Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of the Commissions Rules
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile 
Handsets
Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules
Governing Hearing Aid Compatible Telephones
Petition of American National Standards Institute 
Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC)
ANSI ASC C63
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 07-250
WT Docket No. 01-309
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
AND
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  November 5, 2007  Released:  November 7, 2007
Comment Date:  [30 days after publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [45 days after publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:  
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 7
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER...................................................................................................... 22
A. In-Store Testing.............................................................................................................................. 23
B. The De Minimis Exception ............................................................................................................ 28
IV. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ........................................................................................ 32
A. Requirements and Deadlines for Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment......................... 36
1. Deployment Benchmarks and Deadlines................................................................................. 37
2. New Requirements for Handset Deployment.......................................................................... 52
B. 2007 ANSI C63.19 Technical Standard......................................................................................... 58
C. Reporting Obligations, Public Information, and Outreach ............................................................ 63
1. Reporting................................................................................................................................. 65
2. Public Information and Outreach ............................................................................................ 72
D. Other Components of Joint Consensus Plan, and Related Proposals............................................. 78
E. Emerging Technologies ................................................................................................................. 89
F. Networks using Open Platforms for Devices and Applications..................................................... 95
V. STAY OF FEBRUARY 18, 2008 REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 98
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
2
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 100
VII.ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX A  Parties Filing Comments to 2005 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
APPENDIX B  Proposed Rule in Joint Consensus Plan
APPENDIX C  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Over the past four years, wireless service providers and manufacturers have made significant 
progress in achieving the Commissions goals to improve wireless services for the deaf and hard of 
hearing community through increased access to hearing aid-compatible handsets.  Nonetheless, with 
ongoing developments in technology and in the market, ensuring the availability of hearing aid-
compatible handsets to hard of hearing consumers, as well as information about such handsets, must 
remain a high priority for the Commission.  In this item, we take steps to ensure that hearing aid users 
will continue to benefit from the convenience and features offered by the newest wireless 
communications systems being provided to American consumers, a goal the Commission established in 
2003 in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order.1 To the extent people who use hearing aids have difficulty 
finding a wireless mobile telephone that functions effectively with those devices because of interference 
or compatibility problems, a continued expansion in the number and availability of hearing aid-
compatible wireless telephones is warranted.  The actions we propose are designed to take account of 
changing market and technological conditions.
2. In this Second Report and Order, we address the two specific potential rule changes on which 
the Commission sought comment in 2005 in the notice of proposed rulemaking portion of the Hearing 
Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice.2 On the first of these, we conclude that the 
current record does not support expanding the mandate for in-store demonstrations to independent 
retailers at this time.  As regards the second, we decide, again based on the current record, not to narrow 
or otherwise change at this time the de minimis rule that exempts service providers and manufacturers 
with small product lines from the hearing aid compatibility regime.  We do, however, seek renewed 
comment on these two issues in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) that we are initiating 
today as part of the Commissions ongoing effort to evaluate possible rule changes in light of new as well 
as anticipated technological and market developments.
3. In this Notice, we reexamine the Commissions existing hearing aid compatibility 
requirements to ensure that they will continue to be effective in an evolving marketplace of new 
technologies and services.  We undertake this review in accordance with the Commissions commitment 
in the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order to initiate a new rulemaking proceeding to evaluate:  (1) 
whether to increase [or] decrease the 2008 requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models that 
comply with a U3 rating; (2) whether to adopt [hearing aid compatibility] implementation benchmarks 
beyond 2008; and (3) whether to otherwise modify the [hearing aid compatibility] requirements.3 To 
assist in forming the basis for initiating this rulemaking, the Commission directed that staff deliver to the 
  
1 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 
01-309, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16755  4 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) (Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Order).  
2 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 
01-309, Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11221 (2005) 
(Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice).
3 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83  74. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
3
Commission a report that assesses the impact of the hearing aid compatibility rules in achieving greater 
compatibility between hearing aids and digital wireless phones and that examines the development of new 
technologies that could provide greater and more efficient accessibility of wireless telecommunications to 
hearing aid users.4 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), in WT Docket No. 06-203, 
recently released the Staff Report, which examines recent developments and includes several 
recommendations.5
4. In light of the current marketplace and in anticipation of future developments in wireless 
offerings, we seek comment in this Notice on various possible revisions to the Commissions hearing aid 
compatibility policies and requirements pertaining to wireless services.  The proposals set forth herein 
draw upon recommendations proposed in the Staff Report.  Several of these proposals, in turn, are based 
on an interconnected set of rule changes set forth in a consensus plan (Joint Consensus Plan) recently 
developed jointly by industry and representatives for the deaf and hard of hearing community.  The 
specifics of the Joint Consensus Plan, along with a proposed model rule,6 are contained in the 
Supplemental Comments of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), which was 
submitted as part of the record in WT Docket No. 06-203.7 ATIS states that its working group developed 
a comprehensive plan reflecting the joint input of the wireless industry and consumers with hearing loss.8  
The participants included many wireless service providers and equipment manufacturers, as well as 
Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell), Hearing Loss 
Association of America (HLAA), Gallaudet University Technology Access Program (TAP), and 
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access (RERC).9  
5. As recommended in the Staff Report, we tentatively conclude substantially to adopt the 
provisions of the Joint Consensus Plan, and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion and several 
related matters. In particular, we tentatively conclude to modify the handset deployment deadlines in 
Section 20.19 along the framework proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, including (1) modifying the 
upcoming February 18, 2008 benchmark that requires that manufacturers and wireless service providers 
ensure that at least 50 percent of their handset models over each air interface meet a U3/M3 or better 
rating for radio frequency (RF) interference reduction and (2) imposing new benchmarks for deploying 
handsets that meet standards for providing inductive coupling capability.10 We also tentatively conclude 
in the Notice to impose new requirements on manufacturers and service providers such that they must 
include in their portfolios of hearing aid-compatible handsets a certain number of new models and models 
  
4 Id.
5 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 
01-309, WT Docket No. 06-203, Report on the Status of Implementation of the Commissions Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Requirements, DA 07-4151 (WTB rel. Oct. 5, 2007) (Staff Report).  In November 2006, WTB opened 
this docket, seeking comment from the public on issues that should be addressed in the staff report.  Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comments on Topics to be Addressed in Hearing Aid Compatibility Report, 
Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136 (2006) (Staff Report Public Notice).  Comments are summarized in the Staff 
Report.
6 See infra Appendix B (containing changes to Section 20.19 of the Commissions rules proposed in Joint Consensus 
Plan); see also Letter of ATIS in WT Docket No. 06-203 (filed Oct. 3, 2007) (clarifying text of proposed Section 
20.19(c)(1)(iii)(B)). 
7 See Supplemental Comments of ATIS in WT Docket No. 06-203 (filed June 25, 2007) (Joint Consensus Plan).
8 Joint Consensus Plan at 3.
9 Id.
10 See 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c), (d).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
4
with different levels of functionality, including the capability to operate over different frequency bands, in 
order to ensure that people with hearing loss have access to new, advanced devices.  In addition to these 
steps, we tentatively conclude to adopt an updated technical standard as proposed in the Joint Consensus 
Plan,11 and we seek comment on proposed new reporting, information, and outreach measures, as well 
as other interrelated proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan. While we recognize that the Joint Consensus 
Plan proposals were developed through significant investigation and negotiation by the working group 
and its members,12 we also seek comment on possible alterations or additions to certain aspects of its 
proposals that may better implement our hearing aid compatibility goals.  Finally, consistent with the 
recommendations in the Staff Report, we seek comment on how to better employ our hearing aid 
compatibility regulations in the context of emerging technologies and open platforms for devices and 
applications.
6. Our intent is to issue a Report and Order addressing the issues raised in this Notice in the near 
future, in advance of the upcoming February 18, 2008 benchmark.  As discussed above, we tentatively 
conclude that we will revise this benchmark and impose new ones in its place.  In consideration of the 
need for certainty, and in order to provide appropriate notification to manufacturers and service providers 
as to the applicable hearing aid compatibility obligations, we will stay enforcement of the February 18, 
2008 benchmark for 60 days, until April 18, 2008.
II. BACKGROUND
7. In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order adopted in 2003, the Commission took a number of 
actions to further the ability of persons with hearing disabilities to access digital wireless 
telecommunications.13 The Commission adopted these requirements under authority of the Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Act of 1988.14 These requirements were later modified slightly in the Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice adopted in 2005.15  
8. The Commissions hearing aid compatibility rules apply generally to providers of digital 
commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) to the extent that they offer real-time, two-way switched 
voice or data service that is interconnected with the public switched network and utilizes an in-network 
switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of 
subscriber calls, as well as to manufacturers of wireless phones used in the delivery of such services. 16  
  
11 On June 25, 2007, the American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 filed a 
petition seeking adoption of the 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 technical standard in place of the 2001, 2005 
draft, and 2006 versions of the technical standard.  See Petition of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) - ANSI ASC C63 filed on June 25, 2007, in WT Docket No. 01-309 
(ANSI Petition).
12 See Joint Consensus Plan at 15; see also id. at 15-16 (stating [a]s a result, all elements of this proposal, 
regardless of how small, are critical to its success).
13 See generally Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753.
14 See Pub. L. No. 100-394, 102 Stat. 976 (1988), codified at 47 U.S.C.  610.
15 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11208-09  26-27.  
16 47 C.F.R.  20.19(a); see also In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, 
WT Docket 06-150, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8117-18  
142 (2007) (700 MHz Service Report and Order). CMRS is defined as mobile service that is provided for profit, 
interconnected, and available to the public.  47 C.F.R.  20.3; see 47 U.S.C.  332(d)(1).  We note that telephones 
used with public mobile services, as well as those used with private radio services, are exempt from the general 
statutory requirement that all telephones meet hearing aid compatibility standards.  47 U.S.C.  610(b)(2)(A); see 
also 47 C.F.R.  68.4.  In 1994, Congress amended Section 332 of the Communications Act, replacing the public 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
5
Only Broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS), Cellular Radiotelephone Service (cellular), 
and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Services in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands currently are subject 
to specific hearing aid compatibility standards pursuant to Section 20.19 of the rules.17  Earlier this year, 
in the 700 MHz Service Report and Order, we extended the hearing aid compatibility requirements to all 
providers of digital CMRS that meet the specified criteria, including providers of such service in the 700 
MHz, Advanced Wireless Services, and Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service bands, 
and to manufacturers of handsets capable of providing such services, once applicable technical standards 
are established in the relevant bands.18 We also established a timetable for the development of the 
necessary technical standards for new services and frequency bands that have governing service rules in 
place and for incorporation of requirements based on those standards into our rules.19
9. Current Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements.  Under the Commissions existing hearing 
aid compatibility requirements, both manufacturers and digital wireless service providers must take steps 
to increase the number of hearing aid-compatible handset models available according to a phased-in 
deployment schedule.20 The Commissions hearing aid compatibility requirements address hearing aids 
that operate in either of two modes  acoustic coupling or inductive coupling.  Hearing aids operating in 
acoustic coupling mode receive and amplify all sounds surrounding the user, including desired sounds, 
such as a telephones audio signal, as well as unwanted ambient noise.21 Hearing aids operating in 
inductive coupling mode avoid amplifying unwanted ambient noise by turning off the microphone and 
using a telecoil to receive only audio signal-based magnetic fields generated by telecoil-compatible 
telephones.22  
(Continued from previous page)    
mobile service and private radio service categories with CMRS and private mobile [radio] service (PMRS).  See 
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16764-65  26.  Public mobile service is defined to include 
certain services covered under Part 22 of our rules.  47 U.S.C.  610(b)(4)(B); 47 C.F.R.  68.3. 
17 See 47 C.F.R.  20.19(b); 700 MHz Service Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8119  145-147.  The existence of 
an established, applicable technical standard is a statutory requirement for imposing hearing aid compatibility 
requirements.  See 47 U.S.C.  610.
18 700 MHz Service Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8117-20  142-150.  
19 Id. at 8119-20  148-150.  Specifically, we established a 24-month timetable for interested stakeholders to 
develop standards in these bands.  See id.  We stated that once the appropriate technical standards are established, 
the Commission would initiate a further proceeding to establish a specific timetable for deployment of hearing aid-
compatible handsets for services in the relevant bands.  Id. at 8119  148.  
20 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780  65-66; 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c), (d).    
21 The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order described acoustic coupling as follows:
In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding sounds, desired and undesired, and 
converts them into electrical signals.  The electrical signals are amplified as needed and then converted 
back into sound by the hearing aid speaker.  
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16763  22.
22 In telecoil mode, with the microphone turned off, the telecoil picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field 
generated by the voice coil of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible telephones, audio loop systems, or 
powered neck loops.  The hearing aid converts the magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies them as needed, 
and converts them back into sound via the speaker.  Using a telecoil avoids the feedback that often results from 
putting a hearing aid up against a telephone earpiece, can help prevent exposure to over amplification, and 
eliminates background noise, providing improved access to the telephone.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
6
10. The rules codify the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.19 performance 
levels as the applicable technical standard for hearing aid compatibility.23 The Commission determined 
that the standard presents a workable approach to measuring levels of interference that digital wireless 
handsets could cause to hearing aids, as well as for measuring the interference immunity of hearing aids.24  
To ensure that the standard codified in the rules would remain viable, the Commission delegated to the
Chief of WTB, in coordination with the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), the 
authority to approve future versions of the standard that do not raise major compliance issues.  Pursuant to 
this authority, the Commission staff has permitted applicants for equipment certification to rely on either 
the 2001, 2005, or 2006 version of the ANSI standard.25 Where major changes to the standard are made 
that could affect compliance, the Commission stated it would initiate an appropriate rulemaking 
proceeding to consider adoption of updated versions.26 The Commission also encouraged ANSI to work 
with the relevant stakeholders to review the standard periodically to determine whether improvements to 
the standard are warranted.27  
11. With respect to acoustic coupling operation, the Commission generally requires each covered 
manufacturer and service provider to offer specific numbers of handset models per air interface in its 
product line (i.e., CDMA, TDMA, GSM, and iDEN)28 that meet, at a minimum, an M3 rating (formerly 
denominated a U3 rating) for reduction of RF interference between handsets and hearing aids in acoustic 
coupling mode, as set forth in the ANSI C63.19 technical standard.29  The Commission also established 
separate requirements to offer specific numbers of handset models per air interface that meet at least a T3 
rating (formerly denominated a U3T rating) to enable inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in 
telecoil mode.30 If a handset manufacturer or service provider offers a multi-band handset in order to 
comply with these requirements, the handset must be hearing aid-compatible in each frequency band.31  
  
23 See 47 C.F.R.  20.19(b)(1)-(2).  
24 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16776  55.
25 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Clarify Use of Revised 
Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6384 (WTB/OET 2006).
26 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779  63.
27 See id.  
28 See id. at 16780  65.  The term air interface refers to the system that ensures compatibility between mobile radio 
service equipment, such as handsets, and the service providers base stations.  Currently, the leading air interfaces 
include Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), Integrated 
Dispatch Enhanced Network (iDEN), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and Wideband Code Division 
Multiple Access (WCDMA).  We note that WCDMA is also known as Universal Mobile Telecommunications 
System (UMTS).  
29 See id.; 47 C.F.R.  20.19(b)(1), (c)(1)-(3).  The 2001 version of ANSI Standard C63.19, which the Commission 
adopted in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, used a U nomenclature for RF interference reduction, and this 
nomenclature is referenced in Section 20.19 of the Commissions rules.  Subsequently, the 2006 version of this 
standard substituted the M nomenclature.  For purposes of clarity, we will use the M nomenclature throughout 
this item when referring to RF interference reduction ratings, unless referring to specific text that uses the U 
nomenclature.  
30 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16780  65; 47 C.F.R.  20.19(b)(2), (d).  The 2006 version 
of ANSI Standard C63.19 substituted T nomenclature for the UT terminology that was used in the 2001 version 
of the standard.  For purposes of clarity, we will use the T terminology throughout this item when referring to 
inductive coupling compatibility ratings.
31 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Cingular 
Wireless LLC Petition for Waiver of Section 20.19(c)(3)(i)(A) of the Commissions Rules, Memorandum Opinion 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
7
The Commission further established that, before a handset can be offered in satisfaction of these 
obligations, the handset manufacturer must first certify that it is compliant with the compatibility 
requirements through the Commissions equipment authorization process as set forth in Section 2.1033(d) 
of the Commissions rules.32
12. The hearing aid compatibility rules set forth a series of specific, phased-in benchmarks for 
manufacturers and service providers to deploy handsets that meet these compatibility thresholds between 
2005 and 2008.33 The rules required that:
 by September 16, 2005, each digital wireless handset manufacturer make available to 
wireless service providers, and each such provider make available to consumers, at least two 
handset models for each air interface it offers which provide the reduced RF emissions (M3 
rating) necessary to enable acoustic coupling without interference; 
 by September 16, 2005, each Tier I (i.e., nationwide) wireless carrier34 providing digital 
wireless services make available to consumers at least four handset models for each air 
interface it offers that provides reduced RF emissions (M3 rating), or 25 percent of the total 
number of handset models it offers, whichever is greater; 
 by September 16, 2006, each Tier I wireless carrier providing digital wireless services make 
available to consumers at least five handset models for each air interface it offers that 
provides reduced RF emissions (M3 rating), or 25 percent of the total number of handset 
models it offers, whichever is greater; and 
 by September 16, 2006, each digital wireless handset manufacturer make available to 
wireless service providers, and each provider of public mobile radio services make available 
to consumers, at least two handset models for each air interface it offers that provide telecoil 
(inductive) coupling capability (T3 rating).
13. The requirements to offer specific numbers of compatible handset models for each air 
interface mean that the manufacturer or service provider must offer that number of compatible models 
capable of operating over that air interface.  Thus, for example, a manufacturer that produces handsets 
capable of operating over the GSM air interface, regardless of whether some or all of those models also 
operate over other air interfaces, must produce at least two such models (either single-mode or multi-
mode) that meet an M3 or higher rating.    
14. The current handset deployment benchmarks also currently require that by February 18, 
2008, at least 50 percent of all digital wireless handset models offered by manufacturers or digital 
wireless service providers per air interface offered must meet an M3 rating.35 Finally, the rules contain a 
(Continued from previous page)    
and Order, WT Docket No. 01-309, 20 FCC Rcd 15108, 15115  17 (2005) (Dual-Band GSM Waiver Order)
(Commission permitted handset manufacturers and service providers offering dual-band GSM wireless handsets 
operating in both the 850 MHz and 1900 MHz bands additional time, until August 1, 2006, for making available 
handsets with a U3 (i.e., M3) or higher rating in both bands).
32 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16783  75; 47 C.F.R.  20.19(b)(3).
33 See 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c)-(d). 
34 The four (formerly six) nationwide CMRS carriers, AT&T Services, Inc., Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and  
T-Mobile USA are considered Tier I carriers.  See Revision of the Commissions Rules to Ensure Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS 
Carriers, Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14843  7 (2002) (Non-Nationwide Carriers Order).
35 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
8
de minimis exception to these benchmarks for certain digital wireless handset manufacturers and wireless 
service providers.36
15. In addition, the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order imposed certain implementation 
requirements not codified in the rules.  Those requirements include an obligation on the part of 
manufacturers and digital wireless service providers to report every six months on efforts toward 
compliance with the hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first three years of implementation and 
then annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation.37 Other obligations imposed concerned 
product labeling and live, in-store consumer testing of digital wireless handsets.38  
16. Upon first establishing hearing aid compatibility requirements, the Commission indicated 
that it would monitor compliance and consider other opportunities to further the ability of persons with 
hearing disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications.  In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility 
Order, the Commission set forth three aspects of its rules that it planned to consider prior to 2008:  (1) 
whether to increase [or] decrease the 2008 requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models that 
comply with a U3 rating; (2) whether to adopt [hearing aid compatibility] implementation benchmarks 
beyond 2008; and (3) whether to otherwise modify the [hearing aid compatibility] requirements.39 The 
Commission also stated that prior to such a proceeding, FCC staff will deliver to the Commission a 
report on:  (1) the impact of our rules in achieving greater compatibility between hearing aids and 
digital wireless phones; (2) the development of new technologies that could provide greater or more 
efficient accessibility of wireless telecommunications to hearing aid users; and (3) the impact of this 
Orders compatibility requirements on cochlear implant and middle ear implant users and their ability to 
use digital wireless phones.40 Moreover, in reconsidering certain aspects of Section 20.19 in the 2005 
Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice,41 the Commission explained that 
it collects data on hearing aid compatibility to comply with Congress requirement that the Commission 
periodically review and scrutinize its hearing aid compatibility regulations.42 The Commission also 
reiterated its commitment to revisit the February 18, 2008, 50 percent handset deployment benchmark.43
17. Hearing Aid Compatibility Further Notice.  In the notice portion of the 2005 Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on two 
outstanding issues:  (1) whether to extend the live, in-store consumer testing requirement to retail outlets 
that are not directly owned or operated by wireless carriers or service providers; and (2) whether to 
narrow the de minimis exception, for instance by exempting from the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements only wireless carriers, service providers, and handset manufacturers that offer one digital 
  
