Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63TM, 25566-25591 [E8-9855]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25566-25591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9855]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 20, 68

[WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 08-68; FCC 08-117]


Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American 
National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) 
ANSI ASC C63\TM\

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts 
various proposals to amend its hearing aid compatibility policies and 
requirements pertaining to wireless services, including modifications 
and other requirements along the framework proposed in a consensus plan 
(Joint Consensus Plan) developed jointly by industry and 
representatives for the deaf and hard of hearing community. The 
Commission anticipates that these rule changes, taken together and 
largely supported by manufacturers, service providers, and consumers 
with hearing loss, will meet statutory obligations to ensure reasonable 
access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing. These 
requirements are intended to benefit wireless users in the deaf and 
hard of hearing community, including the most disadvantaged who are 
more likely to rely on telecoil-equipped hearing aids, as well as to 
ensure that these consumers have a variety of handsets available to 
them, including handsets with innovative features.

DATES: Effective June 6, 2008, except for Sec. Sec.  20.19(f)(2), 
20.19(h), and 20.19(i) which contains information collection 
requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections. The 
Commission will send a copy of the First Report & Order and Order on 
Reconsideration and Erratum in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of June 6, 2008. Public and agency comments on 
Information Collection Requirements are due on or before July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Office of 
the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to Judith Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-
B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet 
to PRA@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McCudden, Room 6118, Michael 
Rowan, Room 6603, or Peter Trachtenberg, Spectrum & Competition Policy 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6119, Washington, DC 
20554. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained in this document, 
contact Judith Boley, (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at 
PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First 
Report & Order (R&O) in WT Docket No. 07-250 released February 28, 
2008, and the Commission's Order on Reconsideration and Erratum (Recon) 
in WT Docket No. 07-250 released April 17, 2008. The complete text of 
the R&O and Recon are available for public inspection and copying from 
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 
a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. [The R&O and 
Recon may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-
5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: 
https://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please 
provide the appropriate FCC document number, FCC 08-68 for the R&O, and 
FCC 08-117 for the Recon. The R&O and Recon are also available on the 
Internet at the Commission's Web site through its Electronic Document 
Management System (EDOCS): https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
SilverStream/Pages/edocs.html.]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains new and modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget

[[Page 25567]]

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or 
modified information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding.
    In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on 
how it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' In this present 
document, the Commission has assessed the effects of the reporting 
requirements that it has imposed on manufacturers and service 
providers, and finds that the information required should be readily 
available even to businesses with fewer than 25 employees, and that it 
is important to obtain this information in order to monitor compliance 
with the hearing aid compatibility requirements and to provide 
consumers with adequate information regarding the handsets available 
from particular service providers. Similarly, the Commission has 
assessed the effects of requiring manufacturers and service providers 
to post certain information regarding the hearing aid-compatible 
handsets they offer on their Web sites. The Commission notes that this 
requirement would apply only to entities that maintain a public Web 
site and is further subject to the de minimis exception. Both 
restrictions should limit, to some extent, the application of the 
requirement to small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Moreover, 
the Commission has concluded that maintaining the limited information 
required, primarily a list of currently offered hearing aid-compatible 
handsets along with the associated ratings, will not be unduly 
burdensome, and that this requirement will significantly benefit 
consumers by ensuring convenient access to up-to-date information 
regarding compliant handset availability. Finally, the Commission has 
determined that requiring manufacturers to provide hearing aid 
compatibility contact information directly to the Commission will 
impose little if any additional burden on businesses with fewer than 25 
employees. This requirement may even decrease these burdens, to the 
extent that it will allow consumers wishing to file a complaint to 
obtain that information from the Commission's Web site rather than 
contacting the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachment to obtain 
it from the service provider.
    Public and agency comments on Information Collection Requirements 
are due on or before July 7, 2008. 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 
Commission's 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)), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' The Commission notes, 
however, that section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, 
Public Law 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. The Commission is therefore not inviting comment on any 
information collections that concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz 
Band.

I. Introduction

    1. In the R&O, the Commission revises the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements applicable to providers of public mobile services and 
manufacturers of digital wireless handsets used in the delivery of 
those services. Specifically, the Commission adopts benchmark 
requirements for future deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets, 
and related requirements, based on the proposals in a Joint Consensus 
Plan developed by an Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions 
(ATIS) working group that included nationwide (Tier I) carriers, 
handset manufacturers, and several organizations representing the 
interests of consumers with hearing loss. The Commission also adopts 
certain other rule changes to better promote the accessibility of 
hearing aid-compatible handsets to deaf and hard of hearing consumers, 
including rules for the approval of future versions of the hearing aid 
compatibility technical standard. In the Recon, the Commission revises 
the procedures adopted in the R&O for approval of the use of future 
versions of the hearing aid compatibility technical standard that do 
not raise major compliance issues. The Commission intends to address 
other issues raised in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 72 FR 
65494, November 21, 2007, in this proceeding but not addressed here in 
a subsequent report and order.
    2. As a preliminary matter, the Commission takes this opportunity 
to express its deep appreciation for the efforts of the many parties 
involved in the development of the Joint Consensus Plan, whose 
recommendations the Commission substantially adopts today. The broad 
support for the Plan among both industry and consumer advocacy groups, 
as reflected in the record of this proceeding, testifies to the success 
of the proffered proposals in meeting the goals of the Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Act, and in addressing the concerns of manufacturers and 
service providers while still advancing the interests of consumers with 
hearing loss in having greater access to advanced digital wireless 
communications. The Commission strongly encourages the wireless 
industry, including new entrants, and consumer groups to continue their 
collaborative efforts in order to ensure the successful implementation 
of the measures adopted.
    3. The changes the Commission adopts to the handset deployment 
requirements include (1) modifying the requirement, presently stayed 
until April 18, 2008, that manufacturers and service providers ensure 
that 50 percent of their digital wireless handset models meet 
established standards for radio frequency (RF) interference reduction, 
and (2) increasing the obligation on manufacturers and service 
providers to offer handset models that meet an established standard for 
inductive coupling capability. The Commission adopts a handset 
``refresh'' requirement for manufacturers, obligating manufacturers to 
ensure annually that a certain percentage of their hearing aid-
compatible handset models are newly issued that year, and it requires 
service providers to offer hearing aid-compatible handsets with 
different levels of functionality.
    4. In addition to these modifications to the handset deployment 
requirements, the Commission adopts an updated version of the technical 
standard for measuring hearing aid compatibility in both acoustic 
coupling and inductive coupling modes, provides a phase-in period for 
its application as the exclusive standard, and creates a streamlined 
mechanism for adopting

