    interference and compatibility problems. Requiring public mobile
    service devices[^1] to be made compatible with these devices would
    ensure that people with hearing disabilities would be able to enjoy
    the same access to wireless communications that other consumers do.
    In this Notice, we explore the extent to which the exemption for
    public mobile service telephones is still appropriate and whether it
    needs to be limited under the statutory standards to enable hearing
    aid users to benefit from the convenience and features offered by
    digital wireless communications systems. Based on preliminary
    evidence presented to the Commission, we initiate this proceeding to
    seek comment on whether public mobile service telephones should be
    required to be hearing aid compatible.

# BACKGROUND

3.  On October 10, 2000, the Wireless Access Coalition (WAC) formally
    requested that the Commission reopen the petition for rulemaking
    filed in 1995 on behalf of the HEAR-IT NOW Coalition, seeking to
    revoke the exemption for Personal Communications Services (PCS)
    devices from the Commission's rule requiring telephones to be
    hearing aid compatible.[^2] Promulgated in 1989 as mandated by the
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 (the HAC Act),[^3] the rule
    requires nearly all new telephones to be compatible with hearing
    aids but exempts, as required by the statute, certain categories of
    telephones, including those used with public mobile services and
    private radio services.[^4] Public mobile services are air-to-ground
    radiotelephone services, cellular radio telecommunications services,
    offshore radio services, rural radio services, public land mobile
    telephone services, and other common carrier radio communications
    services covered by Part 22 of our rules.[^5] Private mobile radio
    services are private land mobile radio services and other
    communications services characterized in our rules as private radio
    services.[^6]

4.  The statute requires that, unless exempt, all essential telephones
    and those manufactured in or imported for use in the United States
    after 1989 must "provide internal means for effective use with
    hearing aids that are designed to be compatible with telephones
    which meet established technical standards for hearing aid
    compatibility."[^7] In addition, the statute directs this Commission
    to assess periodically the appropriateness of continuing the
    exemptions.[^8] Specifically, the statute requires us to revoke or
    otherwise limit the exemptions if we determine that

    \(i\) such revocation or limitation is in the public interest;

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

    \(iii\) compliance with the requirements of \[the rule\] is
    technologically feasible for the telephones to which the exemption
    applies; and

    \(iv\) compliance with the requirements of \[the rule\] would not
    increase costs to such an extent that the telephones to which the
    exemption applies could not be successfully marketed.[^9]

5.  In its 1995 petition, HEAR-IT NOW argued that a limited revocation
    of the exemptions was warranted under the four criteria.[^10]
    HEAR-IT NOW appended to its petition studies demonstrating
    interference experienced by hearing aid wearers when attempting to
    use, or even simply standing near, a GSM mobile telephone.[^11]
    HEAR-IT NOW argued that such interference prevents people who are
    hard of hearing from using PCS devices, thus excluding them from the
    next phase of the telecommunications revolution.[^12]

6.  In response to the petition, the Hearing Aid Compatibility and
    Accessibility to Digital Wireless Telecommunications Summit was
    convened in January 1996,[^13] and a steering committee and working
    groups were formed to work on and report to the Commission on
    solutions. One outcome of the Summit was the initial development of
    a standard to measure interference between hearing aids and digital
    wireless telephones and to prescribe tests for evaluating these
    devices.

7.  To date, no technical standards have been developed for wireless
    hearing aid compatibility, although the standard for measuring
    interference between hearing aids and digital wireless telephones
    may provide information about which devices can be used
    together.[^14] In general, analog wireless handsets do not pose an
    interference problem for hearing aid wearers because they transmit
    signals at a steady rate that are not demodulated and amplified by
    the hearing aid, producing audible noise. Hearing aid compatible
    analog handsets contain an inductive coil known as a "telecoil"
    which transmits signals that induce an electrical signal in a
    similar telecoil in the hearing aid, thus allowing the hearing aid
    to "couple" with the telephone via an electromagnetic field. Unlike
    analog wireless telephones, however, digital wireless telephones do
    not transmit electromagnetic energy at a steady rate, and the
    fluctuations can cause disruptive interference to hearing aid or
    cochlear implant users.[^15] Almost all digital wireless handsets
    can cause some amount of interference, or "buzzing" to many types of
    hearing aids and cochlear implants. The extent of the interference
    appears to depend on the following factors: the air interface the
    handset uses to maintain an optimized connection with the
    transmitter at the cell site, the design and filtering capabilities
    of the hearing aid, the amount the hearing aid detects and amplifies
    the audio signal, the distance of the transmitter from the hearing
    aid, the signal strength from the transmitter, and an individual's
    level of hearing loss.

8.  One possible method to achieve hearing aid compatibility would be to
    shield the electronics of the hearing aid from the energy emitted
    from the transmitter.[^16] Depending on the type of hearing aid,
    shielding appears to have varying degrees of effectiveness.[^17]
    Hearing aids worn in the ear are least amenable to shielding because
    of their small size.[^18] Shielding behind-the-ear hearing aids with
    a metallic coating is relatively easy and apparently very
    effective.[^19] Some cochlear implant components are now shielded to
    reduce interference to the electronics in the implant from digital
    cellular signals.[^20] Another possible method for achieving hearing
    aid compatibility would be to keep the transmitter at a specified
    distance from the hearing aid, such as with a separate earpiece or
    some other external component. However, the use of such external
    components do not appear to satisfy the statutory requirement that a
    telephone provide internal means for hearing aid compatibility.
    Ideally, a hearing aid compatible digital wireless phone would have
    a high degree of compatibility coupled with a low degree of
    interference.

9.  In 1996, Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act was enacted,
    requiring "manufacturer\[s\] of telecommunications equipment or
    customer premises equipment \[to\] ensure that the equipment is
    designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable
    by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable," and
    requiring "provider\[s\] of telecommunications service \[to\] ensure
    that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with
    disabilities, if readily achievable."[^21] Regulations implementing
    Section 255 have been in place for over two years.[^22]

10. In its request last fall, WAC urges the Commission to re-open the
    HAC rulemaking proceeding because of the lack of progress made
    toward achieving hearing aid compatibility with digital wireless
    telephones.[^23] WAC states that while analog cellular services are
    an alternative for some hearing aid users, analog services are being
    displaced by digital services because of their superior quality of
    service, additional features, and more attractive pricing.[^24] WAC
    expresses concern that people with hearing disabilities may be left
    without access to wireless services in the event analog services are
    eventually phased out.[^25] WAC also contends that access to
    communications for hearing aid and cochlear implant users is
    threatened by the potential replacement of traditional wireline
    services by digital PCS devices.[^26]

11. On October 25, 2000, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released
    a Public Notice seeking comment on WAC's request to reopen the
    petition for rulemaking regarding hearing-aid-compatible
    telephones.[^27] Consumer commenters support revocation of the
    exemptions in order to promote equal access to digital wireless
    telecommunications for hearing aid and cochlear implant users.[^28]
    Industry commenters urge the Commission not to open a rulemaking,
    citing industry progress in the absence of governmental
    intervention.[^29]

# DISCUSSION

## Propriety of Initiating a Rulemaking

12. In accordance with our mandate under the HAC Act, [^30] we open this
    proceeding to examine the issue of hearing aid compatibility for
    wireless public mobile communications devices. As indicated by the
    legislative history of the HAC Act, Congress granted telephones used
    with public and private mobile services a temporary exemption from
    the hearing aid compatibility requirements, and directed this
    Commission to review the exemptions periodically to determine
    whether they should continue in effect.[^31] Now that the
    regulations implementing the statute have been in effect for over 10
    years, we are opening this proceeding to consider whether it is
    appropriate to revoke or limit the exemptions, particularly with
    respect to telephones used with public mobile services.