36 47 C.F.R.  20.19(e)(1)-(2) .
37 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787  89-91.
38 See 47 C.F.R.  20.19(f). 
39 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83  74.  
40 Id.
41 The Commission modified the preliminary handset deployment benchmark specific to Tier I wireless carriers to 
provide greater regulatory certainty, while simultaneously ensuring a broad array of choices for persons with hearing 
disabilities who seek to purchase hearing aid-compatible wireless phones. See Hearing Aid Compatibility 
Reconsideration Order and FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 11208-09  26-27.  
42 See id. at 11241  44; see also 47 U.S.C.  610(f).
43 Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 11241  44.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
9
wireless handset model per air interface.44 Four parties filed comments in the proceeding, and three filed 
replies.45  
18. Five commenters argue that the Commission should not extend the testing requirement to 
independent retailers, arguing that the Commission lacks legal authority to do so and that, even if it had 
such authority, the lack of a record of problems experienced by purchasers, combined with the practical 
difficulties of implementation, would make a decision to do so unadvisable.46 One commenter  a 
hearing aid manufacturers association  favors extending this requirement, asserting the Commission has 
the necessary jurisdiction and that doing so would create a level playing field for all handset vendors.47  
Only two commenters address the de minimis issue, and both oppose any changes to the de minimis rule.48
19. Staff Report.  As discussed above, in the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order the 
Commission directed that Commission staff deliver to the Commission a report that assesses the impact 
of the hearing aid compatibility rules in achieving greater compatibility between hearing aids and digital 
wireless phones and that examines the development of new technologies that could provide greater and 
more efficient accessibility of wireless telecommunications to hearing aid users.49 On November 8, 2006, 
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) sought comment on possible topics for evaluation in its 
report to the Commission.50 Twenty comments and thirteen replies were filed.51  
20. Recently released, the Staff Report reviews the status of implementation of the Commissions 
hearing aid compatibility requirements and offers specific recommendations to assist the Commission in 
making additional changes to those requirements so that they may remain effective in the evolving 
marketplace of new technologies and services.  Among other things, Commission staff recommend that 
we seek input on how to promote more complete compatibility between wireless communications devices 
and hearing aids by:  considering how to improve in-store testing and the availability of public 
information regarding hearing aid-compatible handsets; considering how to improve the quality and 
usefulness of the information reported in the wireless industrys compliance reports; continuing to 
monitor enhancements to existing wireless technologies as well as hearing aid labeling and related issues; 
and seeking comment on emerging issues, including issues arising out of the development of wireless 
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications52 and open platform networks.53  
  
44 See id. at 11248-49  62-65.
45 Party names and short forms are listed in Appendix A.
46 See, e.g., Cingular Comments at 1; RadioShack Comments at 4-5; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 3.
47 HIA Reply Comments at 2.
48 See Research in Motion Comments at 1-2; Cingular Comments at 4.
49 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16782-83  74.
50 Staff Report Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13136.
51 See Staff Report, Appendix.
52 Wireless VoIP refers to VoIP service provided over wireless networks, including cellular system architecture 
networks as well as wireless networks utilizing WiFi and WiMax technologies.  See infra Section IV.E.  WiFi 
(Wireless Fidelity) is a wireless technology that is based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
(IEEE) 802.11 standards.  WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) is a wireless technology 
that is based on the IEEE 802.16 standards.
53 See Staff Report at  86.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
10
21. In addition, the Staff Report specifically recommends seeking comment on the several 
proposed rule changes set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan filed by ATIS on June 25, 2007, in WT 
Docket No. 06-203.54 The Joint Consensus Plan is made up of several proposed interrelated rule changes 
to Section 20.19.  ATIS urges the Commission to act on these proposals expeditiously so that the 
industry can meet the obligations by February 18, 2008.55 First, the Joint Consensus Plan proposes 
several changes to the deadlines and other provisions requiring service providers and manufacturers to 
make available certain types of hearing aid-compatible phones, including:  (1) provid[ing] Tier I carriers 
with an alternative to the 50 percent rule for M-rated phones; (2) increas[ing] the number of T3-or-
better phones that Tier I carriers must make available; (3) requir[ing] manufacturers to offer thirty three 
(33) percent of wireless phones at the M3-or-better level; and (4) requiring each manufacturer not 
subject to the de minimis exception . . . [to] produce at least two or more T3-or-better handsets.56 These 
changes include new rules requiring manufacturers each year to include a certain number of new products 
among their hearing aid-compatible models, and requiring Tier I carriers to provide hearing aid-
compatible models from multiple tiers of functionality.57 Second, the Joint Consensus Plan proposes a 
transition to phase-in the 2007 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard for hearing aid compatibility 
testing.58 Third, the Joint Consensus Plan proposes that service providers and manufacturers report 
regularly on the availability of products under updated criteria for information submissions.59 Finally, to 
further accessibility to hearing aid-compatible phones, the Joint Consensus Plan proposes other steps that 
the Commission should take to adequately address hearing aid compatibility of wireless handsets.60 Most 
of these proposals consider appropriate modifications only to rules for manufacturers and Tier I carriers, 
and do not address the Commissions future hearing aid compatibility requirements for Tier II and Tier III 
carriers, or other service providers.61
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
22. In the Second Report and Order, we discuss the two specific issues on which the Commission 
sought comment in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Further Notice:  (1) whether to extend to independent 
retailers the requirement to make hearing aid-compatible handset models offered for sale available for 
consumer testing in the store; and (2) whether to narrow or otherwise change the de minimis rule that 
exempts service providers and manufacturers with small product lines from hearing aid compatibility 
requirements.  As discussed below, we determine that the record does not support any revisions on these 
issues at this time.  We do, however, provide the opportunity for additional comment on these issues in 
response to the Notice we are initiating.
  
54 Id.
55 Joint Consensus Plan at 14.
56 Id. at 4, 9 n.14.  
57 Id. at 4, 12.
58 Id. at 4.  In its separate petition, ANSI states that the 2007 standard includes further improvements that have been 
made to the technical standard to reflect changes in technology, and efficiencies and improvements in testing 
procedures.  See ANSI Petition at 2.
59 Joint Consensus Plan at 4.
60 See infra  86 (seeking comment on inter alia a further review of hearing aid compatibility rules in 2010).
61 The one exception is the proposal in the Joint Consensus Plan for delaying reporting requirements for Tier II and 
III carriers.  See infra  70.  Tier II carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with more than 
500,000 subscribers.  Tier III carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer 
subscribers.  See Non-Nationwide Carriers Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 14847  22-24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
11
A. In-Store Testing
23. Background.  Section 20.19(c) and (d) of the Commissions rules requires that wireless 
service providers make their hearing aid-compatible handset models available for consumer testing in 
each retail store that they own or operate.62 In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and 
Further Notice, the Commission clarified that this requirement applies to retail outlets owned or operated 
by wireless carriers or service providers, but not to independent retailers.63 The Commission sought 
further comment on whether extending that requirement to independent retailers would be within the 
Commissions authority, and if so whether it should be done.64 The Commission was specifically 
concerned that limiting the testing requirement to carrier-owned or -operated retail outlets might interfere 
with full implementation of Congress' requirement that the Commission establish such regulations as are 
necessary to ensure reasonable access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing.65 The 
Commission also sought comment on the impact that this proposal would have on small business retailers 
and independent retailers, whether extending this requirement would create a more level playing field for 
different types of retailers, and the extent to which extending this requirement might create an 
unacceptable burden for independent retailers, small business retailers, or both.66
24. At the same time, the Commission sought comment on whether it had legal authority to 
impose such a requirement on independent retailers, and if so, the scope of that authority.67 In this regard, 
the Commission specifically sought comment on the degree to which the relationship between
independent retailers, whether large or small, and wireless carriers and service providers could have an 
impact on enforcement of a live, in-store consumer testing requirement.68 This included whether, under 
Section 217 of the Communications Act,69 the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act,70 or general principles of 
agency law, the Commission could require those service providers, in their contracts with retailers selling 
their wireless services, to offer live, in-store consumer testing.71 Six parties filed comments or reply 
comments addressing this issue.  
25. Cingular, T-Mobile, CompUSA, CERC, and Radio Shack strongly oppose extension of the 
in-store testing requirement both on practical grounds and on the grounds that the Commission lacks 
jurisdiction to impose such a requirement.  These parties argue that nothing in the Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Act or any other statute grants such authority72 and that the Commissions ancillary 
jurisdiction to regulate in areas not expressly covered by statute is limited.73 Regardless of whether the 
  
62 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c), (d).
63 Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 11239  39.
64 Id. at 11248-49  62-65.
65 47 U.S.C.  610(a).
66 Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 11248  63.
67 Id. at 11249  62-65.
68 Id.
69 47 U.S.C.  217.
70 47 U.S.C.  610(b).
71 Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 11249  64.
72 Cingular Comments at 1; Radio Shack Comments at 4-5.
73 See Radio Shack Comments at 9 (citing Amn Library Assn v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2005)); see also
CERC Comments at 4 (stating that the Commission has, at best, power to remove a product from the market, 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
12
Commission has the authority to act, the same commenters advise against it on policy grounds, noting 
that the logistics of implementation would be daunting, requiring viable connections to all networks in all 
stores, and stating that security and theft of handsets would be a problem.74 Moreover, they state that 
sales staff are not trained for such practices,75 the cost of manpower and demonstration phones would be 
high,76 and retailers already honor a 30-day return policy for mobile phones, which allows for extensive 
real-world environment testing.77
26. The Hearing Industries Association (HIA), a hearing aid manufacturers association, supports 
extending the in-store demonstration requirement.  HIA argues that Congress could not have been 
clearer in its intent78 to authorize regulation to ensure access to telephone service by persons with 
impaired hearing, citing Section 710(a) of the Communications Act, which states that [t]he Commission 
shall establish such regulations as are necessary to ensure reasonable access to telephone service by 
persons with impaired hearing.79 HIA cites the surely substantial80 numbers of handsets sold by 
retailers such as Radio Shack, Best Buy, and Circuit City, and it argues that the ability to test phones 
before activating a service contract is crucial.81
27. Discussion.  We note that no advocates for the hard of hearing community chose to file 
comments on this proposed rulemaking.  Given this, and considering the concerns about the possible 
burden on retailers, we find that the record at this time does not support a change to the in-store 
demonstration requirement.  However, in the Notice below, we seek further comment on the issue in light 
of changes to the marketplace and regulatory environment since 2005.
B. The De Minimis Exception
28. Background.  When first adopting hearing aid compatibility requirements involving wireless 
services in 2003, the Commission recognized that such requirements could have a disproportionate impact 
on small manufacturers or those that sell only a small number of digital wireless handset models in the 
United States, as well as on service providers that offer only a small number of digital wireless handset 
models.82 To resolve this concern, the Commission adopted a de minimis exception, which relieves 
wireless service providers and handset manufacturers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset 
models in the United States from the hearing aid compatibility compliance obligations set forth in the 
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order.83
(Continued from previous page)    
which is a far cry from regulating the stocking, marketing and merchandising choices of retailers with respect to 
products not recalled from commerce); CompUSA Reply Comments at 2-3.  
74 See Cingular Comments at 2; CompUSA Reply Comments at 2.
75 T-Mobile Comments at 7.
76 Radio Shack Comments at 16.
77 CERC Comments at 7.  
78 HIA Reply Comments at 2.
79 47 U.S.C.  610(a).
80 HIA Reply Comments at 3.  HIA notes that the retailers in question did not provide data on their market share.  Id.
81 Id.
82 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16781  69; see also Hearing Aid Compatibility 
Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244  51.
83 47 C.F.R.  20.19(e)(1)-(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
13
29. In the 2005 Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, the 
Commission clarified that the de minimis exception applies on a per air interface basis, rather than across 
a manufacturers or service providers entire product line.84 The Commission also sought comment on 
whether to narrow the de minimis exception so as to exempt from the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements only those wireless service providers and handset manufacturers that offer one digital 
wireless handset model per air interface, or whether the de minimis exception should be narrowed in some 
other way.85 Specifically, the Commission sought comment:  on whether the current rule reduces the 
access of consumers with hearing aids and cochlear implants to wireless devices; on whether any 
particular modification that would narrow the de minimis exception would increase costs to all 
consumers, including those with and without hearing disabilities, or discourage market entry by 
manufacturers; and on the number of wireless service providers and manufacturers that would be affected 
by any such change in the rule, including the impact on small businesses.86 Only two parties commented.  
30. Cingular opposes any change to the de minimis rule, noting that the Commission did not cite 
any examples of problems with the existing exception and Cingular knows of none.87 Research in Motion 
also opposes such a change, noting that a one-phone de minimis exception would be almost meaningless 
and would require small and specialty manufacturers to make virtually all of their phones compliant.88
31. Discussion.  We find that the record does not support any change to the de minimis exception 
at this time.  No commenter has challenged the current scope of this exception or otherwise raised 
concerns about the Commissions justification for such an exception.  We note that, in the Notice below, 
we seek comment on the Joint Consensus Plan, including its proposal to retain the existing de minimis
exception.89 In that context, wireless service providers and affected consumers will have another 
opportunity to raise any arguments for narrowing or otherwise modifying the exception that are not in the 
current record.  Pending our review of any such comments, we take no action at this time.
IV. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
32. In the Notice that we are initiating, we seek comment on recommendations in the Staff Report 
and on the various proposals set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan.  We make a number of tentative 
conclusions based on the broad consensus established by those participating in the development of the 
Joint Consensus Plan.  
33. Specifically, as recommended in the Staff Report and the Joint Consensus Plan, we tentatively 
conclude to adopt new M3- and T3-rated handset deployment benchmarks through 2011, among other 
things modifying the upcoming February 18, 2008 requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models 
that comply with an M3 rating.  We also tentatively conclude to take the following steps:  (1) implement a 
product refresh rule for manufacturers and a new requirement that service providers include in their 
portfolios of hearing aid-compatible handsets a certain number of models with different levels of 
functionality, including the capability to operate over different frequency bands; (2) adopt, after a suitable 
phase-in period, the use of a single version of the ANSI C63.19 standard, ANSI C63.19-2007; (3) adopt 
new content and timelines for hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements; (4) retain the current de 
  