[[Page 25568]]

future revisions of the standard. Because the Commission finds that the 
established technical standard, including the most recent version of 
that standard adopted, provides tests for measuring hearing aid 
compatibility for wireless services operating over a broader range of 
frequencies than is currently subject to hearing aid compatibility 
requirements, the Commission extends the scope of these requirements to 
the full range of frequencies covered by the established standard. To 
assist the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the new 
requirements and to provide information to the public, the Commission 
also requires manufacturers and service providers to continue to file 
annual reports on the status of their compliance with these 
requirements, and the Commission requires manufacturers and service 
providers to publish up-to-date information on their Web sites 
regarding their hearing aid-compatible handset models.
    5. The Commission anticipates that these inter-related changes, 
taken together and largely supported by manufacturers, service 
providers, and consumers with hearing loss, will further ``ensure 
reasonable access to telephone service by persons with impaired 
hearing'' as required by the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 610(a). The 
increased requirements to offer handsets with inductive coupling 
capability will particularly benefit the most disadvantaged wireless 
users in the deaf and hard of hearing community, who are more likely to 
rely on telecoil-equipped hearing aids. The Commission also anticipates 
that the requirements that manufacturers refresh their products 
annually and that service providers offer handset models at differing 
functionality levels will help to ensure that consumers with hearing 
loss have a variety of handsets available to them, including handsets 
with innovative features, a goal that the Commission has sought to 
encourage since 2003. At the same time, the Commission concludes that 
the level of obligations and the flexibility provided in the new 
benchmarks satisfy its obligation to ``ensure that regulations adopted 
to implement [the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act] encourage the use of 
currently available technology and do not discourage or impair the 
development of improved technology.'' 47 U.S.C. 610(e). In particular, 
these changes help to resolve the technical issues that have been 
raised regarding the difficulty of producing a wide variety of Global 
System for Mobile Communications (GSM) handsets that both meet the 
requisite rating for acoustic coupling capability and include certain 
popular features, and thereby ensure that the impact of the rules 
remains as technology-impartial as possible while also ensuring the 
availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to consumers.

II. Background

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

III. Discussion

A. Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment Requirements

    7. In order to promote its objective of furthering the availability 
of hearing aid-compatible handsets to the deaf and hard-of-hearing 
community, the Commission adopts several interrelated benchmarks, 
deadlines, and other requirements governing the deployment of hearing 
aid-compatible handsets. These actions, which are based largely on the 
Joint Consensus Plan and the proposals in the NPRM, balance several 
different approaches to improving wireless services for deaf and hard-
of-hearing consumers. Based on the record, the Commission concludes 
that these requirements, as a whole, will offer great benefits to those 
consumers with hearing loss, without imposing undue costs on handset 
manufacturers, service providers, or consumers generally.
    8. As proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan and the NPRM, the 
Commission first adopts new benchmarks and deadlines for 2008 through 
2011 regarding deployment of handsets rated M3 (or higher) under 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard C63.19 for RF 
interference reduction and handsets rated T3 (or higher) under ANSI 
Standard C63.19 for inductive coupling capability. As regards the 
requirements for RF interference reduction, the Commission recognizes 
the difficulties that handset manufacturers and service providers with 
large product lines face with respect to the 50 percent benchmark 
originally scheduled to go into effect on February 18, 2008, and the 
Commission modifies the benchmark in the near term while at the same 
time ensuring that consumers will have significant and increasing 
choices of acoustic coupling-compatible models over the next several 
years. At the same time, the Commission increases the upcoming 
benchmarks for handset models that have inductive coupling capability. 
In this regard, to ensure that all consumers will have options 
regardless of where they reside or from which carrier they obtain 
service, the Commission adopts the same deployment benchmarks for all 
service providers, although the Commission extends the compliance 
deadlines for service providers other than Tier I carriers in 
recognition of their more limited handset options and their difficulty 
obtaining the newest offerings. Second, as an integral part of the 
handset deployment objectives the Commission sets forth, the Commission 
adopts requirements to ensure the availability of not just more handset 
models, but also a range of compatible handset models throughout the 
manufacturer-to-consumer supply and distribution channels. The 
Commission thus requires all manufacturers to ``refresh'' their hearing 
aid-compatible handset product offerings annually, and all service 
providers to offer consumers handset models with differing levels of 
functionality. Third, the Commission addresses several implementation 
issues, including the definition of what constitutes a distinct model, 
the treatment of handset models that operate over multiple frequency 
bands and/or air interfaces, and the application of the de minimis 
rule. Finally, while the Commission encourages manufacturers and 
service providers, including new entrants, to deploy handset models 
that meet the higher hearing aid compatibility standards denoted by M4 
and T4 ratings, the Commission determines consistent with the record 
not to adopt any requirements in this regard at this time.
1. M3 / T3 Standards
    9. The parties in this proceeding are nearly unanimous in 
supporting the NPRM's tentative conclusions on the appropriate M3 and 
T3 benchmarks and deadlines insofar as they apply to manufacturers and 
Tier I carriers offering nationwide services, referencing the 
compromise and agreement that culminated in the Joint Consensus Plan. 
However, six commenting parties representing regional or smaller 
service providers that are not Tier I carriers--MetroPCS

[[Page 25569]]

Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS), SouthernLINC Wireless (SouthernLINC), 
Virgin Mobile, USA, L.P. (Virgin Mobile), Rural Cellular Association 
(RCA), Chinook Wireless (Chinook), and Iowa Wireless Services, LLC (i 
wireless)--argue that they should not be subject to the same benchmarks 
or any new requirements beyond the existing mandates to offer two M3- 
and T3-rated (or higher) handset models per air interface. If any new 
requirements must apply, they argue that the benchmarks in these 
provisions should be reduced, proposing levels that would be 
approximately one-half of the Tier I levels. These commenters state 
that they would be forced to reduce their total product lines in order 
to meet the Tier I percentage benchmarks. They further contend that 
they have less access to hearing aid-compatible handsets than Tier I 
carriers, and that as a practical matter they would essentially be 
subject to more difficult requirements than Tier I carriers under the 
Joint Consensus Plan. On the other side of this issue, two advocates 
for the deaf and hard-of-hearing disagree, and argue that these service 
providers should be held to the same compatible handset deployment 
benchmarks as Tier I carriers because, with proper planning, these 
service providers can meet these benchmarks in the same, or perhaps 
slightly extended, timeframes.
    10. For both RF interference reduction and inductive coupling 
capability, the Commission adopts the tentative conclusions in the NPRM 
for manufacturers and Tier I carriers, and hereby amends Sec.  20.19(c) 
and (d) of the Commission's rules to adopt the benchmarks and deadlines 
proposed in the NPRM. For service providers that are not Tier I 
carriers, the Commission adopts these same benchmarks, but the 
Commission extends their deadlines for compliance by three months in 
order to afford these entities additional flexibility to obtain and 
deploy the requisite numbers of compatible handset models. In 
consideration of the need for certainty, and in order to provide 
appropriate notification to manufacturers and service providers as 
regards the hearing aid compatibility obligations, the Commission had 
stayed enforcement of the 50 percent benchmark for deployment of 
handsets meeting an M3 (or higher) rating for RF interference reduction 
that would have become effective on February 18, 2008, for 60 days, 
until April 18, 2008. However, given the rule changes adopted in the 
R&O, the need for a stay is moot and it need not be extended.
    11. In terms of RF interference reduction for acoustic coupling 
compatibility, manufacturers as of the effective date of this rule will 
have to meet a rating of M3 (or higher) for a minimum of one-third of 
their non-de minimis portfolio models offered to service providers per 
air interface in the United States. If one-third of the total number of 
models offered over an air interface is a fraction, manufacturers may 
round this number down, except that manufacturers offering four or five 
handset models over an air interface must offer at least two models 
meeting an M3 (or higher) rating. Tier I carriers, as of the effective 
date of this rule, will have to meet an M3 rating (or higher) for the 
lesser of 50 percent of their handset models per air interface 
(rounding fractions up) or a specific number of handset models pursuant 
to a schedule. For both manufacturers and service providers, these 
percentage and numerical obligations will remain in effect until such 
time as they may be changed by future Commission rulemaking action. 
This schedule requires Tier I carriers to provide an increasing number 
of handset models per air interface over which they offer service by 
future dates as follows: Before February 15, 2009: eight M3-rated (or 
higher) handset models; beginning February 15, 2009: nine M3-rated (or 
higher) handset models; and beginning February 15, 2010: ten M3-rated 
(or higher) handset models. The Joint Consensus Plan proposed that 
these and other deadlines would fall on the 18th of the month. For ease 
of administration, the Commission changes these deadlines to the 15th. 
Service providers not in Tier I will be subject to the same 
requirements, but only beginning three months after the effective date 
of the rules. As a result, the aforementioned requirements will take 
effect for such service providers as of May 15 of the respective year, 
rather than February 15. The Commission notes that under the revisions 
that it is adopting to Sec.  20.19 of the Commission's rules, these 
service providers remain required to offer two handset models per air 
interface rated M3 or higher until the new requirements become 
effective to them.
    12. With respect to inductive coupling capability, the new 
requirements establish benchmarks for both manufacturers and service 
providers that combine percentage and numerical measures. For both 
manufacturers and service providers, these percentage and numerical 
obligations will remain in effect until such time as they may be 
changed by future Commission rulemaking action. First, manufacturers 
will be required to meet the greater of two measures for each air 
interface for which they offer handsets beginning February 15, 2009: 
(1) A minimum of two T3-rated (or higher) models for each air interface 
for which the manufacturer offers four or more handset models to 
service providers; or (2) at least 20 percent / 25 percent / one-third 
of models that the manufacturer offers to service providers over each 
air interface rated T3 (or higher) beginning February 15, 2009 / 2010 / 
2011 respectively. These percentage calculations will be rounded down 
to the nearest whole number in determining the minimum number of 
handsets to be produced. Each manufacturer that is not subject to the 
de minimis exception (discussed later in this summary) will thus still 
be required to maintain production of at least two or more T3-rated (or 
higher) handset models per air interface for which it offers handsets. 
Prior to February 15, 2009, manufacturers remain subject to the current 
requirement to offer at least two models rated T3 or higher per air 
interface.
    13. Second, as of the effective date of this rule, Tier I carriers 
must meet the lesser of the two following measures for each air 
interface over which they offer service: (1) One-third of digital 
wireless handset models are T3-rated (or higher) (rounding fractions 
up); or (2) a schedule as follows: before February 15, 2009: three T3-
rated (or higher) handsets; beginning February 15, 2009: five T3-rated 
(or higher) handsets; beginning February 15, 2010: seven T3-rated (or 
higher) handsets; and beginning February 15, 2011: ten T3-rated (or 
higher) handsets.
    14. Third, service providers other than Tier I carriers will also 
be required to meet the same benchmarks as Tier I carriers, but only 
beginning three months after the effective date of these rules. Again, 
the scheduled rollout dates will be May 15 of the respective years, 
rather than February 15. The Commission notes that under the revisions 
that it is adopting to Sec.  20.19, these service providers remain 
required to offer two handset models per air interface rated T3 or 
higher until the new requirements become effective to them.
    15. Given the unanimous support in the record, the Commission finds 
that these benchmarks for both equipment manufacturers and Tier I 
carriers to deploy M3-rated and T3-rated handsets are in the public 
interest. The combination, two-option approach for deploying M3-rated 
handsets provides needed flexibility for Tier I carriers with large 
product lines to deploy new and additional models over time while still 
ensuring that substantial numbers of