13. We note at the outset that CTIA, supported by TIA and Verizon,
    asserts it is premature for the Commission to begin a rulemaking
    because the industry has been working on the problem, most notably
    by developing a standard for measuring interference between hearing
    aids and digital wireless telephones.[^32] Industry commenters
    indicate that progress is being made and that governmental
    intervention is unnecessary.[^33] Verizon and TIA also argue that
    the Commission should not begin a rulemaking because the four
    statutory requirements have not been met.[^34] CTIA states that it
    plans to incorporate into its voluntary certification program a
    requirement that handsets be tested and categorized according to the
    amount of interference they cause to hearing aids based on the new
    standard.[^35] Under this approach, manufacturers of hearing aids
    would also voluntarily test those devices and consumers would "pair"
    a hearing aid with a wireless telephone based on their respective
    interference ratings.[^36] Many consumer commenters disagree that
    progress made to date has been sufficient.[^37] Many consumers
    express concern that, after Section 255 of the Telecommunications
    Act was enacted, the industry has focused only on what was cheap and
    easy, and that long-term solutions are no longer being pursued
    because they only need to provide access if doing so is "readily
    achievable."[^38]

14. We note that, when the HAC Act was enacted in 1988, the Commission
    had not yet licensed PCS in the United States.[^39] Recognizing the
    substantial expense and difficulties associated with making
    telephones used for public land mobile and private radio services
    compatible at that time, Congress created exemptions for these
    telephones from the hearing aid compatibility requirements it
    imposed on virtually all other telephones.[^40] However, Congress
    clearly sought to ensure reasonable access to telephone service for
    hard-of-hearing individuals "to the fullest extent made possible by
    technology and medical science."[^41] Among Congress's specific
    findings were that "anticipated improvements in both telephone and
    hearing aid technologies promise greater access in the future" and
    "universal telephone service for hearing-impaired persons will lead
    to greater employment opportunities and increased
    productivity."[^42] Congress contemplated that, as telephones used
    with mobile services moved from being "specialized second phones" to
    substitutes for wireline telephones, the exemptions should be
    removed.[^43]

15. In the time since the passage of the HAC Act, public mobile services
    and devices have flourished and have become indispensable
    communications tools for many Americans.[^44] During this time, the
    industry has made some progress in the area of accessibility for
    individuals with hearing disabilities but, based on the record in
    this proceeding, many consumers continue to have difficulty finding
    a wireless telephone that works with their hearing aid or cochlear
    implant. In light of the changes that have occurred since the
    initial promulgation of the hearing aid compatibility rules, and in
    light of our statutory mandate that we "periodically assess the
    appropriateness of the exemptions" provided in the Act,[^45] we are
    opening this proceeding to carefully consider the issue and
    determine the validity of continuing the exemption with respect to
    wireless public mobile communications devices used with public
    mobile services. Therefore, we seek comment on the appropriateness
    of continuing in effect the exemption for these devices from the
    hearing aid compatibility requirements provided in our regulations.
    We seek comment on the extent to which we should or must limit or
    revoke the exemption. In addition, because we may determine that the
    exemptions should be limited so that public mobile services
    telephones are subject to the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements, we seek comment on the best way to phase in hearing
    aid compatibility in the covered equipment and services, and the
    time needed for implementation. We seek comment on these issues,
    which we address in greater detail below.

## Statutory Requirements

16. According to the statute, once technical standards for hearing aid
    compatibility are established, covered telephones must provide
    internal means for effective use with hearing aids that are designed
    to be compatible with telephones that meet such technical
    standards.[^46] This portion of the statute appears to require
    several things. First, it requires the establishment of *technical
    standards* governing wireless-hearing aid compatibility. Although
    the wireless industry has developed a standard that can be used to
    measure interference between wireless telecommunication devices and
    hearing aids, procedures for testing these devices, and a method by
    which wireless devices may be paired with hearing aids, these
    standards do not appear to constitute "established technical
    standards for hearing aid compatibility," as required by the
    statute.[^47] Therefore, under the statutory provision, we
    tentatively conclude that, in the event we remove or limit the
    exemption for public mobile services, the industry will be required
    to develop technical standards for compatibility between covered
    wireless devices and hearing aids.[^48] We seek comment on this
    interpretation.

17. Second, the statute requires that, once these standards are
    established, the wireless industry will be responsible for providing
    *internal means* for making the covered telephones compatible with
    hearing aids.[^49] This means that compatibility must be provided
    within the telephone, and not through external, add-on components.
    This responds to the desire of hearing aid users to be able to use
    wireless devices without cumbersome external components.[^50] It is
    important to note, however, that new models of hands-free wireless
    telephones may have various components -- an earphone, microphone,
    and transceiver -- which are separated, but which remain integral
    components of the wireless device, and which are generally necessary
    for the device's use by the general population. One possible
    interpretation of the term "internal means" would be to require
    compatibility within at least one of these integral components of
    the device. Under this interpretation, where use of one of these
    separate components is not integral for general use of the device,
    but specifically needed only for the population of hearing aid or
    cochlear implant users, such component would be considered
    "external" to the phone. Incorporation of compatibility in such an
    external device would not bring the telephone into compliance with
    the statute. We seek comment on this interpretation of "internal
    means" and other possible interpretations.

18. Third, the statute appears to limit the compatibility requirement to
    only "hearing aids that are *designed to be compatible* with
    telephones that meet established technical standards for hearing aid
    compatibility."[^51] On its face, this indicates that there may be
    some instances in which a hearing aid is *not* designed to be
    compatible with wireless telephones. We seek comment on whether this
    is, in fact, the case and the implications for our proceeding.

## Statutory Criteria for Revocation or Limitation

19. The HAC Act established four criteria that, if satisfied, would
    compel the Commission to "revoke or otherwise limit" the
    exemptions.[^52] We seek comment on whether the statutory criteria
    for revocation or limitation of the exemptions to the rule have been
    satisfied. Although the record compiled in response to the Public
    Notice provided some information pertinent to this determination, we
    seek additional information that would permit us to make a reasoned
    decision on whether there is continued utility in maintaining the
    exemptions in whole or in part and whether a solution is
    technologically feasible.

### Public Interest

20. Under the language of the statute, we seek comment first on whether
    revoking or limiting the exemptions is in the public interest.[^53]
    Industry commenters argue that alternatives are available to persons
    with hearing disabilities, such as wireless analog services and
    external devices that permit hearing aid users to utilize wireless
    digital services.[^54] For example, some equipment manufacturers
    have developed neckloop sets as a short-term solution that make it
    possible for people who have telecoils in their hearing aids to use
    digital wireless telephones.[^55] Consumer advocates assert that
    analog services are not a satisfactory alternative because they are
    difficult to find, suffer from occasional static and disconnection,
    are not as secure as digital services, do not offer nearly as many
    features, do not conserve battery life as well as digital, are more
    expensive, and are on networks that are not as well maintained and
    cannot accommodate rapid subscriber growth.[^56] We note that, while
    the Commission's rules currently require cellular systems to provide
    analog service, the Commission is considering whether to eliminate
    or modify this rule.[^57] Consumers and consumer groups also express
    dissatisfaction with external devices, such as neckloops, because
    they are expensive, cumbersome, and inconvenient.[^58] Neckloops are
    not an option for many hearing aid users because only about 20
    percent of hearing aids contain a telecoil, which is necessary for
    electromagnetic coupling with the neckloop.[^59] In addition,
    according to TDI, because not all digital wireless telephones will
    work with all accessories, hearing aid users have a limited choice
    of telephone models and, often, service providers, putting them at a
    practical and economic disadvantage.[^60] As a result, many
    consumers consider these external devices unsuitable as a long-term
    solution.[^61] Moreover, as we have already indicated, it does not
    appear that external components such as neck loops can satisfy the
    statutory requirement that compatibility must be provided through
    "internal means."[^62]

21. As noted by some parties, the Commission's Fifth Competition Report
    on Commercial Mobile Services contains evidence that wireless analog
    service is declining and is being supplanted by more efficient,
    feature-rich digital services that are offered at competitive
    prices.[^63] It appears this trend is likely to continue. As a
    result, the wireless options for people who are hard of hearing are
    becoming increasingly limited, while choices for people who are able
    to use digital wireless devices are growing. Revocation or
    limitation of the exemptions would benefit people with hearing
    disabilities by allowing them access to digital wireless services,
    enabling them to more fully participate in employment opportunities
    and daily life.[^64] Requiring public mobile service telephones to
    be hearing aid compatible could provide hearing aid users with
    additional communications choices at a lower cost because of the
    efficiencies of digital services. For these reasons, we tentatively
    conclude that limiting the exemptions to require devices used with
    public mobile service to be hearing aid compatible would serve the
    public interest. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

### Effect on People With Hearing Disabilities

22. We seek comment on whether the continuation of the exemptions
    without revocation or limitation would have an adverse effect on
    people with hearing disabilities.[^65] As commenters have noted,
    digital wireless telephones offer many features that would benefit
    deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, including short messaging
    service, email, and Internet access.[^66] It also can allow
    employees with hearing aids to work in the field and communicate
    with dispatchers and co-workers, greatly enhancing their ability to
    find employment opportunities and participate and communicate in the
    modern world.[^67] However, as long as the exemptions to the hearing
    aid compatibility rule continue in effect, the incompatibility
    between digital wireless devices and hearing aids and cochlear
    implants will continue to prevent users of these devices from having
    full access to digital wireless services and products. Many
    consumers have commented in this proceeding and have submitted
    complaints concerning their difficulties using digital wireless
    telephones. While external accessories are available that, in some
    situations, may allow access to some hearing aid or cochlear implant
    users, as we have discussed, these accessories are not universally
    available to or usable by all people with hearing disabilities, nor
    would they satisfy the statutory requirement that hearing aid
    compatibility must be provided through internal means.[^68]

23. With the growing prevalence of wireless digital telephones and
    declining availability of analog telephones, continuing the
    exemption for public mobile services would severely limit the
    communications options available to people with hearing
    disabilities. In addition to helping to ensure wireless access for
    the more than 28 million Americans with hearing loss, a number which
    continues to grow with the "graying" of the population,[^69]
    limitation or revocation of the exemptions would also benefit future
    generations of people with hearing disabilities as well.[^70] For
    these reasons, we tentatively conclude that continuation of the
    exemption without limitation or revocation would have an adverse
    effect on individuals with hearing disabilities. We seek comment on
    these tentative conclusions.