84 Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244  53.
85 Id. at 11249  66.
86 Id.
87 Cingular Comments at 4.  
88 Research in Motion Comments at 1-2.
89 See infra  85.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
14
minimis exception for manufacturers and carriers with small product lines and codify that it applies on a 
per-air interface basis; (5) codify that multi-mode and multi-band handsets must be compliant over each
air interface and frequency band over which they operate in order to be counted as compliant; (6) clarify
that multi-band and multi-mode phones cannot be counted as compatible in any band or mode if they 
operate over air interfaces or frequency bands for which technical standards have not been established; (7) 
extend the hearing aid compatibility rules to cover services offered over any frequency in the 800-950 
MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz bands that employ air interfaces for which technical standards have been 
established as part of ANSI C63.19, as approved by the Commission; and (8) commence a further review 
of all issues related to hearing aid compatibility in 2010. In the context of several of these tentative 
conclusions, we also request comment regarding the appropriate deployment regime for Tier II/III carriers 
and other service providers that are not Tier I carriers, which generally were not included within the Joint 
Consensus Plans framework.  We also seek comment on the possibility of staggered handset deployment 
deadlines, additional reporting/outreach obligations, and other measures not addressed by the Joint 
Consensus Plan.  Finally, following upon the recommendations in the Staff Report, the Notice invites 
comments on new hearing aid compatibility issues implicated by nascent technologies, including VoIP 
and wireless data connections, and regulatory environments, including open platform networks.
34. We request that manufacturers and service providers be as specific as possible regarding the 
impact of these proposals on their operations, and that any alternative proposals be supported by evidence 
as to their feasibility and effectiveness.  Affected consumers, including those with hearing difficulties, 
should support any new proposals with explanations of not only the benefits but also the costs to service 
providers, manufacturers, or other consumers, and why such costs are outweighed by the benefits.  The 
Joint Consensus Plan contains many interrelated provisions, and we note the emphasis that its proponents 
place on adopting the plan as a whole in order to maintain the balance achieved during negotiations by its 
various member participants.90
35. Discussion of these proposals is divided into six parts:  (1) new requirements and deadlines 
for hearing aid-compatible handsets; (2) adoption of the 2007 version of the ANSI technical standard; (3) 
reporting, information submissions, and outreach efforts; (4) miscellaneous aspects of the Joint 
Consensus Plan; (5) emerging wireless technologies using VoIP; and (6) issues regarding open platforms 
for devices and applications.
A. Requirements and Deadlines for Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment
36. We seek comment on a set of new requirements for manufacturers and certain carriers as they 
deploy hearing aid-compatible handsets in the years to come.  The first proposal in the Joint Consensus 
Plan is to modify several deployment deadlines as set forth in Section 20.19 of the Commissions rules, 
including the requirement that manufacturers and wireless service providers ensure that, by February 18, 
2008, at least 50 percent of their handset models over each air interface offered meet a U3/M3 or better 
rating for RF interference reduction,91 as well as the requirements for deployment of handsets that meet a 
T3 rating for inductive coupling capability.  In this context, the plan also proposes new product refresh 
and multiple tier requirements in order to ensure people with hearing loss have access to new, advanced 
devices.
1. Deployment Benchmarks and Deadlines
37. In this section, we seek comment on tentative conclusions to adopt new hearing aid-
compatible handset deployment benchmarks for manufacturers and service providers between 2008 and 
2011, consistent with those recommended in the Staff Report and proposed as part of the Joint Consensus 
  
90 See, e.g., Joint Consensus Plan at 5, 15-16.
91 See 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
15
Plan.  These include proposals (1) to modify requirements currently in effect for February 18, 2008, and 
establish future requirements to provide handsets that incorporate reduced RF interference in recognition 
of technology and market obstacles currently faced by manufacturers and service providers, and (2) to 
provide more options to consumers with severe hearing loss by imposing additional requirements on both 
service providers and manufacturers to make handsets available that are compatible with hearing aids 
operating in the telecoil mode.  In addition to seeking comment on the recommendations and proposals in 
the Joint Consensus Plan, we ask commenters to address specifically questions raised in the Staff Report, 
including those concerning appropriate benchmarks and deadlines to apply to service providers other than 
Tier I carriers, and those concerning whether staggering of deadlines between manufacturers and service 
providers is appropriate.  
38. M3- and T3-Rated Benchmarks/Deadlines.  Section 20.19(c) and (d) of the Commissions 
rules contains the current deadlines for deployment of public mobile radio service handset models that 
meet both the M3 (or higher) and T3 (or higher) ratings for compatibility with hearing aids. 
39. The following table summarizes the deadlines applicable to both manufacturers and service 
providers to deploy handsets that meet an M3 (or higher) rating for reduced radio frequency interference 
to enable acoustic coupling between the handset and hearing aids:92
Manufacturer:
 By September 16, 2005  provide at least two hearing aid-compatible models for each air 
interface offered.
 By February 18, 2008  ensure 50% of models offered are hearing aid-compatible for 
each air interface offered.
Service Provider:
 By September 16, 2005 
o Tier I Carriers:  provide at least four digital hearing aid-compatible models per air 
interface or 25% of digital wireless models offered nationwide for each air interface 
offered.
o Other Service Providers:  provide at least two hearing aid-compatible models for 
each air interface offered.
 By September 16, 2006 
o Tier I Carriers:  provide at least five hearing aid-compatible digital models per air 
interface or 25% of digital wireless models offered nationwide for each air interface 
offered.
 By February 18, 2008 
o All Service Providers:  ensure 50% of models offered are hearing aid-compatible for 
each air interface offered (based on digital wireless models offered nationwide).
40. The following table summarizes the rules deployment deadlines by which both 
manufacturers and service providers must offer digital wireless T3-rated (or higher) handset models that 
enable inductive coupling between the handset and hearing aids:93
  
92 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c).   
93 Id.  20.19(d).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
16
Manufacturer:
 By September 18, 2006  provide at least two hearing aid-compatible models for each air 
interface offered.
Service Provider:
 By September 18, 2006  provide at least two hearing aid-compatible models for each air 
interface offered.
41. We seek comment on modifying these provisions consistent with the proposals in the Joint 
Consensus Plan, both by adopting reduced and alternative benchmarks for deploying handsets compatible 
with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling (also known as microphone) mode and by increasing 
future benchmarks for compatibility with hearing aids operating in inductive coupling (also known as 
telecoil) mode.  
42. With respect to acoustic coupling compatibility, in recognition of marketplace and technical 
realities we seek comment on a tentative conclusion to adopt a lower threshold for equipment 
manufacturers to deploy M3-rated (or higher) handsets.  In place of the current requirement that 50 
percent of handset models per air interface meet hearing aid compatibility standards by February 18, 
2008, we propose that manufacturers be obligated, for each air interface for which they offer handsets, to 
meet the requirement, as proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, of 33% of manufacturers non-de 
minimis portfolio models offered to service providers in the United States.94 Thus, for example, if a 
manufacturer produces a total of 12 models capable of operating over the GSM air interface (regardless of 
whether these are single-mode or multi-mode models), at least four of those models would have to meet 
an M3 or higher rating.95  
43. We note that technological issues make it difficult to produce a wide variety of Global 
System for Mobile Communications (GSM) handsets that both meet the M3 standard for reduced RF 
interference for acoustic coupling and include certain popular features, and we seek to promulgate rules 
that are as technology-impartial as possible.96 We tentatively conclude that, in context with the other 
proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan, these reduced thresholds strike an appropriate balance between 
maintaining technological neutrality and ensuring availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to 
affected consumers.  Do differences, in terms of the nature of the signals emitted and burdens of the 
formulae used to calculate compliance ratings under the ANSI technical standard, support our tentative 
conclusion and justify this lower benchmark?  Under the rule change proposed here, would either the 
GSM or Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) air interface have an advantage over the other in terms 
of rule compliance?  Would any impacts to hard of hearing consumers due to the production of fewer 
numbers of compatible handset models be offset by the requirement that manufacturers regularly include 
new compatible models in their product lines, as discussed below?
44. For Tier I carriers, we seek comment on a tentative conclusion to adopt an alternative 
schedule to the 50 percent M3-rated (or higher) February 18, 2008 deployment deadline.  These carriers 
  
94 Joint Consensus Plan at 8.
95 See Id.  A multi-mode handset could not be counted as compatible over any air interface unless it is compatible in 
all air interfaces over which it operates.  See infra  84.
96 ATIS has provided the Commission a detailed report describing a variety of technological constraints impacting 
the wireless industrys further progress towards compatibility with hearing aids, particularly with respect to GSM.  
See Staff Report at  32.  See also Joint Consensus Plan at 8 (This high percentage is currently not possible in a 
technology-neutral manner because commercially popular handset form factors in certain air interfaces have extreme 
difficulty achieving [hearing aid compatibility] compliance.).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
17
would have the choice of complying with either the current rule or a new schedule based on total numbers 
of compliant handset models.97 This schedule would create obligations for service providers to provide 
an increasing number of handset models per air interface over which they offer service by future dates as 
follows:
February 18, 2008:  eight M3-rated (or higher) handset models.  
February 18, 2009:  nine M3-rated (or higher) handset models.
February 18, 2010:  ten M3-rated (or higher) handset models.98
Such a schedule could provide needed flexibility for Tier I carriers to deploy new and additional models 
over time, particularly in the context of reduced production benchmarks for manufacturers.  We also note 
that, while this proposal may result in fewer numbers of compatible handset models being offered by 
certain service providers to hard of hearing consumers, these consumers would, under another proposal 
discussed below, be assured a large number of  compliant handsets at multiple levels of functionality, or 
tiers.99 We seek comment on our tentative conclusion to modify the rule as proposed. 
45. Along with these proposals to modify the deployment requirements regarding reduced RF 
interference for acoustic coupling compatibility, we also seek comment on a tentative conclusion to 
increase the benchmarks for manufacturers and Tier I carriers deployment of handsets meeting a T3 (or 
higher) rating for inductive coupling capability.  Because customers options for handsets that enable 
inductive coupling with telecoils have been more limited than for acoustic coupling compatibility,100
additional requirements of this nature could benefit some of the most disadvantaged wireless users in the 
deaf and hard of hearing community, who are more likely to rely on telecoil-equipped hearing aids.101  
46. As discussed above, under current rules manufacturers are not required to provide additional 
T3-rated handsets once they have met the September 18, 2006 deadline for offering two compliant 
handset models per air interface.  Under our proposed rule changes, we would now require manufacturers 
to meet the greater of two measures for each air interface for which they offer handsets in 2009 through 
2011, as follows:
(1) a minimum of two T3-rated (or higher) models for each air interface for which the 
manufacturer offers four or more handset models to service providers; or
(2) at least 20% / 25% / 33% of models that the manufacturer offers over each air interface 
rated T3 (or higher) by February 18, 2009 / 2010 / 2011 respectively.
As proposed, these percentage calculations would be rounded down to the nearest whole number in 
determining the minimum number of handsets to be produced.  In addition, we note that each non-de 
minimis manufacturer would still be required to produce at least two or more T3-rated (or higher) 
  
97 See Joint Consensus Plan at 6-7.
98 The Joint Consensus Plan also states that each Tier I carrier choosing the alternative schedule shall [e]nsure that 
at least ten (10) of its handset models for each air interface comply with  20.19(b)(1) by February 18, 2011.  Id. at 
C-3.  Consistent with the apparent intent of the Joint Consensus Plan, we intend that the February 2010 deployment 
obligation would remain in effect until such time as it may be changed by future Commission rulemaking action.
99 See infra  56-57.
100 See Staff Report at  21.
101 The number of individuals using telecoil-equipped hearing aids is increasing and includes some with the most 
profound hearing loss.  See, e.g., Staff Report at  35 n.91.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
18
handsets per air interface for which it offers handsets.102
47. Similarly, service providers are currently not required to deploy additional T3-rated (or 
higher) handset models once they have met the September 18, 2006 deadline for offering two compliant 
handset models per air interface.  Under our proposed rule changes, we would now require Tier I carriers 
to meet the lesser of the following requirements for each air interface over which they offer service:
(1) February 18, 2008:  33% of digital wireless handset models are T3-rated (or higher); or
(2) a schedule as follows:
February 18, 2008:  three T3-rated (or higher) handsets.
February 18, 2009:  five T3-rated (or higher) handsets.
February 18, 2010:  seven T3-rated (or higher) handsets.
February 18, 2011:  ten T3-rated (or higher) handsets.
48. We tentatively conclude that these increased requirements for deployment of T3-rated (or 
higher) handsets are necessary and appropriate for both manufacturers and Tier I carriers.  These 
additional benchmarks would provide valuable benefits to affected consumers with profound hearing loss.  
Because customers options for handsets that enable inductive coupling with telecoils have been more 
limited than for those that reduce RF interference with acoustic coupling operation,103 and advocacy 
groups representing people with hearing loss have indicated that increased numbers of inductive 
coupling-capable handsets would assist a greater number of people with hearing loss, especially those 
with profound hearing loss,104 we tentatively conclude that manufacturers should be striving to produce, 
and service providers should be striving to deploy, more handset models of this type.  We understand the 
Joint Consensus Plan to reflect the consensus of the submitting parties that the targets set forth therein are 
technologically and economically feasible.  Moreover, we note that the alternative benchmarks for Tier I 
carriers give those who offer a large number of handset models over a given air interface the flexibility to 
satisfy their obligations by offering a substantial number of compatible handset models.  We seek 
comment on our tentative conclusion.
49. We also seek comment on any additional deadlines or deployment milestones that may be 
appropriate to adopt at this time.  Although we seek comment below on conducting another rulemaking in 
2010, as recommended in the Staff Report,105 we will also consider any appropriate deployment 
benchmarks that commenters might support.  For example, should we consider adopting any future M4 or 
T4 handset compliance requirements?  What technological and market constraints should be considered 
when evaluating any additional future hearing aid compatibility deployments?
50. Service Providers Other than Tier I Carriers.  As explained in the Staff Report, the Joint 
Consensus Plan is silent with respect to service providers that are not Tier I carriers.106 Accordingly, we 
seek comment generally on the appropriate deployment regime for these wireless service providers.  As a 
general matter, in order to make the benefits of compatible handsets available to all consumers who need 
them, all service providers should be expected to meet the same benchmarks unless they cannot 
  
102 See Joint Consensus Plan at 9 n.14.
103 See Staff Report at  21.
104 See id. at  35 n.91.
105 See Staff Report at  101; see also Joint Consensus Plan at 12.
106 The Joint Consensus Plan only contains deployment deadline rule changes for Tier I carriers.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
19
reasonably do so.  At the same time, we note that in the past numerous Tier II and Tier III carriers have 
requested, and many have been granted, extension of compatible handset deployment deadlines because 
they were unable timely to obtain compliant handsets in sufficient quantities from manufacturers.107 We 
therefore ask commenters to address whether there is anything inherent in the characteristics of Tier II 
and Tier III carriers, resellers, and mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), or other categories of 
smaller service providers, that would prevent them from meeting either the RF interference reduction or 
inductive coupling-capable handset numbers and percentages set out above for Tier I carriers.  
Commenters should discuss with specificity any alternative requirements or schedules that they propose 
for these types of service providers, and the reasons for those alternatives.
51. Staggered Deadlines for Deployment.  We also specifically seek comment on whether, with 
respect to offering compliant handsets, we should require different, staggered deployment deadlines for 
manufacturers and service providers.  Should manufacturers be required to offer compliant handsets at 
some time prior to all service providers, or to some subset of smaller providers?  We note that many Tier 
II and Tier III carriers have requested waivers of hearing aid compatibility deadlines, complaining among 
other things that manufacturers have not made compliant handsets available sufficiently in advance of the 
deadline so that these service providers could, in turn, make them available to consumers.108 Instituting a 
short interval between the manufacturers and some or all service providers deadlines might be 
appropriate to address the circumstances that have engendered these waiver requests.  Because of market 
realities, Tier II and Tier III carriers may have more difficulty than Tier I carriers in obtaining handsets.  
We note that the Joint Consensus Plan does not request any staggered deadlines for Tier I carriers.  We 
ask commenters to address specifically whether staggering of deadlines is appropriate in the context of 
our proposed future hearing aid compatibility requirements, and if so, for how long and for what subset of 
service providers.
2. New Requirements for Handset Deployment
52. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission urged service providers and 
manufacturers to make hearing aid-compatible phones available in lower-priced models as well as in 
models that include higher-end features:  
[I]n meeting the two- and three-year requirements [in 2005 and 2006], we 
encourage digital wireless phone manufacturers and service providers to 
provide at least one compliant phone that is a lower-priced model and one 
model that has higher-end features.  For purposes of meeting the 50 percent 
level [in 2008], manufacturers and carriers should continue to offer one 
lower-priced model and one model with higher-end features, and the features 
and prices of any additional compliant phones are at the discretion of the 
manufacturer or carrier.  These steps should help to ensure that consumers 
have a variety of technology and feature choices.  We also expect that these 
digital wireless phones will be offered in conjunction with attractive service 
plans and be as equivalent to other non-hearing aid-compatible phones as 
possible.  These measures will ensure that individuals with hearing 
disabilities will enjoy many of the same choices in wireless 
telecommunications options that are available to individuals without hearing 
  
107 See Section 68.4 (a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Petitions for 
Waiver of Section 20.19 of the Commissions Rules, WT Docket No. 01-309, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 
FCC Rcd 7171 (2007) (resolving 19 requests for waiver of the September 18, 2005 acoustic coupling compatibility 
deployment deadline).
108 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
20
disabilities.109  
53. We now propose, in accord with the Staff Report and the Joint Consensus Plan,110 additional 
specific measures to ensure that such a range of compatible handset models will be available so that 
consumers will have access to hearing aid-compatible handsets with the newest features, as well as more 
economical models.  We expect that these measures will increase the selection of popular and innovative 
handsets available to consumers with hearing loss.  Moreover, as standards are promulgated and 
equipment is developed for new frequency bands, we anticipate that these rules will result in hearing aid-
compatible phones being made available across the multiple frequency bands being used for a particular 
air interface.
54. We tentatively conclude that our rules should require equipment manufacturers to meet a 
product refresh requirement, as recommended in the Staff Report and described in the Joint Consensus 
Plan.111 This proposal would mandate that manufacturers meet RF interference reduction thresholds for 
acoustic coupling compatibility in some of their new models each year, enough so that, for manufacturers 
offering four or more handsets using a given air interface, half of the minimum required number of M3-
rated or higher handset models would be new models introduced during the calendar year.112 To make 
this calculation, the number of new compliant models to be produced would be 50 percent of the total 
required number of compliant models, rounded up to the nearest whole number.113 For manufacturers that 
produce three total M3-rated models per air interface, at least one new M3-rated (or higher) model shall 
be introduced every other calendar year.114 If a manufacturer is not introducing a new model in a calendar 
year, then under the proposed rule it would not be required to refresh its list of compliant handsets.115
55. Notwithstanding our tentative conclusion, we seek comment on whether this requirement 
should be modified in any way.  For example, are there any modifications that would better promote hard 
of hearing individuals access to new handset models without causing undue costs to other parties?  
Would the proposed product refresh requirement sufficiently ensure that, over time, compatible phones 
become available across all frequency bands as standards are promulgated and equipment is rolled out?  
We also solicit comment on whether there are any possible less burdensome or intrusive approaches or 
incentives that would enable the deaf and hard of hearing community to select fresh models on a regular 
basis.  For any proposal, we ask commenters to address the disadvantages of deviating from the standard 
proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan.  Finally, we seek comment on any implementation issues, such 
as reporting requirements that may be necessary with regard to these obligations,116 and any enforcement 
issues.  
  