[[Page 25570]]

compatible handset models will be available to consumers. These rule 
changes are supported by consumer advocates, and the Commission agrees 
that the balance they achieved with industry representatives in the 
Joint Consensus Plan represents a beneficial compromise between 
technological constraints and the needs of hard-of-hearing consumers. 
No commenting party has argued that these benchmarks for manufacturers 
and Tier I carriers would be detrimental to consumers. This approach 
also is more technology-impartial than a single 50 percent requirement, 
reflecting the uncontroverted technological impediments to meeting the 
M3 rating standard for many handset models that employ a GSM air 
interface. Moreover, the Commission adopts this modification in 
conjunction with new rules requiring manufacturers to ``refresh'' their 
compatible offerings with new products annually and requiring service 
providers to make hearing aid-compatible models available with 
different levels of functionality. These requirements will directly 
benefit consumers needing handsets with acoustic coupling capabilities.
    16. The Commission also makes its decisions regarding the 
benchmarks for RF interference reduction and inductive coupling 
capability as an integrated whole. The Commission agrees with Hearing 
Loss Association of America and Telecommunications for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing, Inc. (HLAA/TDI) that increased requirements for 
deployment of T3-rated handset models comprise a beneficial trade-off 
for reducing, in certain circumstances, the thresholds for deploying 
M3-rated handset models that would have taken effect under the existing 
Sec.  20.19(c). The record supports the conclusion that customers' 
options for handsets that enable inductive coupling with hearing aids' 
telecoils have been more limited than for acoustic coupling 
compatibility. The current two-model rule for these entities was set in 
2003 and has become out-dated, as it does not provide for an expansion 
of T3-rated handset options. Expanded requirements of this nature 
should benefit some of the most disadvantaged wireless users in the 
deaf and hard-of-hearing community, who are more likely to rely on 
telecoil-equipped hearing aids. The Commission agrees with HLAA/TDI 
that it is generally in the public interest to increase the benchmarks 
for manufacturers' and Tier I carriers' deployment of handsets meeting 
a T3 rating for inductive coupling capability. The Commission agrees as 
well with Gallaudet University Technology Access program and 
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access 
(Gallaudet/RERC) that additional requirements of this nature will 
``significantly benefit individuals with severe to profound hearing 
loss.'' Thus, the Commission finds that an additional focus of its 
resources should be on making available additional T3-rated handset 
models.
    17. The Commission also concludes that the same deadlines are 
appropriate for manufacturers and Tier I carriers. The Commission 
agrees with ATIS that a single, unified deadline as proposed in the 
NPRM and Joint Consensus Plan will improve compliance and make the 
rules simpler to administer. Moreover, unlike service providers not in 
Tier I, Tier I carriers have in the past not submitted waiver requests 
stating that they have experienced significant problems meeting 
deployment deadlines in the same time frame as manufacturers. 
Furthermore, unlike the initial deployment deadlines where 
manufacturers may have had no models certified as hearing aid-
compatible until shortly before the date, Tier I carriers now need only 
to increase their selection from among available stock. Although AT&T, 
Inc. (AT&T) states that it prefers a staggering of the compliance 
deadlines after 2008, AT&T only cites generally the lag time for 
service providers to obtain handsets from manufacturers and does not 
provide more specific support evidencing a problem (current or past) 
with a unified date. The Commission also notes that ATIS, while 
supporting a unified deadline, states that it ``would not be opposed'' 
to a six week interval between deadlines for manufacturers and service 
providers. ATIS Comments at 6. The Commission therefore declines to 
extend the compliance deadlines for Tier I carriers.
    18. The record raises separate questions regarding whether to apply 
the same handset deployment benchmarks to service providers other than 
Tier I carriers. As stated in the NPRM, the Joint Consensus Plan's 
proposals consider appropriate modifications only to the rules for 
manufacturers and nationwide, Tier I carriers, and they do not address 
the Commission's hearing aid compatibility benchmarks for regional or 
smaller service providers, including Tier II and Tier III carriers, or 
other service providers like resellers and mobile virtual network 
operators (MVNOs). In addition, none of the equipment manufacturers or 
Tier I carriers that have participated in this proceeding submitted 
comments on this issue. The only record the Commission has before it is 
comprised of the comments of six parties representing regional or 
smaller service providers not in Tier I--MetroPCS, SouthernLINC, Virgin 
Mobile, RCA, Chinook and i wireless--and two consumer advocate 
representatives, each group disagreeing with the other on this 
question.
    19. After carefully considering this record in light of its past 
experience with non-nationwide service providers, and the costs and 
benefits of several possible rule change proposals, the Commission 
concludes that the same deployment benchmark alternatives should apply 
to all service providers, but it delays the compliance deadlines by 
three months for service providers that are not Tier I carriers. The 
Commission is not persuaded that service providers with small product 
lines will be unable to meet the 50 percent and one-third targets for 
handset models meeting RF interference reduction and inductive coupling 
capability targets, respectively. Moreover, the Commission finds that 
any burdens these requirements impose are necessary to ensure 
reasonable handset options for all hearing-impaired consumers 
regardless of where they reside or who they may receive service from, 
not just the 90 or so percent that may receive their service from Tier 
I carriers. Nonetheless, in recognition of the stated difficulties 
smaller service providers face in obtaining the latest handset models, 
the Commission delays each of their compliance deadlines by three 
months.
    20. The Commission rejects the argument that the proposed 
benchmarks impose a ``greater'' burden on smaller carriers because they 
offer too few handset models to take advantage of the numerical 
alternatives, and will therefore be forced to meet the percentage 
benchmarks. The Commission does not accept that smaller service 
providers are subject to greater burdens simply because their 
percentages are higher: service providers with smaller product lines 
will be required to offer fewer hearing aid-compatible handset models 
than service providers with larger product lines. The alternative of 
offering eight to 10 handset models per air interface that meet an M3 
or higher rating for RF interference reduction recognizes that carriers 
with large product lines may have difficulty obtaining sufficient 
compatible handset models to meet a 50 percent requirement, 
particularly since the manufacturer production benchmark is one-third 
going forward. In addition, the Commission finds that the