### Technological Feasibility

24. We seek comment on whether compliance with the requirements of the
    hearing aid compatibility rule is technologically feasible for the
    telephones to which the exemption applies. To this end, we seek
    empirical data based on test results or other specific information
    concerning the technological feasibility of making wireless
    telephones hearing aid compatible. If testing has not been
    conducted, we seek comment on the types and nature of testing that
    would empirically demonstrate the feasibility of achieving such
    compatibility. According to the legislative history of the HAC Act,
    technological infeasibility means "impossible" or "undoable."[^71]
    The record developed in response to the Public Notice does not
    contain a high level of detail on this issue. A few consumer
    commenters suggest possible methods of achieving hearing aid
    compatibility, but they themselves acknowledge that further testing
    is needed. TIA and Verizon Wireless contend that technology has not
    yet advanced to the point where digital wireless handsets can be
    made hearing aid compatible with the vast majority of hearing
    aids.[^72]

25. On the other hand, industry commenters indicate that the newly
    developed interference standard will facilitate the categorization
    of wireless products and hearing aids to make these devices usable
    together. Industry commenters assert that, because hearing aids are
    uniquely fitted to optimize the hearing of the user, designs vary
    and make a "one size fits all" solution or standard difficult.[^73]
    These commenters also point out that the design of the hearing aid
    is beyond the control of the wireless industry, and that hearing aid
    manufacturers must play a role in achieving compatibility between
    hearing aids and digital wireless devices.[^74] As AG Bell notes in
    its comments, hearing aid manufacturers have attempted to respond to
    the digital incompatibility problem by boosting the interference
    immunity of most new models of hearing aids.[^75]

26. We seek comment on ways in which hearing aid manufacturers, digital
    wireless telephone manufacturers, and service providers can work
    together to develop long-term compatibility solutions. In addition,
    we seek comment on whether the "pairing" approach suggested by
    industry commenters would be satisfactory to hearing aid users and
    whether it would satisfy the technological feasibility condition
    such that the Commission could limit the exemptions.[^76] We also
    seek comment on whether this pairing approach, which is intended to
    reduce the interference between digital wireless devices and hearing
    aids, will resolve the compatibility issue.

27. We also seek comment more generally on possible methods of achieving
    compatibility between digital wireless telephones and hearing aids
    covered by the statute.[^77] For example, it would be useful to know
    whether there are ways to separate or shield the transmitter portion
    of a digital wireless telephone from the user's hearing aid in order
    to make the two components usable together. As noted by Verizon,
    given most customers' desire to own small portable wireless devices,
    the public interest would not be served by requiring manufacturers
    to separate the earpiece and the transmitter in all digital wireless
    telephones in the name of hearing aid compatibility.[^78] Moreover,
    this physical separation would prevent the compatibility from being
    provided internally, as required by the statute.[^79] As a result,
    we seek comment on potential solutions that would make wireless
    devices usable by persons with hearing aids without resorting to
    cumbersome or additional external devices.

### Effect Upon Marketability of Telephones

28. Fourth, we seek comment on whether compliance with the requirements
    of the rule would increase costs to such an extent that the
    telephones to which the exemption applies could not be successfully
    marketed.[^80] With respect to this criterion, we seek comment on
    the costs required for service providers and telephone manufacturers
    to make their products hearing aid compatible. Industry parties
    should address the extent to which costs would be increased and at
    what point such cost increases would begin to affect the
    marketability of covered telephones. Considering the learning curve
    effects and the economies of scale that would be involved with
    implementing hearing aid compatibility in the telephones, parties
    should estimate how quickly the cost of complying with the
    requirement could be expected to fall.[^81] How substitutable are
    alternative products that would not be subject to the hearing aid
    compatibility requirements? How price sensitive would the market be
    as a result of the changes?

29. As required by Section 610(e) of the HAC Act, we seek comment on the
    costs and benefits to all telephone users, including persons with
    and without hearing disabilities, and we seek comment on ways in
    which we can encourage the use of currently available technology and
    not discourage or impair the development of improved
    technology.[^82] For example, we seek comment on whether there are
    ways to phase in implementation of the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements to minimize the cost impact so that telephone costs
    stay low for all customers, including those with and without hearing
    disabilities. With respect to the benefits to all telephone users,
    we seek comment on whether the incorporation of hearing aid
    compatibility into public mobile service telephones would benefit
    users without hearing disabilities. We also seek comment on ways in
    which hearing aid compatibility could be incorporated into the
    covered telephones with currently available technological means so
    as to avoid or minimize redirecting industry resources away from the
    development of new technology. In addition, we seek comment on ways
    in which the Commission can be assured that, as technology develops,
    hearing aid compatibility will be considered in the design,
    development, and manufacturing of wireless handsets.

## Scope of the Exemptions

30. The HAC Act specifically exempts telephones used with public mobile
    services and private radio services, pending Commission revocation
    or limitation of such exemption.[^83] We note that the petitioners
    seek to revoke the exemption only insofar as it applies to broadband
    PCS devices capable of voice transmission or reception.[^84] In
    1994, Congress amended Section 332 of the Communications Act of
    1934, replacing private and public mobile service categories with
    two new categories of mobile services, commercial mobile radio
    service (CMRS) and private mobile radio service (PMRS), and treating
    CMRS providers, which includes PCS and cellular service providers,
    as common carriers.[^85] As we have done in the context of other
    proceedings, we believe that we should consider the hearing aid
    compatibility exemption with respect to telephones used with all
    wireless systems to the extent that they offer real-time, two-way
    switched voice service that are interconnected with the public
    switched network, and utilize an in-network switching facility which
    enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless
    handoffs of subscriber calls.[^86] Therefore, in addition to
    telephones used with broadband PCS,[^87] we here seek comment on our
    treatment of telephones used with other public mobile services:
    Cellular Radio Telephone Service,[^88] as well as Geographic Area
    Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Services and Incumbent Wide Area SMR
    Licensees in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands.[^89]

31. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should limit the
    exemptions with respect to fewer than all telephones used with
    public mobile services.[^90] For instance, could the exemption be
    limited so that manufacturers and service providers must offer one
    or more digital wireless telephones for use with public mobile
    services that are hearing aid compatible, but allow other telephones
    to remain non-compatible? Verizon has argued that, because many
    customers desire small portable wireless devices, it may not be
    desirable to require manufacturers to separate the earpiece and the
    transmitter in all digital wireless telephones in order to make them
    internally compatible with hearing aids.[^91] Consumer Dana Mulvany
    asserts that many customers actually prefer larger multi-function
    phones with a larger screen to display wireless Internet browsing
    and two-way e-mail paging features.[^92] We seek comment on whether
    a modification of the exemption that would result in the
    compatibility of at least some digital telephones would be
    preferable to maintaining or eliminating the exemptions in their
    entirety. A "product line" approach may not be desirable if it
    resulted in limitation of consumers with hearing disabilities to
    limited choices among "specialized" products. At the same time,
    there may be costs to requiring that every wireless telephone be
    compatible with every hearing aid, if it would have the effect of
    preventing the manufacture of certain kinds of telephones that would
    otherwise be desirable for many consumers. We seek comment on
    approaches that would provide a wide variety of choices for all
    consumers, including, in particular, consumers with hearing
    disabilities. We also seek comment on whether a "product line"
    approach would meet the statutory requirements of the HAC Act
    regarding whether the exemption should be eliminated, limited, or
    continued, including whether a "product line" approach would be in
    the public interest. We are cognizant that such an approach was
    rejected in the context of our proceeding implementing Section 255
    of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended, in which we
    determined that a universal design approach was more appropriate
    under the readily achievable statutory standard. [^93]

## Implementation Issues

32. In the event we decide to revoke or limit the exemptions, wireless
    service providers, handset manufacturers and hearing aid
    manufacturers will need to work together to achieve hearing aid
    compatibility. We expect that changes to digital wireless telephones
    and, possibly, hearing aids will be required, which will take time
    and may not be best accomplished by a "flash cut"-type of
    implementation. We seek comment on whether the best way to implement
    hearing aid compatibility in the covered telephones is a phased-in
    approach or some other method. Those parties that support a
    phased-in approach should provide specific suggestions on what
    should be included within a phase-in plan. We seek comment on how
    much time will be necessary and what would be a reasonable date to
    expect parties to begin complying with the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements. In addition, we seek comment on ways in which the
    Commission can stay informed on progress toward compliance by both
    the wireless industry and the hearing aid manufacturing industry.
    For example, should we impose a reporting requirement on affected
    entities to facilitate monitoring and the exchange of information
    between the two industries? If so, on whom should we impose the
    requirement? We seek comment on the frequency of these reports and
    what information should be included in them. In order to help the
    Commission monitor activities of the industries involved, it seems
    appropriate to require quarterly reports that provide information
    about ongoing testing and other pertinent information.