109 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16781  70.
110 See Joint Consensus Plan at 9-10, 12.  As HLAA noted in its comments, the Apple iPhone has been rolled out, in 
part, on AT&Ts EDGE network but is not yet hearing aid-compatible, and Apple has not been involved in any 
discussions regarding hearing aid compatibility.  See Staff Report at  82.  We expect these proposals will increase 
the selection of popular and innovative handsets such as the iPhone available to consumers with hearing loss.  We 
note that, to our knowledge, Apple currently manufactures fewer than three handset models, and as such, it is not 
required under Section 20.19(e) of our hearing aid compatibility rules to offer hearing aid-compatible phones.
111 See Staff Report at  40; Joint Consensus Plan at 9-10.
112 See id. at Attachment C.
113 Id.
114 Id.
115 See id.; Joint Consensus Plan at 10.
116 See infra  65-71.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
21
56. In addition to a product refresh rule for manufacturers, we tentatively conclude that our 
hearing aid compatibility rules should require Tier I carriers to offer to consumers hearing aid-compatible 
handsets with different levels of functionality.  As described in the Staff Report, a proposed requirement 
set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan would obligate Tier I carriers to offer handset models from multiple 
tiers, and include a concomitant requirement that these providers reports include information on the 
carriers implementation of tiering.117 The Joint Consensus Plan further explains:  To provide the 
necessary flexibility and to address the difference among product lines offered by different carriers and 
manufacturers, the demarcation of tiers should be left to the industry.118  In the context of the language in 
the Joint Consensus Plan stating carriers will self-define their tiers, we interpret the term tiers to refer to 
levels of functionality.119 We further intend functionality to include the extent to which a handset model 
has the capability to operate over multiple frequency bands for which hearing aid compatibility standards 
have been established.
57. We seek comment on a tentative conclusion to require Tier I carriers to provide access to 
handsets with different levels of functionality.  If commenters support this tentative conclusion, we ask 
them to specifically address how such an obligation might be effectively implemented and enforced in our 
rules.  For instance, is there a need to define the obligation more precisely so that hard of hearing 
consumers have greater assurances that their carrier is providing access to feature-rich, as well as more 
economical, handsets, and so that service providers can better understand what the rule requires of them?  
Should we require service providers, as part of their reports and/or in store displays, to explain their 
tiering methodology so that it is clear to the Commission and public how these groupings and 
categories of compliant handsets break down by function and frequency band? Should service providers 
other than Tier I carriers be required to meet such an obligation?  We welcome any comments on whether 
such modifications would provide improved benefits to consumers without unreasonably constraining 
service providers flexibility, or whether we should adopt the model rule as is given the development of 
and consensus on such an obligation in the Joint Consensus Plan.  Finally, commenters should also 
consider how any such tiering requirement(s) should be modified to the extent we modify any of the 
proposed new deployment deadlines that we tentatively conclude to adopt above.
B. 2007 ANSI C63.19 Technical Standard
58. We seek comment on changing the current hearing aid compatibility technical standard 
codified in Section 20.19(b) of the Commissions rules.120 In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 
the Commission adopted the performance levels in the 2001 version of the ANSI C63.19 technical 
standard as the basis for ensuring hearing aid compatibility of digital wireless handsets.121 In finding that 
the technical standard in Section 20.19(b) met the established requirement set forth in the Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Act,122 the Commission analyzed and relied on numerous submissions supporting ANSI 
C63.19 as an established technical standard.123 The Commission determined that the standard presents a 
  
117 Joint Consensus Plan at 12.
118 Id.
119 Moreover, to avoid confusion with the tiers defining carrier size, we believe a different term such as levels of 
functionality may be preferable.
120 47 C.F.R.  20.19(b).
121 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779  63.    
122 47 U.S.C.  610(b)(1)(B) (requiring all telephones manufactured in the U.S. to meet established technical 
standards for hearing aid compatibility).
123 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16770-71  43.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
22
workable approach to measuring levels of interference that digital wireless handsets could cause to 
hearing aids, as well as for measuring the interference immunity of hearing aids.124 The Commission 
further ruled that codification of ANSI C63.19 served the public interest because the manufacture of 
digital wireless handsets comporting with this standard would ensure that a greater number of hearing 
aid and cochlear implant users will be able to find digital wireless phones that will work for them.125
59. To ensure that the standard codified in the rules would remain viable, the Commission 
delegated to the Chief of WTB, in coordination with the Chief of the Office of Engineering and 
Technology (OET), the authority to approve future versions of the standard that do not raise major 
compliance issues.  Where major changes to the standard are made that could affect compliance, the 
Commission stated that it would initiate an appropriate rulemaking proceeding to consider adoption of 
updated versions.126 The Commission also encouraged ANSI to work with the relevant stakeholders to 
review the standard periodically to determine whether improvements to the standard are warranted.127 As 
a result, acting on delegated authority in 2005, OET clarified that applicants for certification could rely on 
either the 2001 or a draft 2005 update of the ANSI C63.19 standard.128 In addition, in 2006, WTB and 
OET released a public notice on delegated authority stating that applications for certification of 
equipment could be tested and rated under a 2006 revised standard (ANSI C63.19-2006) for wireless 
phone hearing aid compatibility.129 WTB and OET also explained that applicants for certification may 
rely on only one of the three versions (2001, 2005, or 2006) of the ANSI C63.19 standard.130
  
124 See id. at 16776  55.
125 Id. at 16777  57.  ANSI elected to develop the standard as one that measures performance, rather than one that 
would establish a firm build-to requirement.  See id. at 16779  63.  To use a digital wireless phone with a hearing 
aid or cochlear implant in acoustic coupling mode, RF interference and other electromagnetic interference (EMI) 
from the wireless phone must be controlled.  Based on recommended audio signal-to-interference ratios and other 
assumptions about wireless phones' performance, ANSI C63.19 specifies ratings for digital wireless phones, M1 
through M4 (originally U1 through U4), based on their RF emission levels, with M1 being the highest emissions and 
M4 the lowest emissions.  The standard also provides a methodology for rating hearing aids from M1 to M4 based 
on their immunity to interference, with M1 being the least immune and M4 the most immune.  To determine 
whether a particular digital wireless phone will not interfere with a particular hearing aid, the immunity rating of the 
hearing aid is added to the emissions rating of the wireless phone.  A sum of 4 would indicate that the wireless 
phone is usable; a sum of 5 would indicate that the wireless phone would provide normal use; and a sum of 6 or 
greater would indicate that the wireless phone would provide excellent performance with that hearing aid.
126 See id. at 16779  63.
127 See id.  
128 ANSI had released a draft version of the hearing aid compatibility standard, ANSI C63.19-2005.  See Public 
Notice, OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard Measurement 
Procedures and Rating Nomenclature, 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005)  
129 See generally 2006 ANSI Standard Public Notice.  In 2006, ANSI had adopted a revised version 3.12 of standard 
C63.19.  This revision, among other things, redesignated the U3 rating as M3, redesignated the U3T rating as T3, 
revised the testing standard for meeting an M3 rating for phones operating below 960 MHz, and made some changes 
in GSM testing standards in other frequency bands.  See American National Standard for Methods of Measurement 
of Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices and Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19-2006, at 1, 52-53, 65-
66; see also supra note 125.
130 2006 ANSI Standard Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd at 6384-85.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
23
60. We seek comment on a tentative conclusion to change this current practice permitting use of 
multiple versions of ANSI C63.19 and, instead, codify a single 2007 version of the testing standard.131  
ANSI C63.19-2007, an updated version of the technical standard for determining hearing aid 
compatibility, has been recently approved by the Accredited Standards Committee on Electromagnetic 
Compatibility, C63 and adopted by ANSI.132  The differences between the previous version of the 
standard, ANSI C63.19-2006, and the ANSI C63.19-2007 version include:
 The distance between the cell phone under measurement and the measuring probe to be used 
when establishing the M rating has been increased from 1.0 cm to 1.5 cm.
 The (signal+noise)-to-noise ratio to be used in determining the T rating has been increased.  
This will result in lower noise relative to the audible signal and improved performance of the 
wireless device. 
 The T rating for T-Coil capable wireless devices has been separated from the M rating.  The 
new standard permits a T rating that is greater than the M rating for the same wireless device.  
 The axial T-coil coupling field intensity value was changed from ? -13 dB (A/m) at 1 kHz to ? -
18 dB (A/m) at 1 kHz. The standard now has the same T-coil field intensity value for both the 
axial and radial test positions.133
Under our proposal, this new 2007 standard would replace the 2001, 2005 draft, and 2006 versions of the 
technical standard.  As stated above, ANSI filed a petition this year requesting that the Commission adopt 
this 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 technical standard as the permanent standard.134 ANSI states in its 
petition that further improvements have been made to the technical standard to reflect changes in 
technology, and efficiencies and improvements in testing procedures.135 Because the standard that has 
been adopted by ANSI is stricter in some respects than prior versions,136 and is the result of broad 
participation from diverse groups,137 we propose that the standard be codified in our rules in order to 
better promote the development of hearing aid-compatible handsets that hearing-impaired consumers can 
readily use.  Commenters should address whether they support such a rule change, and if not, identify an 
acceptable alternative to our tentative conclusion.138
61. We also seek comment on a tentative conclusion to phase in the 2007 standard.  Under this 
proposal, we would permit both the 2006 and 2007 versions of the standard to be used for new RF 
interference and inductive coupling hearing aid compatibility certifications through 2009.139 A newly-
  
131 We would retain the current practice of permitting the Chief of WTB, in coordination with the Chief of OET, on 
delegated authority, to approve use of future versions of the standard, including multiple alternative versions, to the 
extent that the changes do not raise major compliance issues.
132 See ANSI Petition at 1-2.  
133 See American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless 
Communications Devices and Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19-2007, at 21-22, 56-57 (ANSI C63.19-2007 Standard).
134 See supra  60.
135 ANSI Petition at 2.
136 Joint Consensus Plan at 13.
137 ANSI Petition at 2.
138 Some of the commenters in the proceeding on WTBs Staff Report supported the ANSI petition.  See Staff Report
at  9 n.34.
139 Joint Consensus Plan at 13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
24
certified handset would therefore have to meet, at minimum, an M3 or T3 rating as set forth in either the 
2006 or 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 standard to be considered compatible, while grants of 
equipment authorization previously issued under other versions of the standard would remain valid for 
hearing aid compatibility purposes.140 Then, beginning on January 1, 2010, we would only permit use of 
the 2007 version of the standard for obtaining new grants of equipment authorization, while continuing to 
recognize the validity of existing grants under previous versions of the standard.141  
62. We seek comment on whether this two step phase-in period appropriately balances the 
interests in bringing state-of-the-art compatible handsets to hard of hearing consumers and in avoiding 
unreasonable burdens on manufacturers and service providers.  Are there alternative implementations of 
the 2007 standard that would better serve these goals?  For example, would there be any advantage in 
retaining the 2001 and 2005 versions as permitted standards for new M3 and/or T3 handset certifications 
during the transition period?  Our understanding is that manufacturers generally no longer use these 
standards, but we seek comment on whether we should deviate from this proposal if there is any benefit in 
terms of flexibility without offsetting costs to affected consumers.  We also seek comment on whether a 
shorter passage of time for the transition would afford a greater benefit to the deaf and hard of hearing 
community without unreasonably burdening manufacturers and service providers, or whether the industry 
needs a longer transition period.  In addition, we seek comment on whether the grandfathering provisions 
for previously-certified handsets strike an appropriate balance, or whether at some point we should 
require handsets to be recertified under the 2007 standard in order to be considered compatible.  Unless 
commenting parties support a different process, we are prepared to grant the ANSI Petition and adopt the 
phase-in process as outlined in the Joint Consensus Plan.142 Commenters should focus on any details that 
may need to be resolved in order to make such a transition smooth and transparent to users of hearing aid-
compatible handsets. 
C. Reporting Obligations, Public Information, and Outreach
63. In this section, we seek comment on proposed requirements relating to manufacturers and 
service providers filing of hearing aid compatibility reports with the Commission, as well as other public 
information and outreach measures.  
64. As discussed below, since 2003 manufacturers and service providers have filed regular 
reports with the Commission detailing their hearing aid compatibility efforts. In order to address 
shortcomings that have been observed in the existing reports and to render future reports as transparent 
and useful as possible for consumers, industry, and Commission staff responsible for helping to ensure 
that the Commissions hearing aid compatibility requirements are fully implemented, we tentatively 
conclude to adopt new content requirements, as recommended in the Staff Report and proposed in the 
Joint Consensus Plan.  We also seek comment on additional ways to improve the reports.  In addition, we 
request comment on questions relating to the timing of future reports.  Finally, we seek comment on other 
potential measures to improve the availability of information to the public, both through the Commission 
and directly from manufacturers and service providers.
  
140 However, under the Joint Consensus Plan, a manufacturer that is required to meet a T3 rating for 20 percent of its 
models under proposed Section 20.19(d)(1)(i) would only be able to count toward this requirement one model 
manufactured after January 1, 2009, and certified under a pre-2007 standard.  See Appendix B.
141 Joint Consensus Plan at 13.
142 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
25
1. Reporting
65. Background.  In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission established a 
schedule requiring manufacturers and wireless service providers to report on compliance efforts every six 
months from 2004 through 2006,143 and then annually in 2007 and 2008.144 Thus, manufacturers and 
wireless service providers filed their most recent compliance reports on November 17, 2006.145 These 
reports include a variety of required information describing manufacturers and service providers efforts 
aimed at complying with Commission requirements for hearing aid compatibility.  Specifically, the 
Commission requires that these reports include the following content:
(1) digital wireless phones tested;
(2) laboratory used;
(3) test results for each phone tested;
(4) identification of compliant phone models and ratings according to ANSI C63.19;
(5) report on the status of product labeling;
(6) report on outreach efforts;
(7) information related to retail availability of compliant phones;
(8) information related to incorporating hearing aid compatibility features into newer models of 
digital wireless phones;
(9) any activities related to ANSI C63.19 or other standards work intended to promote 
compliance with the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order;
(10) total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone models offered as of the time of the 
report; and
(11) any ongoing efforts for interoperability testing with hearing aid devices.146
66. As the Commission has stated, these reports are intended to serve dual purposes:  (1) assisting 
the Commission in monitoring handset deployment progress, and (2) providing valuable information to 
the public concerning the technical testing and commercial availability of hearing aid-compatible 
handsets.147 The Commission also stated that the reports would assist its efforts to verify compliance 
with,148 and undertake an analysis of,149 the 50 percent handset deployment benchmarks in 2008 discussed 
  
143 Reports were due on May 17, 2004, November 17, 2004, May 17, 2005, November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006, and 
November 17, 2006. See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787  89; see also Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau Announces Hearing Aid Compatibility Reporting Dates for Wireless Carriers and 
Manufacturers, WT Docket No. 01-309, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4097 (2004).
144 These reports are due on November 19, 2007, and November 17, 2008.  Id. The Commission permitted digital 
wireless handset manufacturers and service providers to submit joint reports in order to minimize the reporting 
burden. See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787  89.
145 See Staff Report at  19.
146 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16787  89.  The Commission also asked digital wireless 
service providers to highlight in these reports any differences in handset offerings among regions of their service 
areas.  See id.
147 See id.
148 See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
26
above.150 Accordingly, we closely reviewed the information in the reports to monitor handset deployment 
progress, with the goal of proactively resolving any potential for delay.  Commission staff has also 
analyzed the data contained in the reports to comply with Congress requirement that the Commission 
periodically review and scrutinize its hearing aid compatibility regulations.151 Finally, these reports can 
be a very important source of information, both for consumers, particularly those with hearing disabilities, 
and for service providers seeking information regarding the hearing aid compatibility of manufacturers 
products.152
67. Discussion.  Given the importance of these objectives, we tentatively conclude not only to 
continue requiring service providers and manufacturers to report regularly on the availability of hearing 
aid-compatible products, but to enhance and improve the content of the reports that are filed. As reported 
in the Staff Report, there is evidence in the record that some of the information in the existing compliance 
reports may not be as complete or as helpful as possible for consumers, wireless service providers, or the 
Commission.153 Furthermore, WTB staff encountered difficulties when verifying the ratings for certain 
handset models identified in compliance reports, because many of the compliance reports referenced the 
handset manufacturer and model number but did not include the associated FCC ID.154 In order to 
address these shortcomings, the Joint Consensus Plan includes proposed requirements that will render the 
reports more helpful to consumers and others by providing them with better information concerning the 
commercial availability of compliant handsets.  Specifically, the Joint Consensus Plan recommends that 
reports include:155
Manufacturers:
(1) digital wireless phones tested;
(2) compliant phone models using the FCC ID number and ratings according to C63.19;
(3) status of product labeling;
(4) outreach efforts;
(5) total numbers of compliant phone models offered as of the time of the report; and
(6) information pertaining to product refresh.
Service providers:
(1) compliant phone models using the FCC ID number and ratings according to C63.19;
(2) status of product labeling;
(3) outreach efforts;
(4) information related to the retail availability of compliant phones;
(5) total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone models offered as of the time of the 
(Continued from previous page)    
149 See id. at 16783  74.
150 See supra  39.
151 See 47 U.S.C.  610(f).
152 See Staff Report at  52-53.
153 See, e.g., id. at  49 (noting problems associating the manufacturer model number with the FCC ID).
154 Id.
155 Joint Consensus Plan at 11 nn.17-18.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
27
report; and
(6) the tiers into which the compliant phones fall.
68. We propose to adopt these reporting criteria and ask commenters to address whether they 
capture the appropriate information and level of detail.  In particular, to clarify the information collection 
recommended in the Joint Consensus Plan, we propose to require both manufacturers and service 
providers to provide the model number and FCC ID directly associated with each model that they are 
reporting as compatible, together with the M and T rating that each such model has been certified as 
achieving under the ANSI C63.19 standard.  We would accept the manufacturers determination of 
whether a device is a distinct model consistent with the manufacturers marketing practices, so long as 
models that have no distinguishing variations of form, features, or user capabilities, or that only 
differentiate units sold to a particular carrier, are not separately counted as distinct models to customers.  
We further propose to require that reports include the air interface(s) and frequency band(s) over which
each compatible model operates.  We seek comment on these proposed additional requirements.  In 
addition, should we vary the information sought depending on the type of service provider (e.g., Tier I 
carrier vs. other service provider)?
69. We also seek comment on additional ways to improve the quality and usefulness of the 
reports, including whether we should require additional information beyond that proposed in the Joint 
Consensus Plan.  Would a standardized form, template, or format facilitate accurate and complete 
reporting?  Unless commenters support another process, we propose to authorize Commission staff to 
develop a standardized reporting format for collecting information.  Moreover, if such a format could be 
created electronically, would this enable the Commission more effectively to monitor the overall state of 
industry compliance as compared to other alternatives?  Would it be beneficial to integrate such a new 
format with the Commissions electronic database of equipment authorizations such that they cross-
reference and update one another? 
70. In addition, we seek comment regarding the schedule under which we should require future 
reports.  Under the proposal contained in the Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission would adopt a 
staggered schedule whereby manufacturers would be required to provide an annual status report to the 
Commission beginning November 30, 2007, Tier I carriers would be required to provide an annual status 
report to the Commission six months later beginning May 30, 2008, and Tier II and III carriers would be 
required to provide an annual status report beginning May 30, 2009.156 These reporting requirements 
would continue annually thereafter through the November report in 2012.157 We seek comment on a 
tentative conclusion to adopt substantially this schedule, but with certain refinements.  First, given the 
timing of this rulemaking proceeding, we expect that manufacturers and service providers will be required 
to comply with current rules for November 2007 reporting.158 To the extent we maintain the current 
November 17, 2007 reporting deadline during the instant rulemaking, commenters should consider how 
the remaining schedule may need to be modified.  For example, should we begin the staggered reporting 
process with manufacturers reporting again in May 2008 and Tier I carriers reporting in November 
2008?159 Commenters should also evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of requiring reports more 
often (e.g., every three or six months) and relate the burdens imposed versus the corresponding benefits.
  