[[Page 25571]]

availability of eight to 10 M3-rated models will provide substantial 
choice to hard-of-hearing consumers, especially in light of its other 
requirements, and therefore the Commission is not requiring service 
providers with large product lines to offer more models. The 
incremental benefits to consumers of requiring more than eight to 10 
compatible models are diminished, and are outweighed by the burdens on 
the service provider.
    21. The Commission finds that the availability of percentage 
benchmarks is necessary to ensure that smaller service providers are 
not overly burdened. Even though eight to 10 M3-rated models provide 
consumers with substantial choice, the Commission does not believe it 
reasonable to require that eight to 10 compatible models be offered by 
service providers with smaller product lines, including many non-
nationwide service providers. Therefore, the Commission permits these 
service providers instead to meet the compatibility standard for 50 
percent of their product lines, ranging from two to seven models per 
air interface depending on the total number of models offered. Similar 
reasoning underlies the alternative benchmarks for inductive coupling 
capability. The rule is designed to permit each service provider to 
meet the benchmark that is less burdensome for it depending on its 
particular situation, while providing consumers with significant choice 
no matter which service provider they may use.
    22. The Commission is also not persuaded by arguments that service 
providers other than Tier I carriers will be unable to obtain 
sufficient hearing aid-compatible handset models to meet the benchmark 
percentages and therefore will have to reduce their product lines. 
These service providers argue that they have less access to hearing 
aid-compatible models than Tier I carriers, among other reasons because 
they must purchase handsets through third-party vendors and because the 
larger carriers sometimes have exclusive arrangements to obtain certain 
handset models. The Commission notes, however, that the number of 
hearing aid-compatible models these service providers must obtain to 
meet the percentage benchmarks is not large. For example, a service 
provider that offers 10 handset models over an air interface would need 
to offer five that meet an M3 (or higher) rating and four that meet a 
T3 (or higher) rating. Moreover, the percentage requirement for T3-
rated (or higher) models would not become effective for such a provider 
until May 2009. Until then, the service provider could satisfy the rule 
by offering the numerical alternative of three models meeting this 
standard. The Commission acknowledges that many smaller service 
providers' offerings of compatible handsets may currently fall short of 
these levels. Given the substantial and increasing number of hearing 
aid-compatible models that are currently available, however, the 
Commission is convinced that, with reasonable effort, even the smallest 
non-de minimis providers can obtain enough compatible models to satisfy 
the particular benchmarks that are applicable to them. Commenters offer 
no evidence that so many hearing aid-compatible models are subject to 
exclusivity arrangements as to significantly diminish the number that 
they are able to obtain, or that large numbers of compatible models are 
unavailable through vendors. As it has stated in the past, the 
Commission expects that, if a service provider's usual vendors cannot 
supply appropriate handset models, it will make arrangements with other 
suppliers. The Commission also remains unpersuaded by Virgin Mobile's 
general argument that few hearing aid-compatible models are available 
in the lower price ranges that its customers demand. Although Virgin 
Mobile may reasonably select the hearing aid-compatible models that are 
most likely to appeal to its customer base, the Commission continues to 
believe it should not be relieved of its duty to make hearing aid-
compatible options available to its customers simply due to its 
prediction that customers will not choose to purchase these models. In 
addition, the Commission anticipates that in the future, manufacturers 
may produce more hearing aid-compatible models in lower price ranges in 
order to facilitate carriers' fulfillment of their obligation to offer 
phones with multiple levels of functionality.
    23. Moreover, to the extent the deployment benchmarks that the 
Commission adopts do impose increased burdens on small carriers, these 
burdens are outweighed by the benefits to consumers. Commenters 
representing people with hearing loss support the universal application 
of these benchmarks, stating that this would assist a great number of 
hearing aid users. These additional benchmarks, especially the new 
benchmarks for inductive coupling capability, should provide valuable 
benefits to affected consumers with profound hearing loss. Regardless 
of size and product line, every service provider has customers who need 
hearing aid-compatible phones, and it is incumbent upon each wireless 
service provider to make arrangements and allocate the resources that 
are necessary to meet their needs.
    24. The Commission concludes that a three-month extension of 
deadlines for meeting these benchmarks, however, is appropriate with 
regard to service providers that are not Tier I nationwide providers, 
including regional and smaller providers, such as Tier II and Tier III 
carriers, and other service providers such as resellers and MVNOs. Five 
non-Tier I commenting parties argue that if they are subjected to new 
deployment benchmarks, they should receive extended deadlines of six 
months to one year following Tier I carriers' deadlines. The Commission 
agrees with the position of consumer advocate groups, however, that a 
three-month delay is more appropriate. While the Commission recognizes 
that smaller service providers may reasonably require some additional 
time to obtain up-to-date compliant products through vendors, the 
Commission is concerned that a longer delay would unnecessarily and 
unacceptably deny the benefits of its rules to consumers. Moreover, a 
three-month delay is consistent with past instances where the 
Commission has recognized that waivers of up to approximately three 
months for non-Tier I service providers have often been justified, but 
has generally denied requests for longer periods. The Commission finds 
that an extension beyond three months may only serve to excuse poor 
planning, inferior oversight, or some other factor within a service 
provider's control. Indeed, given that service providers have known for 
years that they would likely become subject to a 50 percent benchmark 
for handset models with RF interference reduction, which will remain 
the operative requirement for many of them, and at most they will have 
to obtain one additional handset model to satisfy the first new 
benchmark for inductive coupling capability, the Commission would 
arguably be justified, at least for the 2008 benchmarks, to afford no 
extension at all beyond that granted Tier I service providers. The 
Commission therefore concludes that a three-month delay will provide 
ample time for service providers not in Tier I to obtain the compliant 
handset models that they need to satisfy both the 2008 and future 
benchmarks.
2. New Requirements for Handset Deployment
    25. As an integral part of the handset deployment objectives the 
Commission sets forth today, the Commission also adopts two new rules 
that together will