33. With respect to any implementation plan, we seek comment on what
    steps will be necessary to achieve hearing aid compatibility.
    Parties should estimate the amount of time that will be needed for
    each step, as well as any additional information that would be
    relevant to an appropriate effective date for compliance. In
    addition, commenters should discuss how an implementation plan might
    build on efforts already undertaken by CTIA to categorize handsets
    and hearing aids.[^94] A number of consumer advocates have commented
    on the need to train retail personnel in order to ensure that people
    with hearing disabilities are informed regarding their options with
    respect to wireless telephone products and services.[^95] We note
    that Section 6.11(c) of the Commission's rules requires
    manufacturers and service providers to consider accessibility issues
    in developing training programs.[^96] We seek input from the
    industry on what actions can be taken to ensure that this training
    takes place.

34. Finally, we note that the complaint procedures set forth in Subpart
    E of Part 68 of the Commission's rules[^97] apply to complaints
    under the Commission's rules implementing the HAC Act. In
    particular, Section 68.414 delegates enforcement of the Commission's
    hearing aid compatibility rules to those states that adopt these
    rules and provide for their enforcement.[^98] Where states do not
    adopt and enforce these rules, the Commission is responsible for
    doing so, via the informal complaint procedures in Sections 68.415
    through 68.420[^99] and the formal complaint procedures in Sections
    68.400 through 68.412.[^100] In the event that we revoke or limit
    the exemptions to the HAC Act for wireless phones, we seek comment
    on whether we should modify these complaint procedures as they apply
    to wireless phones.[^101]

## Other Issues

35. In light of the fact that we are reviewing the exemptions to the
    hearing aid compatibility rule for the first time, we seek comment
    on whether there are additional steps the Commission should take to
    implement the HAC Act. For example, this proceeding presents an
    opportunity for us to evaluate the exemption under the HAC Act for
    telephones used with private radio services, although the
    petitioners have focused primarily upon PCS.[^102] In addition, we
    note that the temporary exemption granted by Congress in the HAC Act
    for cordless telephones terminated by the terms of the statute
    August 17, 1991, and we seek comment on the status and the nature of
    the compliance efforts with that mandate.[^103] We seek comment on
    these issues and any other issues associated with hearing aid
    compatibility, particularly as it concerns telephones used with
    wireless services.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Ex Parte Rules

36. Pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission\'s ex parte rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 1.1206, this rulemaking proceeding proposing the amendment
    of the Commission's rule governing hearing aid compatible telephones
    is a permit-but-disclose proceeding. Provided they are disclosed in
    accordance with the Commission\'s rules, ex parte presentations are
    permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period.

## Filing Procedures

37. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this
    Notice on or before January 11, 2002, and reply comments on or
    before February 11, 2002. Comments and reply comments should be
    filed in WT Docket No. 01-309. All relevant and timely filings will
    be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in this
    proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding, interested parties
    must file an original and four copies of each comment or reply
    comment. Commenters who wish each Commissioner to receive personal
    copies of their submissions must file an original and nine copies of
    each comment and reply comment. Comments and reply comments must be
    directed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12th St., S.W., Room TW- A325, Washington,
    D.C. 20554. Copies of all comments also should be provided to (1)
    the Commission\'s duplicating contractor, Qualex International,
    Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC,
    20554, and (2) Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.

38. Comments may also be filed using the Commission\'s Electronic
    Comment Filing System (ECFS).[^104] Comments filed through the ECFS
    can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>. Generally, only one copy of
    an electronic submission must be filed. Parties may also submit an
    electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To obtain filing instructions
    for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of
    the message: \"get form \<your e-mail address\>. A sample form and
    directions will be sent in reply. Or you may obtain a copy of the
    ASCII Electronic Transmittal Form (FORM- ET) at
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html\>.

39. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
    during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information
    Center, Room CY-A257, at the Federal Communications Commission, 445
    12th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of comments and reply
    comments are available through the Commission\'s duplicating
    contractor: Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW,
    Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893,
    facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail at qualexint@aol.com. This
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be found on the Consumer
    Information Bureau, Disabilities Rights Office home page at
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/cib/dro/hearing.html\>.

## Regulatory Flexibility Act

40. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 603, the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis is set forth at
    Appendix B. We request written public comments on the Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These comments must be filed in
    accordance with the same filing deadlines as the comments on the
    rest of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, but they must have a
    separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Commission\'s Consumer
    Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy
    of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act.

## Paperwork Reduction Act

41. This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information
    collection. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork
    burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the
    infor­mation collections contained in this Notice, as required by the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.[^105] Public and agency comments
    are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the
    Federal Register, and OMB comments are due 120 days from the date of
    publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. Comments should
    address:

-   Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
    proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
    whether the information shall have practi­cal utility.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The accuracy of the Commission\'s burden estimates.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
    collected.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, in­cluding the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of information tech­nology.

42. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
    comments on the information collections contained herein should be
    submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room
    1-C804, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the
    Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Ed Springer, OMB Desk Officer,
    10236 NEOB, 725 -- 17^th^ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or
    via the Internet to Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

## Ordering Clauses

43. Authority for the issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
    contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 710(a) and (b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r)
    and 610(a) and (b).

44. IT IS ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information Bureau,
    Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

## Further Information

45. For further information, contact Mindy Littell, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Policy Division, at (202) 418-1310
    (voice) or (202) 418-1169 (TTY); or Dana Jackson, Consumer
    Information Bureau, Disabilities Rights Office, (202) 418-2517
    (voice) or 418-7898 (TTY).

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas

    Secretary

    **APPENDIX A**

    **LIST OF COMMENTERS AND ABBREVIATIONS**

    **Parties Filing Comments on the Public Notice**

    Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
    \[AG Bell\]

    Alliance for Technology Access \[ATA\]

    American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards
    Committee 63 for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) standards
    \[ANSI ASC 63\]

    Steve Barber

    Susan Barnhill

    Gene A. Bechtel

    Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (prior to January
    1, 2001, known as Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association)
    \[CTIA\]

    Council of Organizational Representatives on National Issues
    Concerning People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing \[COR\]

    Nancy A. Dietrich

    Gary Ericson

    Ronnie I. Gerstein

    Sam Goody

    Joseph Gordon

    Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc.

    Richard L. Hause

    Clyde Hostetter

    Shera M. Katz

    Neil Kran

    Leo A. LaPointe

    Charlene MacKenzie

    Dana Mulvany

    Linda Munsey

    Nebraska Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

    Martha I. Nesser

    Linda Baker Oberst

    Jack O'Keeffe

    Peggy Rakow

    Helen F. Rohrer

    Eliot D. Samuelson

    Wendy B. Samuelson

    Self Help for Hard of Hearing People \[SHHH\]

    Self Help for Hard of Hearing People New Mexico State Association
    \[SHHH -- NM\]

    Self Help for Hard of Hearing People Virginia State Association
    \[SHHH-VA\]

    Brian Snyder

    Carolyn Snyder

    Catherine A. Snyder

    Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. \[TDI\]

    Alison M. Turner

    Verizon Wireless

    Ronald H. Vickery

    Hermine Willey

    **Parties Filing Reply Comments on the Public Notice**

    Alex Alviar

    Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
    \[AG Bell\]

    Gene A. Bechtel

    Francis Beecher

    Diana D. Bender

    Sharon Campbell

    Council of Organizational Representatives on National Issues
    Concerning People who are Deaf of Hard of Hearing \[COR\]

    George DeVilbiss

    Richard C. Diedrichson

    Joseph Gordon

    Kelly M. Gutshall

    Allen Ivey

    Tressa Sloan Kentner

    Leo A. LaPointe

    Dorri Majeska

    Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

    M.E. Wasson Moore

    Dana Mulvany

    Nebraska Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

    Jack O'Keeffe

    Kelly Rehbeck

    San Francisco Hearing Impaired Professionals

    Bob Segalman

    Self Help for Hard of Hearing People \[SHHH\]