156 Id. at 11.
157 Id. 
158 See supra note 144.
159 This would maintain a 12 month period between service provider reports, but would require manufacturers to file 
one set of reports 6 months apart.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
28
71. In addition, we question the Joint Consensus Plan proposal to adopt a delayed reporting 
requirement for Tier II and III carriers whereby their next reports would not be required until a year after 
the Tier I carriers reports.  In light of the recommendations in the Staff Report and our objectives 
described above, especially for consumers who receive service from such providers, we seek comment on 
whether it serves the public interest to delay their next reports for a period of 18 months to two years from 
their reports that will be submitted in November 2007, or whether they should instead be held to the same 
schedule as Tier I carriers in order to provide a steady source of information to consumers and to the 
Commission.  Moreover, given that Tier II and III carriers have already been filing reports regularly, we 
seek comment on the extent of the burdens that would be avoided by postponing their first reports as 
proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan, balanced against the extent of information that would be lost by 
introducing a gap of 18 months or more in their reporting.  Commenters should also address whether the 
reporting deadlines for Tier II and III carriers should depend on our adoption of staggered deployment 
deadlines.160 Finally, if we adopt different reporting deadlines for Tier I versus Tier II and III carriers, we 
seek comment on the rules that should apply to resellers and to MVNOs.
2. Public Information and Outreach
72. In addition to the content and frequency of manufacturer and service provider reports, we 
seek comment on other ways to increase the availability of hearing aid compatibility information to 
consumers, service providers, and other interested parties.  As explained in the Staff Report, the 
Commissions existing databases and websites are of limited value for these purposes.161  
73. For example, although OETs equipment authorization database has information about 
hearing aid compatibility ratings associated with manufacturers equipment, the database maintains such 
information based on FCC IDs, not handset model numbers,162 and it does not maintain a single clear, 
current record associated with each ID.163 Thus, it is difficult  particularly for an inexperienced user  to 
search for hearing aid-compatible models based either on the manufacturers name or on the models FCC 
ID.  Similarly, the Disability Rights Office (DRO) of the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau 
maintains a website that explains the disability access rules and provides contact information for 
manufacturers and service providers, but this website does not include information regarding the 
compatibility of particular handset models.164 As noted in the Staff Report, although a consumer wishing 
to file a complaint under Section 255 of the Communications Act165 can locate the designated agents 
name and contact information from the Commissions website, no similar information is available under 
the process governing complaints for violations of hearing aid compatibility requirements.166
  
160 See supra  51 (discussion of staggered deployment).
161 See Staff Report at  47.
162 We note that the Commissions Part 2 rules do not require manufacturers to submit model information.  See, e.g., 
47 C.F.R  2.924 (stating that marketing of electrically identical devices having different model/type numbers or 
trade names is permitted without further authorization).
163 For each FCC ID, the database record contains all the permissive changes permitted under Part 2 of the 
Commissions rules. See id.  2.1043(b).
164 See http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/ (last visited July 8, 2007).
165 See 47 U.S.C.  255 (mandating that telecommunications equipment and services be accessible to persons with 
disabilities, if such access is readily achievable).
166 See Staff Report at  48 n.135; Comments of the American Association of People with Disabilities in 2006 
Biennial Regulatory Review, CG Docket No. 06-152 (filed Sept. 16, 2006) (suggesting that process for filing 
hearing aid compatibility complaints be made more consumer-friendly by making it more similar to the process for 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
29
74. In recognition of these shortcomings, we seek comment on potential measures to improve the 
value of these databases and websites for parties seeking hearing aid compatibility information, including, 
for example, adding a  relevant search function to the equipment authorization database or adding links to 
manufacturers and service providers websites from the DROs web page.167 In addition to the ongoing 
efforts of Commission staff to continue to improve information available to consumers, service providers, 
and other interested parties, we seek comment as to any specific measures the Commission should require 
or take.  For example, should we require manufacturers to include in their equipment authorization filings 
the handset models associated with each FCC ID number, and to update this information when they 
introduce new models?  Should we adopt new Part 2 rules to require a filing for permissive changes that 
includes trade names and model numbers?168 We also request comment on whether to require
manufacturers and service providers subject to the Commissions hearing aid compatibility rules to follow 
the same procedures as those applicable to Section 255 complaints, and to have the Commission publish 
hearing aid compatibility designated agents contact information on the DRO website.169 We seek 
comment on the benefits and costs of any such requirements, and on any alternatives that may further our 
objective with less potential burden.  Are there other steps we can take to develop a single location or 
website where hearing aid users can find the ratings and model numbers of compliant handsets offered by 
manufacturers and service providers? 
75. We also seek comment on how the Commission can encourage digital wireless handset 
manufacturers and service providers to engage in additional outreach efforts to assist consumers with 
hearing disabilities as they shop for wireless phones.170 We note that HIA has recently announced that its 
member hearing aid manufacturers will voluntarily include in their user manuals information about 
compatibility with mobile phones.  In this regard, the Joint Consensus Plan urges manufacturers and 
service providers to voluntarily post hearing aid compatibility ratings not only for handsets that meet the 
Commissions compatibility benchmarks but for all devices, including those rated M1 or M2.171  
Although some service providers currently provide information on their company websites,172 the content 
varies and may not always be up to date.  In addition, although wireless handset manufacturers at the time 
of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order agreed to provide group information on wireless phones that 
provide hearing aid compatibility characteristics through a combined information source established by 
(Continued from previous page)    
Section 255 complaints).  Under the hearing aid compatibility complaint process, consumers are responsible for 
identifying the agent designated by manufacturers or service providers for service of complaints under 47 C.F.R.  
68.418(b).  We note that the Commission extended its Part 68, Subpart E rules to allow consumers to file informal 
complaints under those rules if they find that wireless service providers or manufacturers of wireless equipment are 
not complying with its hearing aid compatibility rules.  See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16789 
 95.
167 See Staff Report at  48.
168 See 47 C.F.R  2.924 & 2.1043.
169 See Staff Report at  48 n.135.
170 See id. at  96, citing letter from Carole M. Rogin, Executive Director, Hearing Industries Association to Linda S. 
Kahan, Deputy Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Food and Drug Administration, dated July 12, 2007 (filed in WT Docket No. 06-203).
171 See Joint Consensus Plan at 14.
172 See, e.g., http://www.wireless.att.com/about/disability-resources/disability-resources.jsp; 
http://aboutus.vzw.com/accessibility/index.html; 
http://www.nextel.com/en/about/community/hac_compliance.shtml; http://www.t-
mobile.com/Company/Community.aspx?tp=Abt_Tab_Safety&tsp=Abt_Sub_TTYPolicy. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
30
CTIA,173 this resource currently does not provide information about service providers other than the four 
Tier I carriers.174  
76. Thus, as recommended in the Staff Report,175 we seek comment on how best to promote the 
availability of useful hearing aid compatibility information on manufacturers and service providers 
websites, including whether we should not only encourage but require the posting of such information.  
We further seek comment as to what requirements or guidelines, if any, we should provide regarding the 
content of such postings.  For example, should the information to be provided be modeled on the 
reporting criteria, discussed above, or should it be more limited?  If manufacturers are required to meet a 
product refresh commitment,176 should manufacturers and service providers be held to an outreach 
obligation specifically to inform the public about these new models?
77. Consistent with the recommendations in the Staff Report,177 we also seek comment generally 
on any other ways that wireless manufacturers, service providers, and independent retailers can improve 
the effectiveness of their in-store testing, consumer education, and other consumer outreach efforts.  
These efforts would, ideally, include new ways of publicly identifying compliant phones for consumers 
and audiologists, as well as efforts that independent retailers could take to facilitate such identification.  In 
addition, in order to assist consumers as they shop for wireless phones, we also ask whether there are 
additional steps the Commission can take to facilitate the flow of information between consumers, 
manufacturers, and service providers to meet our hearing aid compatibility outreach objectives.
D. Other Components of Joint Consensus Plan, and Related Proposals
78. As recommended in the Staff Report, we seek comment on several additional proposals in the 
Joint Consensus Plan, as well as on matters related to those proposals.  Interested parties should discuss 
the advantages and disadvantages of these ideas and present any related hearing aid compatibility 
proposals or counter-proposals.
79. Other Spectrum Bands.  The Joint Consensus Plan contains a request that the Commission 
apply the Commissions hearing aid compatibility rules to all spectrum bands that are used for the 
provision of CMRS in the United States, subject to standards development.178 As discussed previously,179
we determined earlier this year that all digital CMRS providers, regardless of the particular band in which 
they were operating, as well as manufacturers of handsets capable of providing such services, should be 
subject to the hearing aid compatibility requirements set forth in Section 20.19 to the extent that a service 
satisfies the scope provision for hearing aid compatibility set forth in our Part 20 rules.180  We seek 
comment generally on whether any further action is necessary or appropriate in this regard, and in 
  
173 See www.accesswireless.org .
174 See http://www.accesswireless.org/accessibility/sites.cfm.
175 See Staff Report at  54.
176 See supra  54.
177 See Staff Report at  55.
178 Joint Consensus Plan at 4.
179 See 700 MHz ServiceReport and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8117-8122  142-50.
180 The Commission also explained that it cannot impose hearing aid compatibility requirements for a band or 
service until applicable technical standards have been established.  In recognition of the pressing need to develop 
applicable technical standards in certain frequency bands for which service rules have been or will soon be 
established, the Commission established a 24-month timetable for interested stakeholders to develop standards in 
these bands.  Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
31
particular on several specific questions that relate to the extension of hearing aid compatibility 
requirements to new frequency bands.  First, we seek comment on how our current hearing aid 
compatibility requirements apply to mobile satellite service (MSS) providers that offer CMRS and 
whether any revisions to the hearing aid compatibility rules are appropriate respecting such providers, in 
order to promote consistent treatment for all CMRS providers that offer functionally equivalent 
services.181 In this regard, we ask commenters to address whether it should make a difference if an MSS 
provider offers service purely through a satellite-based network or through a combined network that relies 
on both satellite and ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) facilities.182
80. Second, we agree with the recommendation in the Staff Report that standard-setting bodies 
should strive to develop hearing aid compatibility standards together with technical operating 
specifications for new frequency bands.183 We seek comment on any measures that we should take to 
promote this practice.
81. Third, as noted above, the Commission has held that if a handset manufacturer or service 
provider offers a multi-band handset in order to comply with the hearing aid compatibility requirements, 
the handset must be hearing aid-compatible in each frequency band over which it operates.184 We 
tentatively conclude to codify this requirement in Section 20.19 of the rules. We further tentatively 
conclude, consistent with this principle, that multi-band phones should not be counted as compatible in 
any band if they operate over frequency bands for which technical standards have not been established.  
We believe this limitation would conform with consumers expectation that a phone labeled "hearing aid 
compatible" is compatible in all its operations. Treating such handsets as not compatible would also 
create incentives for industry bodies to develop compatibility standards for new frequency bands more 
quickly.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  
82. Fourth, we note that the ANSI C63.19 standard includes target values for hearing aid 
compatibility validation procedures for operation over specific air interfaces at frequencies in the ranges 
of 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz.185 In the 700 MHz Service Report and Order, we stated that once 
technical standards are established for a new frequency band, the Commission would initiate a further 
proceeding to establish a specific timetable for deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets in that 
band.186 Accordingly, we tentatively conclude to revise Section 20.19(b) to include services operating 
over any frequencies within these two bands, to the extent they employ air interfaces for which hearing 
aid compatibility technical standards have been established and approved by the Commission.  We seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion, including whether any other revisions to Section 20.19 are 
necessary in connection with the inclusion of these services.
  
181 See Staff Report at  75; see also 47 C.F.R.  20.9(a)(10) (including MSS that involves the provision of 
commercial radio service directly to end users within the definition of CMRS).
182 See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L 
Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 1962 (2003) 
(permitting flexibility in the delivery of communications by MSS providers that operate in three sets of radio 
frequency bands: the 2 GHz MSS band (the 1990-2025 MHz uplink and the 2165-2200 MHz downlink), the L-band 
(general designation for frequencies from 1 to 2 GHz) and the Big LEO bands (referring to the 1.6/2.4 GHz bands).
183 See Staff Report at  76.
184 See supra  11and note 31.
185 ANSI C63.19-2007 Standard at 18, Table 4.2.
186 700 MHz Service Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8119  148.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
32
83. In addition, we now seek comment on whether we can, and should, establish a mechanism 
under which hearing aid compatibility regulations would become applicable to future frequency bands as 
soon as, or within a defined period after, technical standards are established for relevant air interfaces.  
Under our current rules, the Commission must modify Section 20.19 pursuant to rulemaking to add new 
services or new frequency bands.  Amending Section 20.19 so that a rule change is not necessary every 
time technical standards are established for new services, new air interfaces, or new frequency bands 
potentially would bring the benefits of compatible handsets more quickly to consumers and would 
provide greater certainty to all affected parties.  In addition, to the extent that manufacturers and service 
providers are already meeting their obligations to offer defined numbers or percentages of hearing aid-
compatible handsets over previously covered services, the automatic extension of our rules to additional 
frequency bands may not impose significant additional burdens, and may even assist manufacturers and 
service providers in achieving compliance by permitting them to count multi-band models as compliant. 
We ask commenters to address both the benefits and the drawbacks of an automatic effectiveness regime, 
as well as what the specific rules should entail.  Under existing rules, the Commission generally must 
approve revised versions of ANSI C63.19 for such revised standards to take effect for purposes of our 
hearing aid compatibility requirements.187  Should a standard be considered established for a new 
frequency band upon its promulgation by C63, or should there be a process for the Commission or its 
staff to review or approve the standard, and if so what should that process be?
84. Multi-Mode Handsets.  We tentatively conclude to adopt the proposal in the Joint Consensus 
Plan stating that multi-mode handsets do not satisfy Section 20.19 for any air interface unless they are 
compatible in all air interfaces over which they operate.188 This approach is consistent with the 
Commissions previous holding regarding multi-band handsets.189 We further tentatively conclude, 
consistent with our tentative conclusion regarding multi-band handsets, that multi-mode phones should 
not be counted as compatible in any mode if they operate over air interfaces for which technical standards 
have not been established.  As explained above, we believe this rule would conform to consumers 
expectations and would help promote the rapid development of compatibility standards for new air 
interfaces.  We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and on any other potential measures to 
promote the development of compatibility standards for new air interfaces together with technical 
operating specifications.
85. De Minimis Exception.  The Joint Consensus Plan proposes that the Commission retain the de 
minimis exception and clarify that it applies on a per-air interface basis.190 In the Second Report and 
Order above, we conclude that the record compiled in response to the Hearing Aid Compatibility 
Reconsideration Order and Further Notice does not support any narrowing of the de minimis
exception.191 We invite further comment on this question.  In addition, the Commission has already 
clarified that the de minimis exception applies on a per-air interface basis, rather than across a 
  
187 See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16779  63 (not discussing the inclusion of additional 
services, air interfaces, or frequency bands).  The Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in coordination with 
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, does have delegated authority to approve revised versions of ANSI 
C63.19 to the extent that the changes to the standard do not raise major compliance issues.  Id.
188 Joint Consensus Plan at 10.
189 See supra  11 and note 31.
190 Joint Consensus Plan at 10.
191 See supra  22-31.   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
33
manufacturers or carriers entire product line.192 We tentatively conclude that this clarification should be 
codified in our rules.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
86. 2010 Further Review.  The Joint Consensus Plan proposes that the Commission establish a 
further review of the hearing aid compatibility rules in 2010.193 We tentatively conclude to adopt this 
proposal, and we seek comment.  In particular, given the timing of the obligations we propose today, we 
seek comment on whether such a review would be more appropriate at a later date, such as in 2012.  Once 
the proposed deployment deadlines have passed and the Commission can assess the effectiveness of any 
action we take arising out of our proposals herein, we may decide to add new or additional obligations, or 
on the other hand, reduce our oversight role if the state of competition or technology supports such action.
87. Volume Controls.  Consistent with the Joint Consensus Plans recommendation, we urge all 
interested parties to specifically look into adding volume controls to wireless handsets.  As discussed in 
the Staff Report, some in the deaf and hard of hearing community state that one of the hearing aid users 
most important concerns regarding wireless devices is the lack of adequate volume control on handsets.194  
We seek comment on whether any volume control requirements should be incorporated into our rules, and 
if so what they should be.195
88. Similarly, the Technology Access Program of Gallaudet University has pointed out that the 
display screens on smart phones emit electromagnetic energy that may interfere with the operation of 
hearing aids.196 We invite comment on this issue, including whether any measures are appropriate to 
promote the deployment of phones that enable users to turn off their screens. 
E. Emerging Technologies
89. We seek comment on whether our hearing aid compatibility rules should be modified to 
address new technologies being used and offered by manufacturers and providers in their wireless 
handsets and networks.  Under current Commission rules, manufacturers and service providers are 
required to meet the Commissions hearing aid compatibility standards only to the extent that handsets are 
associated with digital CMRS networks that offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that 
is interconnected with the public switched network and utilize[] an in-network switching facility that 
enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.197 We 
seek comment on whether we should extend some or a portion of the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements under Section 20.19 to wireless handsets that may fall outside the definition of CMRS and 
the criteria in Section 20.19(a), such as handsets that operate on unlicensed WiFi198 networks that do not
  