[[Page 25572]]

facilitate the offering of not just more handsets, but also a range of 
compatible handset models throughout the manufacturer-to-consumer 
supply and distribution channels. The annual product refresh rule for 
manufacturers and the requirement that service providers offer handset 
models with different functionality levels should provide consumers 
with access to hearing aid-compatible handsets with the newest 
features, as well as more economical models. These proposals are an 
essential part of the Joint Consensus Plan, and they are broadly 
supported in the record. Indeed, the record demonstrates that hard-of-
hearing consumers demand an increased selection of popular and 
innovative handsets. While requirements to deploy minimum numbers or 
percentages of hearing aid-compatible handset models are essential to 
ensure that such phones will be available to consumers, the Commission 
finds, based on the record and experience under the existing rules, 
that these additional requirements are necessary to enable consumers to 
select a wireless phone that is not only compatible with a given 
hearing aid, but that also meets their other needs as a consumer, such 
as offering the latest features. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the 
product refresh rule for manufacturers and the functionality level rule 
for service providers.
a. Product Refresh Rule for Manufacturers
    26. Every commenter to address the issue supports adoption of the 
proposed product refresh requirement without modification. The 
Commission therefore adopts this rule as set forth in Sec.  
20.19(c)(1)(ii) of the rules (set forth at the end of this summary). 
The Commission finds that this rule is necessary to ensure that service 
providers will be able to offer to consumers a selection of hearing 
aid-compatible models including those with the latest features. The 
Commission further finds that the rule will not cause undue costs to 
manufacturers. Indeed, all commenters representing equipment 
manufacturers supported the rule on grounds that it would permit them 
to provide consumers with a variety of devices. The Commission also 
corrects an apparent typographical error in the rule as proposed in the 
Joint Consensus Plan. As reproduced in the NPRM, the Joint Consensus 
Plan states that the number of new models to be produced is to be 
determined by ``multiplying the total number of new [hearing aid-
compatible] models offered in the United States by fifty percent.'' 22 
FCC Rcd 19670, 19712 App. B (2007). The Commission corrects this to 
clarify that the relevant figure is 50 percent of the total required 
number of hearing aid-compatible models.
b. Rule Requiring Service Providers To Offer Models With Differing 
Levels of Functionality
    27. Upon consideration of the record, the Commission adopts the 
handset functionality rule as proposed and applies it to all service 
providers. As applied to Tier I carriers, all commenters representing 
Tier I carriers support a handset functionality rule. The Commission 
therefore adopts the rule in order to ensure that hearing aid users can 
select from a variety of compliant handset models, with varying 
features and prices. Moreover, these commenters agree that service 
providers should have flexibility to define their product levels 
because, as ATIS states, ``[i]t is not feasible to identify a uniform 
set of `tiers' for all carriers that will appropriately apply to each 
carrier's unique set of product offerings.'' ATIS Comments at 7-8. The 
Commission concurs that given the great variety and continual 
development in handset features, any effort on its part to define 
criteria of functionality would be infeasible and might deter 
innovation, and the Commission therefore prescribes no criteria. The 
Commission does, however, stand by its guidance that a handset's level 
of functionality may include its capability to operate over multiple 
frequency bands. While Research in Motion Limited (RIM) objects that 
the availability or unavailability of a particular frequency band does 
not represent anything of value to a consumer, the Commission disagrees 
on the ground that the ability to access additional frequency bands may 
increase the circumstances under which the consumer can use the phone. 
The Commission clarifies that no service provider is required to offer 
phones that operate over multiple bands, and that this is simply one 
factor a service provider may use to distinguish the functionality of 
its handset models. In addition, the Commission adopts Gallaudet/RERC's 
suggestion to require service providers to disclose their functionality 
criteria in their reports to the Commission and on their Web sites, in 
order that both the Commission and the public may understand the basis 
for their distinctions.
    28. Finally, the Commission determines to apply the rule to all 
service providers, not only nationwide Tier I carriers. Several 
regional and smaller service providers do not support such a 
requirement, arguing, for example, that such a requirement would be 
intrusive and that the statute does not require the Commission to 
ensure that hearing aid users have feature-rich phones. Other 
commenters, however, contend that the functionality level rule should 
be applied universally. For the same reasons discussed with respect to 
the handset deployment benchmarks, the Commission concludes that 
consumers with hearing loss should not be deprived of a choice of 
handset features based simply on their place of residence or their 
service provider. Moreover, given flexibility to define levels, even 
service providers with relatively small product lines should be able to 
distinguish among their handset models in a manner that permits them to 
define levels of functionality appropriate to their situation. The 
Commission does not expect a provider with four hearing aid-compatible 
models, for example, necessarily to offer as many levels of 
functionality or as broad a range of product offerings as a Tier I 
carrier with eight or more models, but the Commission does expect such 
a provider to draw some distinctions.
3. Implementation Issues
a. Definition of a Model
    29. RIM supports the proposal to accept a manufacturer's 
determination of whether a device is a distinct model. PerrineCrest 
Radio Consulting (PerrineCrest Radio) asserts that the Commission 
should further define a model, or that at a minimum, manufacturers 
should explain how they distinguish their models. PerrineCrest Radio 
argues that this would help in monitoring the effectiveness of its 
requirements. It does not offer any suggestion regarding how the 
Commission should define a model, however.
    30. The Commission concludes that its proposal represents the right 
approach to determinations of what constitutes a ``model'' under its 
rule. Consistent with its proposal, the Commission determines that, for 
purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules, a manufacturer may not 
characterize as separate models any devices that do not in fact possess 
any distinguishing variation in form, features, or capabilities. Thus, 
under some circumstances, handsets assigned different model numbers by 
the manufacturer may count as a single model under the rules, such as 
where multiple model numbers are assigned to the same handset to 
distinguish units sold to different carriers, or are used to designate 
other distinctions that do not relate to either form, features, or