    Telecommunications Industry Association \[TIA\]

    Terrelle Terry

    Ronald H. Vickery

    Jo Waldron

    Melba J. Westfall

    Ray M. Wetzel

    Craig Woempner

    **APPENDIX B**

    **INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

    As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    (RFA),[^106] the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
    impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments are
    requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
    this IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the
    NPRM provided above in Section IV. The Commission will send a copy
    of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^107] In addition, the
    NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
    Federal Register.[^108]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

    Pursuant to the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act (HAC Act),[^109]
    Section 68.4 of the Commission's rules requires most new telephones
    to be hearing aid compatible but exempts certain categories of
    telephones, including those used with public mobile services and
    private radio services.[^110] The HAC Act directs the Commission to
    assess periodically the appropriateness of continuing the statutory
    exemptions. In 1989, at the time that the Commission issued its
    initial rules implementing the HAC Act, the Commission announced
    that it would review the exemptions every five years. However, the
    Commission has not done so since the rules were initially
    promulgated. The Commission believes a proceeding should be
    initiated to consider whether it is appropriate to revoke or limit
    the exemptions with respect to telephones used with public mobile
    services.

    The HAC Act established four criteria that, if satisfied, would
    compel the Commission to revoke or otherwise limit the exemptions.
    In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether the criteria
    are satisfied and tentatively concludes that revocation or
    limitation of the exemption would be in the public interest and that
    continuation of the exemption would have an adverse effect on
    persons with hearing disabilities. Amendment of the rules to revoke
    or limit the exemption for public mobile service telephones would
    benefit people with hearing disabilities by allowing them access to
    digital wireless services, enabling them to participate more fully
    in employment opportunities and daily life. Requiring public mobile
    services telephones to be hearing aid compatible could provide
    hearing aid users with additional communications choices at lower
    cost because of the advanced capabilities and efficiencies of
    digital services. In addition, with the growing prevalence of
    wireless digital telephones and declining availability of analog
    telephones, continuing the exemption for public mobile services
    would severely limit the communications options available to people
    with hearing disabilities.

B.  **Legal Basis**

    The proposed action is authorized under the Communications Act of
    1934 as amended, Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 710(a) and (b), 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 154(i), 303(r) and 610(a) and (b).

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
    the Proposed Rules

    Will Apply

    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.[^111] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^112] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^113] 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 SBA.[^114]

    Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed definitions for
    small providers of the specific industries affected. Therefore,
    throughout our analysis, unless otherwise indicated, the Commission
    uses the closest applicable definition under the SBA rules, the
    North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) standards for
    "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications" and "Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers."[^115] According to this standard, a
    small entity is one with no more than 1,500 employees. To determine
    which of the affected entities in the affected services fit into the
    SBA definition of small business, the Commission has consistently
    referred to Table 5.3 in *Trends in Telephone Service* (*Trends*) a
    report published annually by the Commission's Common Carrier
    Bureau.[^116]

    **Wireless Telephony Including Cellular, Personal Communications
    Service (PCS) and SMR**

    **Telephony Carriers.** There are 806 entities in this category as
    estimated in *Trends,* and 323 such licensees in combination with
    their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees and thus qualify
    using the NAICS guide, as small businesses.

    **Other Mobile Service Providers.** *Trends* estimates that there
    are 44 providers of other mobile services, and again using the NAICS
    standard, 43 providers of other mobile services utilize with their
    affiliates 1,500 or fewer employees and thus may be considered small
    entities.

    **Hearing Aid Equipment Manufacturers.** Hearing aid manufacturers
    are not regulated by the Commission, but may be affected by the
    proposed actions taken in this proceeding. In light of the potential
    impact, we have chosen to include hearing aid manufacturers in this
    IRFA, although we are not required to do so. Hearing aid
    manufacturers are not licensed, but the Commission estimates that
    there are approximately 35 to 40 hearing aid manufacturers.

    **Handset Manufacturers.** The Commission does not license or
    regulate handset manufacturers. Therefore no data exists indicating
    the number of entities manufacturing handsets. The applicable
    definition of small entity in this respect is the definition under
    the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere
    Classified. This definition provides that a small entity is one with
    11 million dollars or less in annual receipts.[^117] According to
    Census Bureau data, there are 848 firms that fall under the category
    of Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified. Of those
    approximately 775 reported annual receipts of \$11 million or less
    and qualify as small entities.[^118] Thus, the Commission, for
    purposes of this analysis estimates that no more than 775 handset
    manufacturers qualify as small entities.

    **D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements**

    The NPRM seeks comment on whether the exemption of public mobile
    services from the hearing aid compatibility requirements of the HAC
    Act should be revoked or limited. In the event that the exemption is
    revoked, telephones used with public mobile services will be
    required to be compatible with hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    While it is possible that, in this proceeding, the scope of the
    exemption may be fashioned so that not all telephones used with
    public mobile services will be subject to the hearing aid
    compatibility requirements, for purposes of this analysis we will
    assume the broadest possible impact. The NPRM seeks comment on how
    such a requirement would be implemented in the telephones that would
    be subject to the rule. The NPRM contemplates that wireless service
    providers, handset manufacturers, and hearing aid manufacturers will
    work together to achieve compatibility, primarily by establishing
    technical standards for hearing aid compatibility between the
    covered wireless devices and hearing aids. The NPRM suggests that
    the changes to digital wireless telephones and, possibly, hearing
    aids could be made using a phased-in approach. In addition, the NPRM
    seeks comment on ways in which the Commission can stay informed on
    progress toward compliance by both the wireless industry and the
    hearing aid manufacturing industry, such as through a quarterly
    reporting requirement. The NPRM asks whether such a reporting
    requirement is necessary and, if so, on whom should we impose the
    requirement, the frequency of the reports, and what information
    should be included in them. Also, the NPRM tentatively concludes
    that, in the event the Commission removes or limits the exemption
    for public mobile services, the industry will be required to develop
    technical standards for compatibility between covered wireless
    devices and hearing aids. According to one approach proposed by the
    Cellular Telecommunications & Industry Association, wireless devices
    would be categorized and "paired" with a categorized hearing aid to
    enable the use of the two devices together.[^119] In the event the
    Commission decides to limit or revoke the exemption, and it
    determines that the CTIA plan is the appropriate mechanism to
    satisfy the requirements of the HAC Act, the NPRM seeks comment on
    the series of steps CTIA asserts will be necessary before such a
    pairing approach can be implemented, part of which necessitates an
    educational effort to inform consumers and retail sales personnel
    about the plan.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
    for small entities.[^120]

    The NPRM seeks comment on a number of matters related to
    implementation of hearing aid compatibility in the wireless devices
    used with public mobile services, all of which could affect small
    entities. We note that, to the extent that manufacturers would make
    changes to telephone handsets to enable carriers subject to the
    hearing aid compatibility requirements to comply with those
    requirements, in many cases, those updated handsets may be usable by
    smaller carriers as well as larger carriers. The two most obvious
    alternatives in this proceeding are whether to keep the exemption or
    whether to eliminate or limit the exemption. Depending on the final
    action taken, small entities could be affected. In the NPRM, we seek
    comment on the best way to implement the hearing aid compatibility
    requirements, and we indicate that a phased-in approach might be a
    good way to minimize burdens on all carriers, including small
    entities. Because of the impact of the rule on people with hearing
    disabilities, the Commission has little flexibility in terms of
    providing a less burdensome approach for small entities. The
    incompatibility between hearing aids and wireless devices affects
    all persons with hearing disabilities in the same way regardless of
    the size of the carrier or manufacturer. In paragraph 26, the NPRM
    seeks comment on whether the "pairing" approach suggested by CTIA,
    along with its educational component, would be a satisfactory
    solution to the incompatibility problem. The NPRM, in paragraph 31,
    also asks whether the exemptions should be limited with respect to
    fewer than all telephones used with public mobile services. We
    invite comment on the impact on small entities of the alternatives
    here suggested. We further invited interested parties to offer
    additional alternatives.

    In paragraph 32, the NPRM seeks comment on whether a reporting
    requirement is needed to assist the Commission in monitoring the
    industry's progress toward implementation of hearing aid
    compatibility in the covered wireless devices. Commenters are
    encouraged to provide input on the content and frequency of these
    reports so as to facilitate monitoring and the exchange of
    information between the wireless industry and the hearing aid
    manufacturing industry. Because of the compelling public interest in
    making public service telephones accessible to persons with hearing
    disabilities, the Commission proposes to require quarterly reports
    by affected entities to ensure that progress is being made toward
    achieving hearing aid compatibility. Paragraphs 28 and 29 of the
    NPRM seek comment on how to minimize the financial burden on those
    currently exempt from hearing aid compatibility if the exemptions
    are limited or removed. The Commission invites comments on these
    issues.