192 See supra  29; Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order and Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 11244  
51. Thus, if a manufacturer or service provider offers two or fewer handset models capable of operating over a 
given air interface (including both single-mode and multi-mode models), it is not subject to benchmarks applicable 
to that air interface. 
193 Joint Consensus Plan at 12.
194 See Staff Report at  66.
195 We note that the Joint Consensus Plan does not propose adopting any rules in this regard.
196 Comments of Technology Access Program of Gallaudet University in WT Docket No. 06-203 at 7.
197 47 C.F.R.  20.19(a).
198 WiFi (Wireless Fidelity) is a wireless technology that is based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standards.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
34
employ an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish 
seamless hand-offs.199
90. The Staff Report provides several examples of service providers offering access to VoIP 
applications over WiFi and other wireless technologies.200 For example, the report describes how 
wireless handset manufacturers are increasingly using WiFi to expand consumer access to VoIP 
services,201 and it explains how some handsets being marketed today for voice telephony have dual-mode 
voice operability between unlicensed modes and the traditional licensed networks subject to Section 
20.19.202 The report also discusses handsets that combine voice operation over traditional licensed CMRS 
networks with WiFi data service.203 Consistent with our commitment under the Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Act of 1988, we agree with the recommendation in the Staff Report that the Commission 
should consider whether to change its rules to address these developments.  With services using emerging 
technologies becoming increasingly popular with consumers, we seek comment on how to apply our 
hearing aid compatibility rules consistently and in a technology-neutral manner, and how to ensure that an 
appropriate selection of operating handset models continues to meet the needs of the deaf and hard of 
hearing community.
91. First, we seek comment generally on the application of our hearing aid compatibility rules to 
VoIP applications provided over wireless technologies such as WiFi and other emerging technologies.  
Under the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act, telephones used with public mobile services and private radio 
services are exempt from the general requirement that all newly manufactured telephones meet hearing 
aid compatibility standards, unless that exemption is lifted by the Commission.204 In 2003, the 
Commission partially lifted this exemption for telephones used with broadband PCS, cellular, and SMR 
services that offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that is interconnected with the public 
switched network and utilizes an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse 
frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.205 In doing so, the Commission 
crafted a tailored rule that not only recognized the extent of technical standards that had been established, 
but encompassed those services that were then almost exclusively used for interconnected mobile voice 
access.  More recently, we expanded our rule to cover all digital CMRS that meet the criteria specified in 
the rule, subject to the existence of applicable standards, in recognition that similar services will soon be 
provided to the mass market outside of the previously identified bands.206  
92. We ask commenters to address how current and anticipated future use of VoIP applications 
over wireless networks, both interconnected and non-interconnected, would be treated under the 
interaction of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act and our rules.  To the extent such services are not within 
the current scope of Section 20.19(a), are they exempt from hearing aid compatibility obligations, or 
would they fall under the general rule requiring hearing aid compatibility for all newly manufactured 
  
199 47 C.F.R.  20.19(a).
200 We note that VoIP is an application and can be provided over various frequency bands using any air interface, 
including those used to provide non-VoIP services.
201 See Staff Report at  79.
202 Id.
203 Id.
204 47 U.S.C.  610(b)(2).
205 47 C.F.R.  20.19(a); see Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16764-65  26.  
206 See 700 MHz Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8117-8120  142-144.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
35
telephones?207 If the latter, how would this requirement apply in the absence of established technical 
standards,208 or if there are different standards between, for example, cordless phones and mobile wireless 
phones both supporting VoIP and used by consumers in similar situations?  Moreover, what constitutes a 
telephone in the context of new devices that more closely resemble mobile computers but have voice 
communications capabilities?  Should we broaden or otherwise modify the scope of Section 20.19 in 
order both to maintain technological neutrality and to insure that hard of hearing consumers continue to 
have access to a selection of wireless services and features comparable to the general population?  If so, 
how should any new language be crafted?  Commenters suggesting changes are asked to address not only 
the policy reasons for their proposed revisions, but also the Commissions legal authority to adopt them 
under the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act and the Communications Act.
93. In addition, we solicit comment as to whether any new hearing aid compatibility rules are 
appropriate to address handsets that combine covered mobile voice operation with data services provided 
over WiFi networks or other emerging technologies.  We note that such service combinations may be 
particularly attractive to deaf and hard of hearing consumers, but that our current rules do not necessarily 
require that any such handsets be hearing aid-compatible if the manufacturer and service provider satisfy 
their hearing aid compatibility benchmarks using other models.209 Elsewhere in this Notice, we 
tentatively conclude to adopt product refresh and tiering rules that are intended to ensure consumers 
who use hearing aids will have access to mobile handsets with a range of functionalities.210 We seek 
comment as to whether these proposed rules appropriately promote the availability of hearing aid-
compatible handsets that include data services provided over WiFi networks or other emerging 
technologies, or whether additional measures are needed.  In this regard, we note that the requirements of 
Section 20.19 apply to handsets used with either voice or data services that fall within its terms.211 We 
seek comment as to the implications of imposing hearing aid compatibility requirements based on the 
provision of wireless data services, and whether this provision should be changed.
94. Finally, we invite broad comment on what additional regulatory obligations may be 
appropriate to address the issues raised by emerging wireless technologies, taking into account the 
statutory goal to promote equal access to communications equipment and services for consumers with 
hearing loss as well as economic, technological, and legal constraints.212 Regulation may be appropriate 
  
207 See 47 U.S.C.  610(b)(1); 47 C.F.R.  68.4.
208 We note that we have authority to waive this requirement for new telephones, technologies, or services upon a 
showing that making such telephones hearing aid-compatible would be technologically infeasible or would increase 
costs to such an extent as to preclude successful marketing.  47 U.S.C.  610(b)(3).
209 See Staff Report at  82 n.228 (noting that Apples iPhone is not hearing aid-compatible, and that Apple is not 
known to be involved in any discussions regarding hearing aid compatibility).
210 See supra  54-57.
211 47 C.F.R.  20.19(a); but see Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16765  26 (stating that the rule 
would apply only to voice services).
212 We note that, in the Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Declaratory Ruling, the Commission reiterated 
its commitment to effectuate the accessibility policy embodied in section 255 of the Communications Act and stated 
that it would continue to monitor the development of wireless broadband Internet access service and its effects on 
the policy goals of section 255.  See In the Matter of Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the 
Internet Over Wireless Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 5901, 5921-22  58-59 
(2007).  We note also that the Commission has extended disability access and telecommunications relay service 
requirements to providers of interconnected VoIP services.  See IP-Enabled Services, Implementation of Sections 
255 and 251(a)(2); Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment, and Customer 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
36
when new technology causes people with hearing disabilities to lose access, but we are unsure what the 
extent of any access problem may be and what measures may best address any such problem, and we 
therefore invite commenters to address this question.  As emerging technologies progress, the deaf and 
hard of hearing community should be able to benefit to a similar degree as the mainstream population, as
has been our goal under Section 20.19.
F. Networks using Open Platforms for Devices and Applications
95. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, we required that licensees of the Upper 700 MHz 
Band C Block of spectrum provide open platforms for devices and applications to allow customers, 
device manufacturers, third-party application developers, and others to use the devices and applications of 
their choosing in C Block networks, subject to certain reasonable network management conditions that 
allow the licensee to protect the network from harm.213 We explained that handsets connected to the 
network but not actually offered by the provider do not alter the extent to which the provider has 
complied with . . . [our hearing aid compatibility] requirement[s].214 The open platform network 
mandate, however, may fundamentally alter the paradigm within which the hearing aid compatibility 
rules apply.  As currently constituted, Section 20.19 of our rules imposes hearing aid compatibility 
obligations only on manufacturers and providers of services within its scope, including resellers and 
MVNOs.215 With the growth of open platform networks, however, entities other than the traditional 
equipment manufacturers and service providers may become increasingly significant.  For example, 
Skype Communications S.a.r.l. operates as an application developer providing software applications that 
ride over a service providers network to enable VoIP communications.  While the existing requirements 
on manufacturers,216 together with the open platform requirements themselves, may be adequate to ensure 
sufficient hearing aid-compatible handset choice for consumers, we seek comment on whether any 
additional hearing aid compatibility requirements should be imposed in the context of open platform 
networks.217
96. We seek comment both on whether to impose additional hearing aid compatibility 
requirements on manufacturers in the context of open platform networks, and on whether to extend any 
requirements to entities that are not currently covered. For example, should we modify our rules to 
require that for open platform networks for which they offer handsets, manufacturers must make available 
a certain number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible models to consumers through channels other 
than the service provider? In addition, we seek comment on whether and how to extend our hearing aid 
compatibility requirements to the responsible manufacturing party in joint venture situations.  For 
example, if one partner produces phones on a build-to-suit basis for a second party that markets and prices 
(Continued from previous page)    
Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WC Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket No. 
03-123, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11275 (2007).
213 In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket 06-150, Second 
Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15365  206 (2007) (700 MHz Service Second Report and Order).  The 
Upper 700 MHz Band C Block is composed of 22 megahertz of spectrum at 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz.  Id. at 
15294  4.
214 Id.
215 47 C.F.R.  20.19(a).
216 Under our current rules, and under the revised rules proposed in this Notice, manufacturers are required to meet 
the Commissions hearing aid compatibility standards by producing a certain number or percentage of hearing aid-
compatible handset models for service providers.  These hearing aid compatibility requirements for manufacturers 
are codified in terms of what handsets they must offer to service providers.  See 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c)(1), (d)(1).
217 See 700 MHz Service Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15365  206.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
37
the handset devices to service providers, which party should be held responsible for compliance in such a 
production/distribution scheme?
97.  We also seek comment on whether and how to extend our hearing aid compatibility rules, 
including handset deployment, information, and outreach requirements, from service providers to other 
entities offering handsets to consumers within an open platform environment.  For example, as discussed 
above, the record compiled in response to the notice portion of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Order on 
Reconsideration and Further Notice did not support extending in-store testing requirements beyond retail 
outlets owned or operated by service providers.218 Considering the development of open platform 
networks, however, there may be a greater need for in-store testing by independent retailers or other third 
parties.  We therefore seek comment on whether these or other rules should be revised in the context of 
open platform networks.  We seek comment on the regulatory status under our current hearing aid 
compatibility rules of application developers and other potential new participants using open platform 
networks, and on whether any new hearing aid compatibility requirements should appropriately be
imposed on such entities.
V. STAY OF FEBRUARY 18, 2008 REQUIREMENTS
98. As discussed above, under existing rules manufacturers and wireless service providers are 
required to ensure that, by February 18, 2008, at least 50 percent of their handset models over each air 
interface meet a U3/M3 (or higher) rating for RF interference reduction, as codified in Section 20.19 of 
our rules.219 However, in the Notice we tentatively conclude to modify this particular hearing aid 
compatibility benchmark by including an alternative benchmark for February 18, 2008, as well as 
additional benchmarks for 2009-2011.220 In addition, we propose to impose new benchmarks for 
deploying handsets that meet standards for providing inductive coupling capability during 2008-2011.221
99. We intend to issue a Report and Order addressing the issues raised in this Notice in the near 
future, in advance of the upcoming February 18, 2008 benchmark.  In consideration of the need for 
certainty, and in order to provide appropriate notification to manufacturers and service providers as 
regards the hearing aid compatibility obligations, we determine that it is in the public interest to stay 
enforcement of that particular benchmark for 60 days, until April 18, 2008.
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
100. Ex Parte Rules.  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 Commissions 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.
101. Filing Procedures.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commissions rules, 47 
CFR  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments and reply comments should be filed in WT 
Docket No. 07-250.  Comments may be filed using:  (1) the Commissions Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Governments eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.  See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
  