[[Page 25573]]

capabilities. Otherwise, the Commission finds it appropriate to defer 
to manufacturers regarding which devices constitute distinct models, 
consistent with how those devices are marketed to the public, because 
manufacturers are best positioned to determine when and how to market 
their own devices as distinct models. The Commission notes that it has, 
to date, deferred to manufacturer designation of distinct model lines 
and has not come across any instance in which such designations were 
made in bad faith to escape hearing aid compatibility obligations or 
did not otherwise reflect legitimate differences between devices. The 
Commission has no reason to believe that manufacturers will not 
continue to act in good faith in this regard. Accordingly, the 
Commission will accept manufacturers' determination of whether a device 
is a distinct model, subject only to these aforementioned restrictions.
    31. While the Commission does not generally establish specific 
requirements regarding model distinctions, the Commission specifies one 
circumstance in which the Commission requires a device to be given a 
distinct model designation. Specifically, where changes are made to a 
device that result in a change in the hearing aid compatibility rating, 
the Commission requires manufacturers, and service providers down the 
distribution chain, to provide the altered device a model name/number 
that is distinct from the original device's designation. Based on its 
previous experience and the need for service providers and consumers to 
determine easily the compatibility of particular handset models, 
manufacturers and service providers should not be simultaneously 
offering two or more identically designated models with different 
hearing aid compatibility ratings.
    32. The Commission will not require a new model designation where a 
change in rating is not the product of a change in the device but is 
simply the result of certifying for hearing aid compatibility a model 
that was not previously so certified. The Commission further clarifies 
that in such an instance, once the model has been certified, service 
providers offering that model may offer it to satisfy their deployment 
obligations, even if the particular units they offer were obtained from 
the manufacturer prior to date of certification. They must, however, 
ensure that such models comply with hearing aid compatibility labeling 
obligations, if necessary by contacting the manufacturer and requesting 
appropriate external labeling and inserts. Further, they may not count 
any model as hearing aid-compatible for periods prior to the date on 
which the model was certified for hearing aid compatibility.
b. Multi-Mode and Multi-Band Handsets
    33. Commenters generally support the proposal that a handset be 
considered hearing aid-compatible only if it is compatible in all 
frequency bands and modes over which it operates and for which there 
are established standards. RCA, however, opposes the proposal, arguing 
that it will reduce availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets, 
and will particularly harm small service providers whose access to such 
handsets is already limited.
    34. In addition, although most manufacturers and service providers 
support the basic multi-band/mode proposal where hearing aid 
compatibility technical standards already exist, they oppose the 
proposal in the NPRM to automatically treat multi-band and multi-mode 
handsets as non-compatible if they operate over frequency bands or 
modes without established standards. They assert that the proposal may 
inhibit or delay deployment of new technologies and converged devices, 
and that there is no evidence that new frequency bands or air 
interfaces will cause interference problems. In particular, some 
commenters express concerns regarding the effect of such a rule on 
deployment of multi-mode handsets that offer Wi-Fi capability. 
Commenters further assert that the proposal will mislead consumers with 
hearing loss into concluding that all handsets operating over new 
frequency bands or using new technology are incompatible with hearing 
aid use, even if the handsets can be certified compatible in all 
operating modes and frequency bands that have established standards. 
Finally, they argue that the proposal violates the Commission's 
statutory obligation to ``ensure that regulations adopted to implement 
this section encourage the use of currently available technology and do 
not discourage or impair the development of improved technology,'' 47 
U.S.C. 610(e), and would also exceed its statutory authority by 
effectively imposing hearing aid compatibility requirements in the 
absence of established standards for such compatibility. Instead of the 
proposed rule, they recommend that the Commission provide ANSI time to 
identify actual interference concerns and offer specific standards or 
recommendations, and otherwise permit handsets to be designated hearing 
aid-compatible so long as they have been certified to meet hearing aid 
compatibility standards in all frequency bands and operating modes that 
have established standards.
    35. Gallaudet/RERC supports the proposal in the NPRM, arguing that 
consumers who purchase handsets labeled hearing aid-compatible have an 
expectation that such phones are compatible in all of their operations, 
and that the proposed rule will therefore prevent consumer confusion 
regarding hearing aid compatibility when the phone is operating over 
frequency bands or air interfaces that do not have standards. 
Gallaudet/RERC further argues that the rule will provide incentives to 
the wireless industry to establish standards in a timely fashion. 
Commenters in opposition respond that the Commission can address 
confusion concerns with disclosure requirements, and that there is no 
reason to believe that the rule will hasten development of standards. 
These commenters also disagree that the rule is justified to induce 
more rapid adoption of new standards.
    36. A filing on behalf of both industry and consumer group 
representatives asked that the Commission hold the record open to 
enable them to develop a consensus proposal regarding multi-mode and 
multi-band phones that operate in part over air interfaces or frequency 
bands for which no hearing aid compatibility standards exist. As set 
forth in this filing, members of ATIS' Incubator Solutions 4 
(AISP.4-HAC) state that they have agreed with representatives of 
consumers with hearing loss to develop such a proposal. The filing also 
states that AISP.4-HAC anticipates filing general principles regarding 
this consensus plan within three months of the release of the 
Commission's Order, with more specific information regarding this 
proposal to be filed within six months of the release of the Order. 
ATIS states that, with the exception of devices incorporating Wi-Fi 
capability, it is unaware of any phones currently available that 
operate over multiple air interfaces or frequency bands, some of which 
have hearing aid compatibility standards and some of which do not. 
Finally, with regard to devices that incorporate Wi-Fi capability, the 
filing states that the members of AISP.4-HAC support allowing such 
devices to be labeled as hearing aid-compatible if they satisfy hearing 
aid compatibility standards for all other frequency bands and air 
interfaces over which they operate.
    37. In order to both protect consumers and provide clarity to 
industry with respect to handset offerings that already