    **F. Federal Rules That May Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With the
    Proposed Rules**

    None.

    SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY

    *In re: Section 68.4 of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones,*

    *WT Docket No. 01-309, RM-8658, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (rel.
    November 14, 2001).*

    I write to give my strong support for today's Notice. It is past
    time that we evaluate whether it is appropriate to uphold hearing
    aid compatibility exemptions for public mobile services. Not only is
    hearing aid accessibility an important issue for many members of the
    American public, but review of these exemptions is long overdue.

    There are more than 28 million Americans with hearing loss. We can
    only expect that number to increase in future years, because of
    noise exposure and people living longer lives.[^121] Thirty percent
    of people between the age of 65 and 74 experience difficulty
    hearing.

    Moreover, wireless telephony -- inaccessible to many people with
    hearing loss -- continues to grow in importance, providing an
    essential means for connecting employees, friends, and family
    members. Today roughly 124 million Americans use wireless
    telephones.[^122]

    Unfortunately, despite countless advances in wireless telephony
    technology over the past decade, the FCC failed to review mobile
    services' ability to provide access to Americans with hearing loss.
    Indeed, it has been twelve years since the Commission has looked at
    hearing aid accessibility exemptions. This failure to act conflicts
    with our statutory obligations. Congress, in the Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Act, mandated that "the Commission shall periodically
    assess" whether or not it should continue the exemptions.[^123] It
    is unlikely that Congress contemplated a 12-year period between
    assessments. I am disappointed by the fact that over the past decade
    time and resources were devoted to many discretionary proceedings,
    while Congress's mandate for a review of hearing aid accessibility
    exemptions went unanswered.

    A critical statutory policy goal is at issue here. Congress provides
    a clear guide for the Commission's priorities: "a provider of
    telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is
    accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if
    readily achievable."[^124] Congress laid out a policy map for the
    FCC, yet we have failed to follow the legislators' explicit
    directives.

    Just as troubling is the fact that the Commission ignored its own
    guidelines. In 1989, the FCC declared that, regardless of
    technological developments, it would review hearing aid access
    exemptions at least once every five years.[^125] Thus, even by our
    own timetable today's review comes seven years late. Failing to live
    up to our own commitments undermines our credibility and
    effectiveness.

    I am, therefore, pleased to vote in favor of this Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, and I look forward to a full record on hearing aid
    compatibility -- and a prompt decision by the Commission.

    **Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps**

    **Re: *Section 68.4 of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (rel.
    November 14, 2001).***

    I support the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    It is our challenge and responsibility to harness the power of
    technology for the benefit of all Americans. Congress has told us
    that we must make communications technologies accessible by people
    with disabilities. The digital tools of the Information Age are the
    keys to unlocking the doors of opportunity. We must make sure that
    those doors are open \-- and remain open \-- for all Americans, and
    not locked shut for some, as, unfortunately, they are today in many
    cases. My goal as an FCC Commissioner is to help bring the best,
    most accessible, and cost-effective telecommunications system in the
    world to our people -- and I mean [all]{.underline} of our people.
    Each and every American should have access to the wonders of
    telecommunications.

    As we begin this proceeding on hearing aid compatible wireless
    telephones I want to highlight the strides that the Commission made
    before I arrived:

-   The Commission wrote new rules to ensure that communications
    products and services are accessible to those with disabilities, as
    Congress directed, in Section 255.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Commission overhauled and updated our Telecommunications Relay
    Services (TRS) rules to provide for faster, more effective relay
    services.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Commission also established 711 for relay services so that
    consumers will no longer need to remember different TRS numbers and
    TRS users will be able to put one number on their business cards,
    thereby making it easier for people to call them. The Commission
    recently put this into effect.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Commission took action on captioning to ensure that everyone has
    access to televised information, including, most importantly,
    warnings about emergency situations.

    Now our new Commission has taken the first step to addressing
    compatibility problems between wireless phones and hearing aids. As
    we move forward with this NPRM, I want to recognize the commitment
    of the wireless industry to serving people with disabilities.
    Working closely with both manufacturers, service providers, and
    organizations that represent people with hearing loss will be
    critical as we move toward an Order. Business plays a critical role
    by innovating and investing in ways that can make products
    accessible. History has shown that incorporating accessibility at
    the design stage makes good business sense. Industry benefits
    greatly by making products and services accessible to the broadest
    range of users.

    Businesses have committed themselves to this task. A few months ago,
    over forty chief executives of high-tech and telecommunications
    companies pledged to develop and market products and services that
    are accessible to those with disabilities. I commend these companies
    and urge others to join their efforts to remove barriers to
    opportunity. We should all work together on this important matter.

    The Commission has taken a positive step today, but it is only a
    beginning. We have so far to go. We must continue to do what we can
    to ensure that Americans with disabilities are not left behind, as
    has happened too often in the past. I commend the Wireless Bureau
    staff for their hard work on this item and hope that we can issue an
    Order quickly.

[^1]: *See* discussion of public mobile services at para. 30, *infra*.

[^2]: *See* Petition for Rulemaking of Helping Equalize Access Rights in
    Telecommunications Now (HEAR-IT NOW), In the Matter of Section
    68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules, Hearing Aid Compatible Phones,
    RM-8658 (filed June 5, 1995) (HEAR-IT NOW Petition); Request of WAC
    to Reopen the Petition for Rulemaking, RM-8658 (filed October 10,
    2000) (WAC Request).

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 610.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.4(a).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.3.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.3. The terms public and private mobile services
    were subsequently reclassified to create two new categories of
    mobile services, commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) and private
    mobile radio service (PMRS). *See* Implementation of Sections 3(n)
    and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile
    Services, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411 (1994)
    (implementing Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
    Act of 1993). *See infra* para. 30 (discussing scope of the
    exemptions).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(1). To date, technical standards for hearing
    aid compatibility have been established only for wireline
    telephones. Specifically, Section 68.316 of the Commission's rules
    sets forth the technical requirements for hearing aid compatibility,
    and Section 68.112 specifies the telephones that are required to be
    hearing aid compatible. 47 C.F.R. §§ 68.316, 68.112.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C).

[^9]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 68.4(a)(4). Although the
    Commission announced that it would review the exemptions every five
    years, it has not done so since their initial promulgation in 1989.
    Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Services by the Hearing
    Impaired and Other Disabled Persons, 4 FCC Rcd 4596, 4600 (1989).

[^10]: *See* HEAR-IT NOW Petition at 5-8.

[^11]: HEAR-IT NOW Petition at Appendices 1-4.

[^12]: *See* HEAR-IT NOW Petition at 5-6.

[^13]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Fiscal Year 1995-1996
    Progress Report, 1996 WL 668142 (Nov. 19, 1996).

[^14]: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) adopted a new
    standard, ANSI C63.19-2001, Standard Methods of Measurement of
    Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices and Hearing
    Aids, on April 26, 2001. See ANSI Standards Action, Vol. 32, No. 11
    at 14 (June 1, 2001) available at
    \<http://www.ansi.org/rooms/room_14/public/pdfs/SAV3211.pdf\>.
    Information on obtaining copies of ANSI standards can be found at
    \<http://www.ansi.org\>. *See also* *infra* at para. 13 (describing
    CTIA's plans to incorporate into its voluntary certification program
    a requirement that handsets be tested and categorized according to
    the amount of interference they cause to hearing aids based on the
    new ANSI standard).

[^15]: *See* Verizon Comments at 4.

[^16]: This shielding is also known as "immunizing" the device against
    interference. Different hearing aids have different levels of
    "immunity" to interference, depending on the extent to which
    shielding is employed.

[^17]: *See* Dana Mulvany Comments at 1 and Reply Comments at 2; Verizon
    Comments at 4; George DeVilbiss Reply Comments at 2-3; Ronald H.
    Vickery Reply Comments at 2; Jo Waldron Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^18]: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment*, Wireless
    Technologies and the National Information Infrastructure*,
    OTA-ITC-622 at 256 (U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1995).

[^19]: University of Oklahoma Center for the Study of Wireless
    Electromagnetic Compatibility, *Study of the Interaction of Wireless
    Phones and Hearing Aids, Phase I: Results of the Clinical Trials*
    (Aug. 1996) (summary available at
    \<http://www.ou.edu/engineering/emc\>).