218 See supra  27.
219 See 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c). 
220 See supra Section IV.A.1.
221 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
38
 Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:  
http://www.regulations.gov.  Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for 
submitting comments.  
 For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption.  In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable 
docket or rulemaking number.  Parties may also submit an electronic comment by 
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, 
and include the following words in the body of the message, get form.  A sample form 
and directions will be sent in response.
 Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).  All filings must be addressed to the Commissions Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
 The Commissions contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper 
filings for the Commissions Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, 
Washington, DC  20002.  The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All 
hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes 
must be disposed of before entering the building.
 Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
 U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
People with Disabilities:  To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
102. Regulatory Flexibility Act.  Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603, 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis is set forth at Appendix C.  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 Commissions 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.
103. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act.  This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
39
proposed new and modified information collection requirements.  The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments should address:  (a) 
whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commissions burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees."  We note, however, that Section 213 
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113, provides that rules governing 
frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal 
Register without regard to certain sections of the Paperwork Reduction Act.  We therefore do not invite 
comment on any information collections to the extent they concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz 
Band.  In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any PRA comments on the 
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 1-B441, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by 
sending an email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB desk officer, via the Internet to 
nfraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167. 
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES
104. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r), and 610, this Second Report and 
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS HEREBY ADOPTED.
105. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 
comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication of the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register and reply comments on or before 45 days after publication 
in the Federal Register.
106. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition of American National Standards Institute 
Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63 IS GRANTED to the extent set forth 
herein.
107. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of section 4(i) of the 
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and section 1.3 of the Commissions rules, 47 
C.F.R.  1.3, the requirements of sections 20.19(c)(1)(ii), 20.19(c)(2)(ii), and 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the 
Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R.  20.19(c)(1)(ii), 20.19(c)(2)(ii), 20.19(c)(3)(ii), ARE STAYED until 
April 18, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
40
108. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissions Consumer Information Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Second Report and Order and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
41
APPENDIX A
Parties Filing Comments To 2005 Further Notice 
Of Proposed Rulemaking
Comments
Cingular Wireless LLC
Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC) 
RadioShack Corporation
Research in Motion Limited
Reply Comments
CompUSA 
The Hearing Industries Association (HIA) 
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
42
APPENDIX B
Proposed Rule In Joint Consensus Plan
 20.19  Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.
(a)  Scope of section. This section is applicable to providers of Broadband Personal Communications 
Services (Part 24, Subpart E of this chapter), Cellular Radio Telephone Service (Part 22, Subpart H of this 
chapter), and Specialized Mobile Radio Services in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands (included in Part 
90, Subpart S of this chapter) if such providers offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service 
that is interconnected with the public switched network and utilizes an in-network switching facility that 
enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.  This 
section also applies to the manufacturers of the wireless phones used in delivery of these services.
(b)  Technical standard for hearing aid compatibility.  A wireless phone used for public mobile radio 
services is hearing-aid compatible for the purposes of this section if it meets:
1)  For radio frequency interference:  A minimum M3 rating as set forth in the standard document 
American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless 
Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,  ASC C63 ANSI C63.19-2006 (published June 
12, 2006) or, as hereinafter provided,  ASC C63 ANSI C63.19-2007 (published June 8, 2007) -
- available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute, provided that grants of 
equipment authorization issued under other versions of standard document ANSI C63.19 remain 
valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes; 
(2)  For inductive coupling:  A minimum T3 rating as set forth in the standard document 
American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless 
Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,  ASC C63  ANSI C63.19-2006 (published June 
12, 2006) or, as hereinafter provided,  ASC C63 ANSI C63.19-2007 (published June 8, 2007) -
- available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute, provided that grants of 
equipment authorization issued under other versions of standard document ANSI C63.19 remain 
valid for hearing-aid compatibility purposes;  
(3)  For both radio frequency interference and inductive coupling only ASC C63  ANSI 
C63.19-2007 shall be used after January 1, 2010, for obtaining a grant of equipment 
authorization; 
(4)  Manufacturers must certify compliance with the test requirements and indicate the 
appropriate rating or ratings for the wireless phone as set forth in  2.1033(d) of this chapter; and
(5)  All factual questions of whether a wireless phone meets the technical standard of this 
subsection shall be referred for resolution to the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.
(c)  Phase-in for public mobile service handsets concerning radio frequency interference.
(1)  Each manufacturer of handsets for use with public mobile services in the United States or 
imported for use in the United States must:
(i)  Ensure at least thirty-three (33) percent of its handset offerings to service providers 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
43
for each air interface offered comply with  20.19(b)(1) not later than February 18, 2008; 
and 
(ii)  Meet these requirements with respect to handsets that operate in United States bands 
set forth in  20.19(a).
Note:  For purposes of determining whether the number of models offered meets 
the thirty-three percent requirement, the number of models that results when the 
total number of models offered in the United States by a manufacturer is 
multiplied by thirty-three percent shall be rounded down to the nearest whole 
number, except that when a manufacturer produces four to six models, the 
calculation shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number in determining 
whether the thirty-three percent requirement is met.  
(iii)  Beginning in calendar year 2009, and for each year thereafter that it elects to 
produce a new model, offer a mix of new and existing models that comply with 
 20.19(b)(1) according to the following requirements: 
(A)  For manufacturers that produce four or more total models per air interface, 
at least one-half of the minimum required M3 or better models shall be new 
models introduced during the calendar year;
Note:  For purposes of calculating the number of new models to be 
produced under the refresh requirement of  20.19(c)(1)(iii)(A), the 
number determined by multiplying the total number of new HAC models 
offered in the United States by fifty percent shall be rounded up to the 
nearest whole number.  See the de minimus exception in  20.19(e).
(B)  For manufacturers that produce three total models per air interface, at least 
one new M3-or-better model shall be introduced every other calendar year; and, 
(C)  If a manufacturer introduces no new models in a calendar year, no refresh of 
M3-or-better models shall be required. 
(2)  Each Tier 1 carrier must ensure that at least fifty (50) percent of its handset models for each 
air interface comply with  20.19(b)(1) by February 18, 2008, calculated based on the total 
number of unique digital wireless phone models the carrier offers nationwide, or alternatively:
(i) Ensure that at least eight (8) of its handset models for each air interface comply with 
 20.19(b)(1) not later than February 18, 2008;
(ii) Ensure that at least nine (9) of its handset models for each air interface comply with 
 20.19(b)(1) by February 18, 2009;
(iii) Ensure that at least ten (10) of its handset models for each air interface comply with 
 20.19(b)(1) by February 18, 2010; 
(iv) Ensure that at least ten (10) of its handset models for each air interface comply with 
20.19(b)(1) by February 18, 2011.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
44
(3)  In meeting the requirements of  20.19(c)(2), each Tier 1 carrier must 
provide models from multiple tiers and offer for sale and make available in each
retail store owned or operated by the carrier HAC handset models for consumers
to test in the store.
(4)  [Placeholder for all other (e.g., Tier 2 and 3) carriers]
(d)  Phase-in for public mobile service handsets concerning inductive coupling.
(1)  Each manufacturer offering to service providers four (4) or more handsets in an air interface 
for use with public mobile services in the United States or imported for use in the United States 
must offer to service providers a minimum of two (2) T3 or better models compliant with 
 20.19(b)(2) rated on the basis of ASC C63 ANSI C63.19-2006 by February 18, 2008, or if 
the following is greater in any given year:  
(i)  Ensure that at least twenty (20) percent of its handset offerings to service providers in 
that air interface comply with  20.19(b)(2) not later than February 18, 2009, provided 
that, of any such models introduced during calendar year 2009, one model may be rated 
using ASC C63 ANSI C63.19-2006, and all other models introduced during that year 
or subsequent years shall be rated using ASC C63 ANSI C63.19-2007;
(ii)  Ensure that at least twenty-five (25) percent of its  handset offerings to service 
providers in that air interface comply with  20.19(b)(2) not later than February 18, 2010; 
and
(iii)  Ensure that at least thirty-three (33) percent of its handset offerings to service 
providers in that air interface comply with  20.19(b)(2) not later than February 18, 2011.
Note:  For purposes of determining whether the number of models offered meets 
the percentage requirements of  20.19(d)(1), the number of models that results 
when the total number of models offered per air interface in the United States by 
a manufacturer is multiplied by the specified percentage shall be rounded down 
to the nearest whole number. 
(2) Each Tier 1 carrier must ensure at least thirty-three (33) percent of its handset offerings 
calculated based on the total number of unique digital wireless phone models the carrier offers 
nationwide for each air interface offered comply with  20.19(b)(2) by February 18, 2008, or 
alternatively: 
(i)  Ensure that at least three (3) of its handset models for each air interface comply with 
 20.19(b)(2) by February 18, 2008; 
(ii)  Ensure that at least five (5) of its handset models for each air interface comply with 
 20.19(b)(2) by February 18, 2009;  
(iii)  Ensure that at least seven (7) of its handset models for each air interface comply 
with  20.19(b)(2) by February 18, 2010, and
(iv)  Ensure that at least ten (10) of its handset models for each air interface comply with 
 20.19(b)(2) by February 18, 2011.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
45
(3)  In meeting the requirements of  20.19(d)(2), each Tier 1 carrier must provide models from 
multiple tiers and offer for sale and make available in each retail store owned or operated by the 
carrier HAC handset models compliant with  20.19(b)(2) for consumers to test in the store; 
(4)  [Placeholder for all other (e.g., Tier 2 and 3) carriers]
(e)  De minimis exception.  
(1)  Manufacturers or mobile service providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handsets in 
an air interface in the U. S. are exempt from the requirements of this section in that air interface.  
Mobile service providers that obtain handsets only from manufacturers that offer two or fewer 
digital wireless phone models in an air interface in the U. S. are likewise exempt from the 
requirements of this section in that air interface.
(2)  Manufacturers or mobile service providers that offer three digital wireless handset models in 
an air interface must offer at least one compliant phone model in that air interface.  Mobile 
service providers that obtain handsets only from manufacturers that offer three digital wireless 
phone models in an air interface in the U.S. are required to offer at least one compliant handset 
model in that air interface.
(f)  Labeling requirements. Handsets used with public mobile services that are hearing-aid compatible, 
as defined in  20.19(b) of this chapter, shall clearly display the rating, as defined in  20.19(b)(1)(2) on 
the packaging material of the handset.  An explanation of the ASC C63 C63.19 rating system shall also 
be included in the device users manual or as an insert in the packaging material for the handset.
(g)  Reporting dates.  The annual reporting date for manufacturers to report compliance with the 
requirements of this section shall be November 30; the annual reporting date for carriers to report 
compliance with the requirements of this section shall be May 30, provided that Tier 1 carriers shall file 
their first such report on May 30, 2008, and Tier 2 and 3 carriers shall file their first such report on May 
30, 2009. 
(h)  Enforcement.  Enforcement of this section is hereby delegated to those states which adopt this 
section and provide for enforcement.  The procedures followed by a state to enforce this section shall 
provide a 30-day period after a complaint is filed, during which time state personnel shall attempt to 
resolve a dispute on an informal basis.  If a state has not adopted or incorporated this section, or failed to 
act within six (6) months from the filing of a complaint with the state public utility commission, the 
Commission will accept such complaints.  A written notification to the complainant that the state believes 
action is unwarranted is not a failure to act.  The procedures set forth in Part 68, Subpart E of this chapter 
are to be followed.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
46
APPENDIX C
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules considered in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 07-250.2 Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided on page one of this Notice.  The 
Commission will send a copy of this Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA).3 In addition, this Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will 
be published in the Federal Register.4
2. Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000 provides that the RFA 
shall not apply to the rules and competitive bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz 
Band,5 the Commission believes that it would serve the public interest to analyze the possible significant 
economic impact of the proposed policy and rule changes in this band on small entities.  Accordingly, this 
IRFA contains an analysis of this impact in connection with all spectrum that falls within the scope of this 
Notice, including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band. 
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
3. In the Notice, the Commission reexamines existing hearing aid compatibility requirements to 
ensure that they will continue to be effective in an evolving marketplace of new technologies and 
services.  The Commission undertakes this review in accordance with its commitment in the 2003 
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order to initiate a new rulemaking proceeding to evaluate:  (1) whether to 
increase [or] decrease the 2008 requirement to provide 50 percent of phone models that comply with a 
U36 rating; (2) whether to adopt [hearing aid compatibility] implementation benchmarks7 beyond 2008; 
and (3) whether to otherwise modify the [hearing aid compatibility] requirements.8 To assist in forming 
  
1 See 5 U.S.C.  603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601  612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 Amendment of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, WT Docket No. 
07-250, Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid Compatible Telephones, WT Docket 
No. 01-309, Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI 
ASC C63, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; FCC 07-192, (rel. Nov. 7, 2007) (Notice).
3 See 5 U.S.C.  603(a).
4 Id.
5 In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code, 
Section 3 of  the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) and Section 3507 and 3512 of Title 44, United States Code.  
Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, App. E, Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B); see 145 
Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47 U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B).
6 See Notice at  11 (defining U3 rating).
7 See Notice at  36-40 (defining existing benchmarks).
8 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 
01-309, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16782  74 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) (Hearing 
Aid Compatibility Order). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
47
the basis for initiating this rulemaking, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), in WT Docket 
No. 06-203, recently released the Staff Report, which examines recent developments and includes several 
recommendations for measures to facilitate further implementation of the Commissions hearing aid 
compatibility requirements.9 The proposals set forth in the Notice draw upon recommendations proposed 
in the Staff Report.
4. Several of these proposals, in turn, are based on an interconnected set of rule changes set 
forth in a consensus plan (Joint Consensus Plan) recently developed jointly by industry and 
representatives for the deaf and hard of hearing community.  The specifics of the Joint Consensus Plan are 
contained in the Supplemental Comments of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions 
(ATIS), which were submitted as part of the record in WT Docket No. 06-203.10 First, the Joint 
Consensus Plan proposes several changes to the deadlines and other provisions requiring service 
providers and manufacturers to make available certain types of hearing aid-compatible phones, including:  
(1) provid[ing] Tier I carriers with an alternative to the 50 percent rule for M-rated phones; (2) 
increas[ing] the number of T3-or-better phones that Tier I carriers must make available; (3) requir[ing] 
manufacturers to offer thirty three (33) percent of wireless phones at the M3-or-better level; and (4) 
requiring each manufacturer not subject to the de minimis exception . . . [to] produce at least two or more 
T3-or-better handsets.11 These changes include new rules requiring manufacturers each year to include a 
certain number of new products among their hearing aid-compatible models, and requiring Tier I carriers 
to provide hearing aid-compatible models from multiple tiers of functionality.12 Second, the Joint 
Consensus Plan proposes a transition to phase-in the 2007 version of the ANSI C63.19 standard for 
hearing aid compatibility testing.13 Third, the Joint Consensus Plan proposes that service providers and 
manufacturers report regularly on the availability of products under updated criteria for information 
submissions.14 Finally, to further accessibility to hearing aid-compatible phones, the Joint Consensus 
Plan proposes other steps that the Commission should take to adequately address hearing aid 
compatibility of wireless handsets.15
5. Although the Notice tentatively concludes substantially to adopt new M3- and T3-rated 
handset deployment benchmarks through 2011, and a related requirement to offer handsets with different 
levels of functionality, for Tier I carriers only,16 it also seeks comment on the appropriate regime for 
smaller service providers.  In addition, the Notice tentatively concludes to adopt new deployment 
  
9 See Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 
01-309, WT Docket No. 06-203, Report on the Status of Implementation of the Commissions Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Requirements, DA 07-4151 (WTB rel. Oct. 5, 2007) (Staff Report).
10 See Supplemental Comments of ATIS in WT Docket No. 06-203 (filed June 25, 2007) (Joint Consensus Plan).
11 Id. at 4, 9 n.14.  
12 Id. at 4, 12.
13 Id. at 4.
14 Id.
15 See, e.g., Notice at  78-88.
16 The four nationwide, terrestrial CMRS carriers, AT&T Services, Inc., Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-
Mobile USA, are considered Tier I carriers.  See Revision of the Commissions Rules to Ensure Compatibility with 
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers, 
Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14843  7 (2002) (Non-Nationwide Carriers Order).  No Tier I carriers are small 
entities.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
48
benchmarks for all manufacturers, subject to a de minimis exception for certain manufacturers with small 
product lines.  Moreover, the Commission also tentatively concludes that the following steps that might 
affect small businesses are needed to meet its objectives:  (1) implement a product refresh rule for 
manufacturers; (2) adopt, after a suitable phase-in period, the use of a single version of the ANSI C63.19 
standard, ANSI C63.19-2007; and (3) adopt new content and timelines for hearing aid compatibility 
reporting requirements.  In the context of several of these tentative conclusions, the Commission requests 
comment on possible compliance requirements not included within the Joint Consensus Plans 
framework.  For example, the Commission seeks comment on the possibility of staggered handset 
deployment deadlines for different classes of service providers and manufacturers, additional 
reporting/outreach obligations, and other measures that may impact small entities.  In addition, following 
upon the recommendations in the Staff Report, the Notice invites comments on new hearing aid 
compatibility issues implicated by recent developments relating to provision of Voice over Internet 
Protocol (VoIP) over wireless platforms, as well as open platform networks.  The Commission is open 
to comment on what, if any, requirements it should, or should not, impose for small entities if it adopts 
new rules based on the proposals in the Notice.
6. To promote compatibility between digital wireless telephones and hearing aids, this Notice
could result in rule changes that, if adopted, would create new opportunities and obligations for several 
categories of wireless service providers, as well as manufacturers of wireless handsets.  The 
Commissions hearing aid compatibility rules apply to providers of digital CMRS that offer real-time, 
two-way switched voice or data service that is interconnected with the public switched network and 
utilize[] an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish 
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls, as well as to manufacturers of wireless phones used in the 
delivery of such services.17 In this regard, the Commission determined earlier this year to extend hearing 
aid compatibility requirements to all services that meet these criteria, regardless of the particular band in 
which they operate, once applicable technical standards are established in the relevant bands.18  
Accordingly, the rule changes in the Notice may affect service providers and equipment manufacturers in 
services for which technical standards both have and have not been established.  In addition, as discussed 
above, the Notice requests comment on potential rule changes that may affect providers of VoIP
applications over wireless technologies, as well as independent retailers and other third parties in the 
context of open platform networks.
7. The Commission states that ensuring the availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to 
hard of hearing consumers, as well as information about such handsets, remains a high priority.  To the 
extent people who use hearing aids have difficulty finding a wireless mobile telephone that functions 
  
17 47 C.F.R.  20.19(a).
18 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the 
Commissions Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-
102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commissions Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 
01-309, Biennial Regulatory Review  Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize 
Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket 03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 
700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commissions Rules, WT Docket No. 06-169, 
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket No. 
06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local 
Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8117-8122  142-50 (2007) (700 MHz Order). The 
Commission also explained that it cannot impose hearing aid compatibility requirements for a band or service until 
applicable technical standards have been established.  In recognition of the pressing need to develop applicable 
technical standards in certain frequency bands for which service rules have been or will soon be established, the 
Commission established a 24-month timetable for interested stakeholders to develop standards in these bands.  Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
49
effectively with those devices because of interference or compatibility problems, the Commissions states 
that a continued expansion in the number and availability of hearing aid-compatible wireless telephones is 
warranted.  It explains that its objective is to take account of changing market and technological 
conditions with appropriate new steps to ensure that hearing aid users will continue to benefit from the 
convenience and features offered by the newest wireless communications systems being provided to 
American consumers.
B. Legal Basis
8. The potential actions about which comment is sought in this Notice would be authorized 
pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r), and 610.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply
9. 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.19 The RFA generally 
defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small 
organization, and small governmental jurisdiction.20 In addition, the term small business has the 
same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small Business Act.21 A small business 
concern is one which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).22 To assist the Commission in analyzing the total number of potentially affected small entities, 
the Commission requests commenters to estimate the number of small entities that may be affected by any 
rule changes that might result from this Notice.
10. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz 
bands.  The Commission defined small business for the wireless communications services (WCS) 
auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and 
a very small business as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three 
preceding years.23 The SBA has approved these definitions.24 The Commission auctioned geographic 
area licenses in the WCS service.  In the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on 
April 25, 1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as very small business 
entities, and one bidder that won one license that qualified as a small business entity.
  
19 5 U.S.C.  604(a)(3).
20 5 U.S.C.  601(6).
21 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.
22 15 U.S.C.  632.
23 Amendment of the Commissions Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), 
Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10879  194 (1997).
24 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, 
dated December 2, 1998.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
50
11. 700 MHz Guard Bands Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Bands Order, the Commission 
adopted size standards for small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.25 A small 
business in this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.26 Additionally, a very small 
business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.27 SBA approval of these 
definitions is not required.28 An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses for each of two 
spectrum blocks commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000.29 Of the 104 
licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders.  Five of these bidders were small businesses that 
won a total of 26 licenses.  A second auction of remaining 700 MHz Guard Bands licenses commenced 
on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001.  All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to 
three bidders.  One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses.30 Subsequently, 
in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission reorganized the licenses pursuant to an 
agreement among most of the licensees, resulting in a spectral relocation of the first set of paired 
spectrum block licenses, and an elimination of the second set of paired spectrum block licenses (many of 
which were already vacant, reclaimed by the Commission from Nextel).31 A single licensee that did not 
participate in the agreement was grandfathered in the initial spectral location for its two licenses in the 
second set of paired spectrum blocks.32 Accordingly, at this time there are 54 licenses in the 700 MHz 
Guard Bands.
12. 700 MHz Band Commercial Licenses.  There is 80 megahertz of non-Guard Band spectrum 
in the 700 MHz Band that is designated for commercial use:  698-757, 758-763, 776-787, and 788-793 
MHz Bands.  With one exception, the Commission adopted criteria for defining two groups of small 
businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for bidding credits at auction.  These two 
categories are:  (1) small business, which is defined as an entity that has attributed average annual gross 
revenues that do not exceed $15 million during the preceding three years; and (2) very small business, 
which is defined as an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $40 million 
for the preceding three years.33 In Block C of the Lower 700 MHz Band (710-716 MHz and 740-746 
  