[[Page 25574]]

exist, while allowing further consideration of the longer-term issues, 
the Commission takes the following steps at this time. First, the 
Commission adopts the Joint Consensus Plan's proposal to clarify that, 
to be counted as compatible, a handset model must be hearing aid-
compatible for each air interface and frequency band it uses as long as 
standards exist for each of those bands and interfaces. Second, the 
Commission leaves the record open for further submissions in the near 
term, including an anticipated consensus proposal, regarding whether a 
phone that operates in part in bands or air interfaces for which no 
standards exist should be counted as compatible, if it is compatible in 
all bands and air interfaces for which hearing aid compatibility 
standards exist. Finally, because there already exist a large number of 
handset models that operate over the Wi-Fi air interface as well as in 
bands and air interfaces for which there are hearing aid compatibility 
standards, the Commission will allow such phones on an interim basis to 
be counted as hearing aid-compatible if they otherwise qualify as 
hearing aid-compatible under its rules, but will require consumers to 
be informed that those phones have not been rated for hearing aid 
compatibility with respect to their Wi-Fi operations.
    38. The Commission first adopts the Joint Consensus Plan's proposal 
and establishes that, to be offered as hearing aid-compatible, a 
handset must be hearing aid-compatible for every frequency band and air 
interface that it uses for which standards have been adopted by the 
Commission. As indicated in the NPRM, the Commission finds that 
requiring a hearing aid-compatible handset to be hearing aid-compatible 
in all such frequencies and modes of operation will better conform to 
the expectations of consumers that purchase such handsets. Conversely, 
allowing manufacturers and carriers to satisfy their deployment 
requirements with partially-compatible handsets where hearing aid 
compatibility standards exist, would likely cause significant confusion 
to consumers who purchase handsets that are labeled and offered as 
hearing aid-compatible, and who perhaps experience compatibility when 
the handset is tested in-store, only to discover later that the 
handset's compatibility varies depending on which of its frequency 
bands or air interfaces is in use at any particular moment. The 
Commission notes that it emphasized the benefits to hard-of-hearing 
consumers of being able to rely on a full range of functionality in 
their hearing aid-compatible handsets and of not having to learn all 
the technical details, such as the frequencies on which their phones 
operate. Further, although RCA expresses concern that the rule will 
discourage the manufacture of hearing aid-compatible multi-mode 
handsets, the Commission notes that those manufacturers to comment on 
the issue all support the rule as proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, 
some expressly indicating that the rule will not impede the development 
of technology.
    39. Second, except for its interim ruling with respect to the Wi-Fi 
air interface, the Commission does not here resolve whether, or to what 
extent, multi-band and multi-mode handsets should be counted as hearing 
aid-compatible if they operate in part over frequency bands or air 
interfaces for which technical standards have not yet been established. 
The record contains arguments both in favor of and against treating 
such handsets as hearing aid-compatible. Moreover, according to 
industry representatives, no such handsets currently exist, with the 
exception of devices incorporating Wi-Fi capability. The Commission 
accepts the proposal endorsed by both industry and consumer 
representatives to leave the record open so that they may develop a 
consensus plan on this issue in the near term. When the Commission 
subsequently addresses the application of hearing aid compatibility 
requirements to Wi-Fi operations, it will consider an appropriate 
transition regime to bring any requirements into effect.
    40. Finally, the Commission adopts an interim rule to allow 
handsets with Wi-Fi capability that otherwise meet hearing aid 
compatibility standards to be certified as hearing aid-compatible. 
Unlike the situation with future air interfaces and anticipated 
frequencies (e.g., the 700 MHz band), many handset models are already 
being produced and offered to consumers with Wi-Fi capability, 
including a significant proportion of the newest handset models. 
Moreover, the Commission has not yet addressed the extent to which 
hearing aid compatibility requirements should apply to handset models 
in various configurations incorporating Wi-Fi capability (which was not 
originally developed for voice transmissions), an issue on which the 
Commission sought comment in the NPRM. Therefore, the Commission adopts 
an interim measure to provide certainty and avoid discouraging the use 
of currently-available Wi-Fi technology during the period until the 
Commission addresses the status of Wi-Fi. Specifically, the Commission 
will not at present preclude a handset model that incorporates a Wi-Fi 
air interface from being offered as hearing aid-compatible so long as 
the handset otherwise qualifies as hearing aid-compatible under its 
rules.
    41. To reduce consumer confusion as much as possible, however, the 
Commission also will require manufacturers and service providers, where 
they provide hearing aid compatibility ratings for handset models that 
incorporate operations using a Wi-Fi air interface, to clearly disclose 
to consumers that the handset has not been rated for hearing aid 
compatibility with respect to its Wi-Fi operation. This includes phones 
that may be used to provide Voice over Internet Protocol using a Wi-Fi 
air interface. The Commission recognizes that such disclosure is not 
likely to fully relieve potential customer confusion regarding handsets 
that meet established hearing aid compatibility standards for all of 
their operations except Wi-Fi. Given the current circumstances, 
however, the Commission believes the better course is to require 
disclosure of the lack of a hearing aid compatibility rating over the 
Wi-Fi air interface rather than preclude handset models that 
incorporate a Wi-Fi air interface from being considered hearing aid-
compatible. In addition, the Commission expects service providers to 
train the sales staff at their owned or operated retail outlets 
regarding the lack of a rating for Wi-Fi operations and its 
implications. To give manufacturers and service providers sufficient 
time to develop and implement effective means to disclose this 
information (e.g., inclusion of call-out cards or other media, 
revisions to their packaging materials, supplying of information on Web 
sites) where hearing aid compatibility ratings are provided, this 
requirement will become effective six months after the effective date 
of the rules adopted in the R&O. The Commission also notes that Working 
Group 6 of the ATIS incubator is developing language to inform 
consumers when otherwise hearing aid-compatible phones operate in part 
over frequency bands or air interfaces that do not have hearing aid 
compatibility standards.
c. De minimis Rule
    42. Most commenters add