[^20]: *See* L. Tearney, "Making Cellular Phones Compatible with the
    Cochlear Implants," Chapter Connections (newsletter of Cochlear
    Implant Association, Inc.), Vol. 1, Issue 4 at 2 (March 15, 2001).

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 255.

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.1-6.23, 7.1-7.23; Implementation of Sections
    255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications
    Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises
    Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96-198, FCC
    99-181, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry*, 16 FCC Rcd
    6417 (1999).

[^23]: WAC Request at 3.

[^24]: *Id.*

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^27]: Public Notice, "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment
    on Request to Re-Open the Petition for Rulemaking Regarding Hearing
    Aid Compatible Telephones," DA 00-2402, 15 FCC Rcd 20,404 (2000).

[^28]: *See generally* AG Bell Comments; ATA Comments; Steve Barber
    Comments; Gene A. Bechtel Comments; COR Comments; Nancy A. Dietrich
    Comments; Ronnie I. Gerstein Comments; Sam Goody Comments; Joseph
    Gordon Comments; GLAD Comments; Richard L. Hause Comments; Shera M.
    Katz Comments; Neil Kran Comments; Leo A. LaPointe Comments; Dana
    Mulvany Comments; Nebraska Commission for the Deaf and Hard of
    Hearing Comments; Martha I. Nesser Comments; Linda Baker Oberst
    Comments; Jack O'Keeffe Comments; Helen Rohrer Comments; Eliot D.
    Samuelson Comments; Wendy B. Samuelson Comments; SHHH Comments;
    SHHH-NM Comments; SHHH-VA Comments; Brian Snyder Comments; Carolyn
    Snyder Comments; Catherine A. Snyder Comments; TDI Comments; Alison
    M. Turner Comments; Ronald H. Vickery Comments; Hermine Willey
    Comments; Alex Alviar Reply Comments; Diana D. Bender Reply
    Comments; Sharon Campbell Reply Comments; George DeVilbiss Reply
    Comments; Richard C. Diedrichson Reply Comments; Kelly M. Gutshall
    Reply Comments; Allen Ivey Reply Comments; Tressa Sloan Kentner
    Reply Comments; Dorri Majeska Reply Comments; Massachusetts
    Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Reply Comments; M.E.
    Wasson Moore Reply Comments; Kelly Rehbeck Reply Comments; San
    Francisco Hearing Impaired Professionals Reply Comments; Bob
    Segalman Reply Comments; Terrelle Terry Reply Comments; Jo Waldron
    Reply Comments; Melba Westfall Reply Comments; Ray M. Wetzel Reply
    Comments; Craig Woempner Reply Comments.

[^29]: *See* CTIA Comments at 2-3; TIA Reply Comments at 1; Verizon
    Comments at 1-2.

[^30]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C).

[^31]: "The Committee recognizes that certain kinds of telephones
    currently available cannot be made HAC today. These include
    telephones used with public and private mobile services. In order to
    keep these telephones from being pulled from the market while an
    exemption is sought under the new technology provision \[47 U.S.C.
    § 610(b)(3)\], the bill grants a temporary exemption for these
    telephones." S.Rep. 100-391 at 8 (Comm. on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation) (1988).

[^32]: *See* CTIA Comments at 3, 5-8 (describing ANSI Standard C63.19,
    which was adopted by ANSI on April 26, 2001). *See also* CTIA
    Comments at 1-3; Verizon Comments at 6-8; TIA Reply Comments at 1.

[^33]: CTIA Comments at 6; Verizon Comments at 6-8.

[^34]: Verizon Comments at 2; TIA Reply Comments at 1.

[^35]: CTIA Ex Parte Presentation (Feb. 26, 2001).

[^36]: *Id.* We note that, because there are no rules requiring hearing
    aid manufacturers to undertake categorization of their products,
    this would be a voluntary effort on the part of hearing aid
    manufacturers.

[^37]: AG Bell Comments at 8-11 and Reply Comments at 5; Steve Barber
    Comments at 1; Susan Barnhill Comments at 2; Dana Mulvany Comments
    at 1; Jack O'Keeffe Comments at 1; SHHH Comments at 3-4, 10 and
    Reply Comments at 5-6; TDI Comments at 3-4; COR Reply Comments at 2;
    Joseph Gordon Reply Comments at 1-2; Leo LaPointe Reply Comments at
    1; Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Reply
    Comments at 1; Jo Waldron Reply Comments at 2.

[^38]: Sharon Campbell Reply Comments at 1; Dana Mulvany Reply Comments
    at 2. *See also* Richard L. Hause Comments at 1; Eliot Samuelson
    Comments at 1; Wendy B. Samuelson Comments at 1.

[^39]: The Commission began its investigation of broadband PCS in 1989
    and, in 1994, it established a plan to allocate spectrum and award
    licenses by auction. *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish New Personal Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, GEN Docket No. 90-314, 9 FCC Rcd 4957 (1994).

[^40]: *See* H.Rep. 100-674 at 9 (Comm. On Energy and Commerce) (1988);
    S.Rep.100-391, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1345 (1988); 47 U.S.C.
    § 610(b)(2).

[^41]: Pub.L. 100-394, Section 2 (Aug. 16, 1988).

[^42]: *Id.*

[^43]: H. Rep. 100-674 at 9 ("As changes in technology or life-style
    make \[cordless and cellular phones\] necessities, the FCC may
    remove the exemption.").

[^44]: *See* Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget
    Reconciliation Act of 1993: Annual Report and Analysis of
    Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile
    Services, Sixth Report, FCC 01-192, 16 FCC Rcd 13,350 at 13,353-56
    (2001) (*Sixth Competition Report*).

[^45]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C).

[^46]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(1).

[^47]: *Id.*

[^48]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 610(c) (authorizing the Commission to establish
    or approve such technical standards as are required to enforce the
    hearing aid compatibility requirements).

[^49]: *Id.*

[^50]: *See* AG Bell Comments at 3-4; SHHH Comments at 9; TDI Comments
    at 6; Steve Barber Comments at 1; Nancy Dietrich Comments at 1; Gary
    Ericson Comments at 1; Joseph Gordon Comments at 1; Wendy B.
    Samuelson Comments at 1; Dana Mulvany Comments at 1 and Reply
    Comments at 3; George DeVilbiss Reply Comments at 1; Dorri Majeska
    Reply Comments at 2; Kelly Rehbeck Reply Comments at 1; Ronald H.
    Vickery Reply Comments at 4; Jo Waldron Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^51]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b) (emphasis added).

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C).

[^53]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C)(i).

[^54]: *See* Verizon Comments at 6-7; CTIA Comments at 8-9; TIA Reply
    Comments at 3.

[^55]: *See* CTIA Comments at 8; Verizon Comments at 6-7; TIA Reply
    Comments at 3.

[^56]: TDI Comments at 7; SHHH Comments at 10; Susan Barnhill Comments
    at 2; COR Comments at 2; Wendy B. Samuelson Comments at 2; Ex Parte
    Submission of George DeVilbiss (Jan. 18, 2001) (because analog is
    not spectrum-efficient, it results in poor service and
    interference).

[^57]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.915, 22.933; In the Matter of Year 2000
    Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Part 22 of the
    Commission's Rules to Modify or Eliminate Outdated Rules Affecting
    the Cellular Radiotelephone Service and other Commercial Mobile
    Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,* WT Docket No.
    01-108, FCC 01-153, 16 FCC Rcd 11,169 at 11,181-82 (2001) (seeking
    comment on the potential effect of eliminating analog service
    requirement on people with hearing disabilities).

[^58]: AG Bell Comments at 3-4; SHHH Comments at 9; TDI Comments at 6;
    Steve Barber Comments at 1; Nancy Dietrich Comments at 1; Gary
    Ericson Comments at 1; Joseph Gordon Comments at 1; Wendy B.
    Samuelson Comments at 1; Dana Mulvany Comments at 1 and Reply
    Comments at 3; George DeVilbiss Reply Comments at 1; Dorri Majeska
    Reply Comments at 2; Kelly Rehbeck Reply Comments at 1; Ronald H.
    Vickery Reply Comments at 4; Jo Waldron Reply Comments at 3-4. Among
    other things, consumers assert that external devices are awkward to
    use, particularly for elderly persons who suffer from arthritis or
    others with limited dexterity, and the time needed to attach the
    external device could be critical in the event of an emergency.
    *See* Nancy Dietrich Comments at 1; Dana Mulvany Comments at 1.
    Several commenters point out that requiring hearing aid users to
    bear the added expense of an external device may be particularly
    burdensome, in light of the fact that many people with severe
    hearing loss are more likely to be unemployed and have limited
    budgets than people in the general population. *See* Survey of
    Income and Program Participation, 1991-1992, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
    ESA, Bureau of Census.