25 See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commissions Rules, Second 
Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000). 
26 Id. at 5343  108.
27 Id. 
28 Id. At 5343  108 n.246 (for the 746-764 MHz and 776-704 MHz bands, the Commission is exempt from 15 
U.S.C.  632, which requires Federal agencies to obtain Small Business Administration approval before adopting 
small business size standards). 
29 See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 
(2000). 
30 See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auctions Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 
(WTB 2001). 
31 See In the Matter of Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket 06-150, 
Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15339-15344  118-134 (2007) (700 MHz Second Report and 
Order).
32 Id.
33 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Scheduled for January 24, 2008, AU Docket No. 07-157, Notice and 
Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Reserve Prices, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
51
MHz), which was licensed on the basis of 734 Cellular Market Areas, the Commission adopted a third 
criterion for determining eligibility for bidding credits:  an entrepreneur, which is defined as an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more 
than $3 million for the preceding three years.34 The SBA has approved these small size standards.35  
13. An auction of 740 licenses for Blocks C (710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz) and D (716-722 
MHz) of the Lower 700 MHz Band commenced on August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002.  
Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders.  Seventy-two of 
the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 
329 licenses.36 A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses:  five EAG licenses and 251 CMA licenses.37 Seventeen winning bidders claimed 
small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur 
status and won 154 licenses.38
14. The remaining 62 megahertz of commercial spectrum is currently scheduled for auction on 
January 24, 2008.  As explained above, bidding credits for all of these licenses will be available to small 
businesses and very small businesses.
15. Government Transfer Bands. The Commission adopted small business size standards for 
the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz 
bands.39 Specifically, with respect to these bands, the Commission defined an entity with average annual 
gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $40 million as a small business, and an 
entity with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $15 million as a 
very small business.40  SBA has approved these small business size standards for the aforementioned 
bands.41  Correspondingly, the Commission adopted a bidding credit of 15 percent for small businesses 
(Continued from previous page)    
Auctions 73 and 76, DA 07-4171 at  70 (WTB rel. Oct. 5, 2007); Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 
MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022, 1087-88 (2002).
34 Id. at 1088.
35 See Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated August 10, 1999.
36 See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).   
37 See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003). 
38 Id.
39 See Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 27 and 90 of the Commissions Rules to License Services in the 216-220 MHz, 
1390-1395 MHz, 1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, AND 2385-2390 MHz 
Government Transfer Bands, 17 FCC Rcd 9980 (2002) (Government Transfer Bands Service Rules Report and 
Order). 
40 See Service Rules Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 2550-51  144-146.  To be consistent with the size standard of very 
small business proposed for the 1427-1432 MHz band for those entities with average gross revenues for the three 
preceding years not exceeding $3 million, the Service Rules Notice proposed to use the terms entrepreneur and 
small business to define entities with average gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $40 
million and $15 million, respectively.  Because the Commission is not adopting small business size standards for the 
1427-1432 MHz band, it instead uses the terms small business and very small business to define entities with 
average gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $40 million and $15 million, respectively.
41 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, Small Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief, 
Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, dated January 18, 2002.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
52
and a bidding credit of 25 percent for very small businesses.42 This bidding credit structure was found 
to have been consistent with the Commissions schedule of bidding credits, which may be found at 
Section 1.2110(f)(2) of the Commissions rules.43 The Commission found that these two definitions will 
provide a variety of businesses seeking to provide a variety of services with opportunities to participate in 
the auction of licenses for this spectrum and will afford such licensees, who may have varying capital 
costs, substantial flexibility for the provision of services.44 The Commission noted that it had long 
recognized that bidding preferences for qualifying bidders provide such bidders with an opportunity to 
compete successfully against large, well-financed entities.45 The Commission also noted that it had found 
that the use of tiered or graduated small business definitions is useful in furthering its mandate under 
Section 309(j) to promote opportunities for and disseminate licenses to a wide variety of applicants.46  An 
auction for one license in the 1670-1674 MHz band commenced on April 30, 2003 and closed the same 
day.  One license was awarded.  The winning bidder was not a small entity.
16. Advanced Wireless Services. In the AWS-1 Report and Order, the Commission adopted 
rules that affect applicants who wish to provide service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz 
bands.47 The Commission did not know precisely the type of service that a licensee in these bands might 
seek to provide.  Nonetheless, the Commission anticipated that the services that will be deployed in these 
bands may have capital requirements comparable to those in the broadband Personal Communications 
Service (PCS), and that the licensees in these bands will be presented with issues and costs similar to 
those presented to broadband PCS licensees.  Further, at the time the broadband PCS service was 
established, it was similarly anticipated that it would facilitate the introduction of a new generation of 
service.  Therefore, the AWS-1 Report and Order adopts the same small business size definition that the 
Commission adopted for the broadband PCS service and that the SBA approved.48 In particular, the 
AWS-1 Report and Order defines a small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues for 
  
42 Such bidding credits are codified for the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz, paired 1392-1395 MHz, and the paired 1432-
1435 MHz bands in 47 C.F.R.  27.807.   Such bidding credits are codified for the unpaired 1670-1675 MHz band in 
47 C.F.R.  27.906.
43 In the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a standard schedule of bidding credits, the levels 
of which were developed based on its auction experience.  Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 403-04  
47.  See also 47 C.F.R.  1.2110(f)(2).
44 See Service Rules Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 2550-51  145.
45 See, e.g., Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commissions Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging 
Systems; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, WT Docket No. 96-
18, PR Docket No. 93-253, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, 14 
FCC Rcd 10030, 10091  112 (1999).
46 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(3)(B), (4)(C)-(D).  The Commission will also not adopt special preferences for entities owned 
by minorities or women, and rural telephone companies.  The Commission did not receive any comments on this 
issue, and it does not have an adequate record to support such special provisions under the current standards of 
judicial review. See Adarand Constructors v. Pea, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (requiring a strict scrutiny standard of 
review for government mandated race-conscious measures); United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) 
(applying an intermediate standard of review to a state program based on gender classification).
47 Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, 
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25162 (2003) (AWS-1 Report and Order).
48 See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, Third Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 175, 196 (1995); Implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5581-5584 
(1995); 47 C.F.R.  24.320(b) and 24.720(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
53
the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a very small business as an entity with average 
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.  The AWS-1 Report and 
Order also provides small businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very small businesses with a 
bidding credit of 25 percent.
17. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS), formerly known as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS),49 and Educational 
Broadband Service (EBS), formerly known as Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS),50 use 
frequencies at 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz to transmit video programming and provide broadband 
services to residential subscribers.51 These services, collectively referred to as wireless cable, were 
originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of traditional 
cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on providing 
two-way high-speed Internet access services.52 We estimate that the number of wireless cable subscribers 
is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005.  As described below, the SBA small business size standard 
for the broad census category of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities 
generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS and ITFS.53 Other 
standards also apply, as described.
18. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) entities in the context of Commission 
license auctions.  In the 1996 MDS auction,54 the Commission defined a small business as an entity that 
had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.55 This 
definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.56 In the MDS 
auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses.  Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business.  
At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain 
small business licensees.  In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are 
approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million 
and are thus considered small entities.57 MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not receive 
  
49  See 47 C.F.R. Part 21, subpart K; Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commissions Rules to 
Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 
2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Part 1 of the Commission's Rules - Further Competitive Bidding 
Procedures; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional 
Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment 
of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and 
in the Instructional Television Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004) (MDS/ITFS 
Order).
50 See 47 C.F.R. Part 74, subpart I; MDS/ITFS Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14165. 
51  See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
Eleventh Annual Report, 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2565  131 (2006) (2006 Cable Competition Report).
52  Id.
53 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 515210.
54 MDS Auction No. 6 began on November 13, 1995, and closed on March 28, 1996.  (67 bidders won 493 
licenses.)
55 47 C.F.R.  21.961(b)(1).
56  See ITFS Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9589.
57 47 U.S.C.  309(j).  Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  309(j).  For these pre-auction licenses, the 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
54
their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small business size standard for Cable 
and Other Program Distribution.  Information available to us indicates that there are approximately 850 of 
these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $13.5 million annually.  Therefore, 
we estimate that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the 
SBA and the Commissions auction rules.
19. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the 
Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS).58 We estimate 
that there are currently 2,032 EBS licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by educational 
institutions.  Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 EBS licensees are small entities. 
20. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for small 
businesses in the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).59 Under that SBA 
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.60 For the census category of Cellular 
and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms 
in this category that operated for the entire year.61 Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.62 Thus, under this category 
and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
21. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband Personal Communications 
Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission 
has held auctions for each block.  The Commission has created a small business size standard for Blocks 
C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous 
calendar years.63 For Block F, an additional small business size standard for very small business was 
added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more 
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.64 These small business size standards, in the 
context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.65 No small businesses within the 
SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B.  There were 
(Continued from previous page)    
applicable standard is SBAs small business size standards for all other telecommunications (annual receipts of 
$23.5 million or less).  See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517919.
58 In addition, the term small entity under SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small 
governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with 
populations of less than 50,000).  5 U.S.C.  601(4)-(6).  We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees.
59 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517210.
60 Id.
61 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization, Table 5, NAICS code 517212.
62 Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 
or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with 1000 employees or more.
63 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commissions Rules  Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-7852  57-60 
(1996); see also 47 C.F.R.  24.720(b).
64 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commissions Rules  Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7852  60.
65 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, 
dated December 2, 1998.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
55
90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions.  A total of 93 small and 
very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and 
F.66 On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 
small business winning bidders.67 On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C 
and F PCS licenses in Auction 35.68 Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as small or 
very small businesses.  Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency 
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant.
22. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards small entity bidding credits in 
auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 
bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar 
years.69 The Commission awards very small entity bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no 
more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years.70 The SBA has approved these small 
business size standards for the 900 MHz Service.71 The Commission has held auctions for geographic 
area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands.  The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 
1995, and closed on April 15, 1996.  Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under 
the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band.  The 800 
MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on 
December 8, 1997.  Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million 
size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band.72  
A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 
and included 23 BEA licenses.  One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.73
23. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category 
channels began on August 16, 2000, and was completed on September 1, 2000.  Eleven bidders won 108 
geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small 
businesses under the $15 million size standard.  In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 
2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were sold.  Of the 
22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses.  Thus, combining all three 
auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small 
business.
24. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with 
extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands.  The Commission does not know 
  
66 FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No. 71744 (rel. January 14, 1997).
67 See C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).
68 See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2339 (2001).  
69 47 C.F.R.  90.814(b)(1).
70 Id.
71 See Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated August 10, 1999.  We note 
that, although a request was also sent to the SBA requesting approval for the small business size standard for 800 
MHz, approval is still pending.
72 See Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses 
to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading Areas, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB 1996).
73 See Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
56
how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended 
implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than 
$15 million, or have no more than 1,500 employees.  One firm has over $15 million in revenues.  The 
Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended 
implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is 
established by the SBA.
25. Rural Radiotelephone Service.  The Commission uses the SBA definition applicable to 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 
persons.74 There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the 
Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
26. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.  The Commission uses the SBA definition applicable 
to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 
persons.75 There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and the 
Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
27. Offshore Radiotelephone Service.  This service operates on several ultra high frequency 
(UHF) TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states 
bordering the Gulf of Mexico.  At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service.  The 
Commission uses the SBA definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.76 The Commission is unable at this time 
to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  The 
Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that 
term is defined by the SBA.
28. Mobile Satellite Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the U.S. Small Business 
Administration has developed a small business size standard specifically for mobile satellite service 
licensees. The appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite Telecommunications, 
which provides that such entities are small if they have $13.5 million or less in annual revenues.77
Currently, the Commissions records show that there are 31 entities authorized to provide voice and data 
MSS in the United States. We do not have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of these 
parties are small entities. The Commission notes that small businesses are not likely to have the financial 
ability to become MSS system operators because of high implementation costs, including construction of 
satellite space stations and rocket launch, associated with satellite systems and services. Still, we request 
comment on the number and identity of small entities that would be significantly impacted by the 
proposed rule changes.   
29. Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA has established a small 
business size standard for wireless communications equipment manufacturers. Under the standard, firms 
are considered small if they have 750 or fewer employees.78 Census Bureau data for 1997 indicates that, 
  
74 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517210.
75 Id.
76 Id.
77 13 C.F.R.  121.201, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 51740, formerly NAICS code 
513340.
78 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 334220.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
57
for that year, there were a total of 1,215 establishments79 in this category.80 Of those, there were 1,150 
that had employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 to 999. The 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless communications equipment manufacturers are small 
businesses.
30. Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores. This U.S. industry comprises: (1) 
establishments known as consumer electronics stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of new 
consumer-type electronic products; (2) establishments specializing in retailing a single line of consumer-
type electronic products (except computers); or (3) establishments primarily engaged in retailing these 
new electronic products in combination with repair services.81 The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for this category of retail store; that size standard is $7.5 million or less in annual 
revenues.82 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 8,328 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year.83 Of these, 8,088 firms had annual sales of under $5 million, and an 
additional 132 had annual sales of $5 million to $9,999,999. Therefore, the majority of these businesses 
may be considered to be small.84  
31. Internet Service Providers. In the Notice, the Commission seeks comment on whether to 
extend hearing aid compatibility requirements to entities offering access to VoIP applications over WiFi85
and other wireless technologies that may fall outside the definition of CMRS and/or the criteria in Section 
20.19(a), such as those operating on networks that do not employ an in-network switching facility that 
enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs.  Such applications may be 
provided, for example, by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs are Internet Publishing and 
Broadcasting and Web Search Portals86 that provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide 
related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to 
Internet connectivity.  To gauge small business prevalence for these Internet Publishing and Broadcasting 
and Web Search Portals, we must, however, use current census data that are based on the previous 
category of Internet Service Providers and its associated size standard.  That standard was:  all such firms 
having $23.5 million or less in annual receipts.  Accordingly, to use data available to us under the old 
standard and Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that operated for the 
  
79 The number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than would be the 
number of firms or companies, because the latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control. Any 
single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be owned by a different 
establishment. Thus, the number given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including the 
numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census break-out data for firms or companies only gives the total 
number of such entities for 1997, which was 1,089.
80 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series: Manufacturing, Industry Statistics by Employment 
Size, Table 4, NAICS code 334220 (issued August 1999).
81 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions: 443112 Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores, 
www.census.gov (last modified on May 5, 2003).
82 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 443112.
83 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Retail Trade, Radio, Television, and other 
Electronics Stores, Table 4, NAICS code 443112 (issued Oct. 2000). These data indicate the estimated annual 
sales size for the firms.
84 Id.
85 WiFi (Wireless Fidelity) is a wireless technology that is based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers 802.11 standards.
86 U.S. Census Bureau, Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals, NAICS code 519130.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
58
entire year. 87 Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47 firms 
had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999.  Consequently, we estimate that the majority of 
these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.
32. All Other Information Services.  This industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).88  
VoIP services over wireless technologies could be provided by entities that provide other services such as 
email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled 
services.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is 
$6.5 million or less in average annual receipts.89 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 
195 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.90 Of these, 172 had annual receipts of under 
$5 million, and an additional nine firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999.  
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our 
action.
33. Part 15 Device Manufacturers.  Manufacturers of unlicensed wireless devices may also 
become subject to requirements in this proceeding for their devices used to provide VoIP applications.  
The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed 
communications devices manufacturers.  Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition applicable to 
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.  The 
Census Bureau defines this category as follows:  This industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. 
Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and 
radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.91 The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing, which is:  all such firms having 750 or fewer employees.92 According to Census Bureau 
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire 
year.93 Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 
  
87 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization), Table 4, NAICS code 518111 (issued Nov. 2005).  
88 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions:  519190 All Other Information Services (Feb. 2004) 
<www.census.gov>.  We note that the Commission has not reached conclusions as to whether, or under what 
conditions, VoIP services constitute communications or information services under the Communications Act, and 
our identification of this group of small entities as providers of information services under the Census Bureau 
definition is not intended to indicate any conclusions in this regard.
89 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 519190.
90 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization), Table 4, NAICS code 514199 (issued Oct. 2000).  This category was 
created for the 2002 Economic Census by taking a portion of the superseded 1997 category, All Other Information 
Services, NAICS code 514199.  The data cited in the text above are derived from the superseded category.
91 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, 334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342.
92 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 334220.
93 U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by 
Employment Size, NAICS code 334220 (released May 26, 2005); http://factfinder.census.gov.  The number of 
establishments is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number of 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
59
999.94 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for 
Small Entities 
34. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will adopt several reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements which could affect small entities.  For example, as discussed in Section A 
above, manufacturers and service providers have filed regular reports with the Commission since 2003 
detailing their hearing aid compatibility efforts.  In order to address shortcomings that have been observed 
in the existing reports and to render future reports as transparent and useful as possible for consumers, 
industry, and Commission staff responsible for helping to ensure that the Commissions hearing aid 
compatibility requirements are fully implemented, the Commission tentatively concludes to adopt new 
content requirements, as recommended in the Staff Report and proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan.95
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered 
35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following 
four alternatives (among others):  (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 
small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.96
36. The Commission seeks comment generally on the effect the rule changes considered in this 
Notice would have on small entities, on whether alternative rules should be adopted for small entities in 
particular, and on what effect such alternative rules would have on those entities.  The Commission 
invites comment on ways in which it can achieve its goals while minimizing the burden on small wireless 
service providers, equipment manufacturers, and other entities.
37. For example, the Commission specifically considers handset deployment benchmark 
alternatives for small businesses.97 In this regard, the Commission requests comment regarding the 
appropriate benchmarks and deadlines for Tier II and Tier III carriers,98 resellers, mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs), and other categories of smaller service providers.  The Commission notes that in the 
past numerous Tier II and Tier III carriers have requested, and many have been granted, extension of 
compatible handset deployment deadlines because they were unable timely to obtain compliant handsets 
(Continued from previous page)    
firms or companies, because the latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control.  Any 
single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be owned by a different 
establishment.  Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including the 
numbers of small businesses.  In this category, the Census breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the 
total number of such entities for 2002, which was 929.
94  Id.  An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or more.
95 See supra Section A; see also supra para. 5 (stating For example, the Commission seeks comment on the 
possibility of . . . additional reporting/outreach obligations . . . that may impact small entities.)
96 5 U.S.C.  603(c)(1)-(c)(4). 
97 See, e.g., Notice at  50-51.
98 Tier II carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with more than 500,000 subscribers.  Tier III 
carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer subscribers.  See Non-
Nationwide Carriers Order,17 FCC Rcd at 14847  22-24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-192
60
in sufficient quantities from manufacturers.  The Commission states that Tier II and Tier III carriers may 
have more difficulty than Tier I carriers in obtaining handsets due to market realities.  Accordingly, the 
Commission seeks comment on the alternative of whether the handset deployment benchmarks proposed 
for Tier I carriers are appropriate for smaller carriers, and on whether the deadlines for those entities in 
particular should be later than those applicable to manufacturers.  To consider the economic impact on 
small entities, the Commission asks commenters to address whether there is anything inherent in the 
characteristics of smaller service providers that would prevent them from meeting either the RF 
interference or inductive coupling-capable handset numbers and percentages set out for Tier I carriers.  
The Commission asks commenters to discuss with specificity any alternative requirements or schedules 
that they propose for these types of service providers, and the reasons for those alternatives.
38. The Notice also considers the alternative of delayed reporting obligations for non-Tier I 
carriers, which includes small entities.  The Notice seeks comment on the appropriate reporting timelines 
for Tier II and III carriers, including the alternative of delaying their next reports for a period of 18 
months to two years from their reports that will be submitted in November 2007, versus the alternative of
whether they should instead be held to the same schedule as Tier I carriers in order to provide a steady 
source of information to consumers and to the Commission.  In this context, the Commission considers 
the extent of the burdens to Tier II and III carriers that would be avoided by postponing their first reports 
as proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan.  For example, given that Tier II and III carriers have already 
been filing reports regularly, the Commission seeks comment on the extent of any inconvenience or costs
that would be avoided by postponing their first reports as proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan, 
balanced against the extent of information that would be lost by introducing a gap of 18 months or more 
in their reporting. Finally, the Notice asks commenters to address whether the delayed reporting deadline 
alternative for Tier II and III carriers should depend on what deployment deadlines (described above) are 
adopted.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
39. None.