[^59]: *See* AG Bell Comments at 3-4.

[^60]: TDI Comments at 6.

[^61]: AG Bell Comments at 3-4; SHHH Comments at 9; TDI Comments at 6;
    Steve Barber Comments at 1; Nancy Dietrich Comments at 1; Gary
    Ericson Comments at 1; Joseph Gordon Comments at 1; Dana Mulvany
    Comments at 1 and Reply Comments at 3; Kelly Rehbeck Reply Comments
    at 1; Ronald H. Vickery Reply Comments at 4; Jo Waldron Reply
    Comments at 3-4.

[^62]: *See* para. 17, *supra*; 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(1).

[^63]: *See* Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget
    Reconciliation Act of 1993: Annual Report and Analysis of
    Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile
    Services, Fifth Report, FCC 00-289, 15 FCC Rcd 17,660 at 17,672-73
    (2000) (*Fifth Competition Report*); WAC Request at 3; TDI Comments
    at 7-8; COR Comments at 2; SHHH Comments at 6. *See also* *Sixth
    Competition Report*, 16 FCC Rcd 13,350 at 13,374-76 (describing
    continued rise of digital).

[^64]: TDI Comments at 4-5.

[^65]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C)(ii).

[^66]: Dana Mulvany Comments at 1; TDI Comments at 5.

[^67]: TDI Comments at 5; Shera M. Katz Comments at 1; Gene A. Bechtel
    Comments at 2; Gary Ericson Comments at 1; Sam Goody Comments at 1;
    Wendy B. Samuelson Comments at 1; Linda Baker Oberst Comments at 1;
    Ronald H. Vickery Comments at 1-2; Kelly Gutshall Reply Comments at
    1; San Francisco Hearing Impaired Professionals Reply Comments at 1.

[^68]: *See* paras. 17 and 20, *supra*.

[^69]: COR Comments at 2. According to SHHH, approximately 6 million
    people use hearing aids and 20,000 people have cochlear implants,
    and one in 10 of the population has some degree of hearing loss,
    which is increasing as a result of noise exposure and the aging of
    society. SHHH Comments at 2.

[^70]: According to some commenters, children with hearing loss are now
    being identified within hours of birth and an increasing number are
    benefiting from dramatic improvements in hearing aids and cochlear
    implants. As a result, a new generation of children with significant
    hearing disabilities is growing up with the capacity to use
    telephones and would benefit from access to wireless services. AG
    Bell Comments at 7-8. *See also* Alison M. Turner Comments at 1;
    Jo Waldron Reply Comments at 7.

[^71]: S.Rep. 100-391 at 11 (Comm. on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation) (1988). As noted by TDI, the standards used to
    determine whether the exemptions are warranted are the same as those
    used to determine whether exemptions may be granted for new
    technologies. TDI Comments at 3 (citing S. Rep. 100-391).

[^72]: TIA Reply Comments at 3; Verizon Comments at 2, 4. As we have
    noted, the statutory standard suggests that the hearing aid
    compatibility requirement does not apply to all hearing aids. *See*
    para. 18, *supra* (discussing statute's requirement that
    compatibility must be provided only with respect to hearing aids
    designed to be compatible with telephones meeting established
    technical standards for hearing aid compatibility).

[^73]: CTIA Comments at 6; TIA Reply Comments at 2.

[^74]: Verizon Comments at 6.

[^75]: AG Bell Comments at 4.

[^76]: *See* para. 13, *supra* (describing approach proposed by CTIA in
    which hearing aids and digital wireless telephones would be "paired"
    for effective use).

[^77]: We note that the legislative history of the exemption indicates
    that induction is not the sole method of achieving hearing aid
    compatibility with telephones. *See* H.Rep. 100-674 at 12
    (definition of hearing aid compatibility is flexible and allows for
    other methods of compatibility).

[^78]: Verizon Comments at 7-8.

[^79]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(1). *See* para. 17, *supra* (discussing
    internal means requirement).

[^80]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(C)(iv); 47 C.F.R. § 68.4(a)(4)(iv).

[^81]: For example, since the implementation the Television Decoder
    Circuitry Act of 1990, P.L. 101-431, 47 U.S.C. § 303(u) (TDCA), the
    cost of television-captioning decoders have dropped substantially.
    *See* In the Matter of Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital
    Television Receivers; Closed Captioning and Video Description of
    Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, 15
    FCC Rcd 16788, 16793-94 (para. 14) (2000). The TDCA requires all
    televisions with screens larger than 13 inches to have the built-in
    capability to display closed captioning television transmissions. 47
    U.S.C. §§ 303(u), 330(b).

[^82]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(e). *See also* CTIA Comments at 5.

[^83]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(A)(i) & (ii). The Commission's rules
    broadly define public mobile services as "radio services in which
    common carriers are authorized to offer and provide mobile and
    related fixed radio telecommunication services for hire to the
    public." *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^84]: HEAR-IT NOW Petition at 1; WAC Request at 1, 3.

[^85]: *See* Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, Second
    Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411 (1994). We note that "commercial
    mobile radio service" is defined as a mobile service that is:
    "(a)(1) provided for profit . . . (2) An interconnected service; and
    (3) Available to the public, or to such classes of eligible users as
    to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public;
    or \[the functional equivalent thereof\]." *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.

[^86]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(a) (identifying carriers subject to E911
    rules); 47 C.F.R. § 52.21(c) (identifying carriers subject to local
    number portability rules).

[^87]: Broadband PCS is described in Part 24, Subpart E of our rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 24.200-24.253.

[^88]: Cellular Radio Telephone Service is described in Part 22, Subpart
    H of our rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.900-22.967.

[^89]: These services are described in Part 90, Subpart S of our rules,
    47 C.F.R. §§ 90.601-90.699.

[^90]: *See* discussion of statutory "internal means" requirement,
    *supra* para. 17.

[^91]: Verizon Comments at 7-8.

[^92]: Dana Mulvany Reply Comments at 4.

[^93]: *See* Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications
    Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with
    Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96-198, FCC 99-181, *Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Inquiry*, 16 FCC Rcd 6417, 6440-41 (1999).

[^94]: *See supra* paras. 13 and 16.

[^95]: *See* AG Bell Comments at 9-10; Tressa Sloan Kentner Reply
    Comments at 1; Jo Waldron Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^96]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 6.11(c) (in developing or incorporating
    training programs, requiring consideration of (1) accessibility
    requirements of individuals with disabilities; (2) means of
    communicating with individuals with disabilities; (3) commonly used
    adaptive technology used with the manufacturer's products; (4)
    designing for accessibility; and (5) solutions for accessibility and
    compatibility).

[^97]: 47 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart E.

[^98]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.414.

[^99]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 68.415 -- 68.420. *See* 2000 Biennial Regulatory
    Review of Part 68 of the Commission\'s Rules and Regulations, CC
    Docket No. 99-216, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 24,944, 24,988-90
    (2000) (incorporating into Part 68 informal complaint procedures
    adopted pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 255).

[^100]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 68.400 -- 68.412.

[^101]: For instance, we note that the preemption of state regulation of
    market entry and rates under Section 332 of the Communications Act
    applies to wireless services but not to wireline services. 47 U.S.C.
    § 332(c)(3). Any delegation to the states of authority to enforce
    the HAC Act with respect to wireless phones must be consistent with
    Section 332.

[^102]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(A)(ii); HEAR-IT NOW Petition at 1;
    WAC Request at 1, 3.

[^103]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(2)(A)(iii).

[^104]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).

[^105]: Pub. L. No. 104-13.

[^106]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 *et seq*.,
    has been 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).

[^107]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^108]: *See id.*

[^109]: 47 U.S.C. § 610.

[^110]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.4.

[^111]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^112]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^113]: 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."

[^114]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^115]: North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes
    513322 and 51331.

[^116]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Trends
    in Telephone* Service, Table 5.3 (December 2000). Estimates of
    entities employing 1,500 or fewer employees are based on gross
    revenues information filed April 1, 2000, combined with employment
    information obtained from ARMIS and Securities and Exchange
    Commission filings as well as industry employment estimates
    published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The estimates do not
    reflect affiliates that do not provide telecommunications services
    or that operate only in foreign countries.

[^117]: NAICS Code 513322.

[^118]: NAICS Code 513322.

[^119]: *See* NPRM at para. 13.

[^120]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^121]: Comment of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH), In the
    Matter of Reallocation of the 216-220 MHz (filed February 15, 2001).

[^122]: Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association web site
    (http://www.wow-com.com/).

[^123]: 47 U.S.C. § 610.

[^124]: 47 U.S.C. § 255.

[^125]: Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Services by the
    Hearing Impaired and Other Disabled Persons, 4 FCC Rcd 4600 (1989).