Improvements to Benchmarks and Related Requirements Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, 204-214 [2015-32756]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 204-214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32756]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 15-285; FCC 15-155]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on revisions to the Commission's wireless 
hearing aid compatibility rules. The Commission proposes to adopt a 
consensus approach developed cooperatively by consumer advocates and 
industry trade associations, which would require manufacturers and 
service providers to increase the percentage of new wireless handset 
models that are hearing aid compatible over time, culminating in a 
system in which all wireless handset models are accessible to people 
with hearing loss.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before January 14, 
2016, and reply comments on or before January 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 15-285; 
FCC 15-155, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: 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 the Commission continues to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to 
request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: fcc504@fcc.gov or phone: 
202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
modifications proposed herein should be submitted to the Commission via 
email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management 
and Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 
202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
NPRM, contact Michael Rowan, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 
418-1883, email Michael.Rowan@

[[Page 205]]

fcc.gov, or Eli Johnson, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (202) 418-
1395, email Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 15-285; FCC 15-155, 
adopted November 19, 2015, and released on November 20, 2015. This 
summary should be read with its companion document, the Fourth Report 
and Order summary published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register. The full text of the NPRM is available for public inspection 
and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information 
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site, https://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-
5563, or email FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Additionally, the complete item is 
available on the Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on potential 
revisions to the Commission's part 20 rules governing wireless hearing 
aid compatibility. The Commission initiates this proceeding to develop 
a record on an innovative and groundbreaking proposal, advanced 
collaboratively by industry and consumer groups, to replace the current 
fractional regime with the staged adoption of a system under which all 
covered wireless handsets will be hearing aid-compatible. The 
Commission proposes to adopt this consensus approach, which recognizes 
that the stakeholders themselves are best positioned to craft a regime 
that ensures full accessibility while protecting incentives to innovate 
and invest.

II. Background

    2. The Joint Consensus Proposal provides that within two years of 
the effective date of the adoption of the new benchmark rules, 66 
percent of wireless handset models offered to consumers should be 
compliant with the Commission's acoustic coupling radio frequency 
interference (M rating) and inductive coupling (T rating) requirements. 
The proposal provides that within five years of the effective date of 
new rules adopted, 85 percent of wireless handset models offered to 
consumers should be compliant with the Commission's M and T ratings.
    3. The proposal provides that these new benchmarks should apply to 
manufacturers and carriers that offer six or more digital wireless 
handset models in an air interface, except that Tier I and Non-Tier I 
carriers would receive six months and eighteen months of additional 
compliance time, respectively, to account for availability of handsets 
and inventory turn-over rates. The proposal states that the existing de 
minimis exception should continue to apply for manufacturers and 
carriers that offer three or fewer handset models in an air interface 
and that manufacturers and carriers that offer four or five digital 
wireless handset models in an air interface should ensure that at least 
two of those handsets models are compliant with our M and T rating 
requirements. In addition, the proposal provides that these benchmarks 
should only be applicable if testing protocols are available for a 
particular air interface.
    4. In addition to these two-year and five-year benchmarks, the 
proposal provides that ``[t]he Commission should commit to pursue that 
100% of wireless handsets offered to consumers should be compliant with 
[the M and T rating requirements] within eight years.'' The Joint 
Consensus Proposal conditions the transition to 100 percent, however, 
on a Commission determination within seven years of the rules' 
effective date that reaching the 100 percent goal is ``achievable.'' 
The Joint Consensus Proposal prescribes the following process for 
making that determination:

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

III. Discussion

    5. The Commission proposes to adopt the general approach discussed 
in the Joint Consensus Proposal, including the staged benchmark 
revisions, the Commission's determination of achievability, and the 
process for moving to a 100 percent compliance standard, and the 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and its various components. 
The Commission recognizes that the Joint Consensus Proposal reflects 
the intensive efforts and commitment of consumer and industry 
stakeholders to develop an approach that expands access for consumers 
with hearing loss while preserving the flexibility that allows 
innovation to flourish. The Commission notes that the current hearing 
aid compatibility rules, including the current benchmarks, are also 
based on a consensus proposal developed and submitted in 2007 by 
representatives of the wireless industry and consumers with hearing 
loss. In substantially adopting the terms of that proposal, the 
Commission found that broad multi-stakeholder support ``testifie[d] 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.'' Given the success of the previous 
consensus proposal, and recognizing that the Joint Consensus Proposal 
was generated by the very stakeholders that it will impact most 
directly, the Commission considers favorably the Joint Consensus 
Proposal--particularly to the extent that it moves toward a 100 percent 
hearing aid compatibility requirement without discouraging or impairing 
the development of improved technology. The Commission also believes 
that an approach developed through consensus among the relevant 
stakeholders may yield outcomes that most effectively leverage 
innovative technological solutions.
    6. Accordingly, below, the Commission seeks comment on the merits 
of the Joint Consensus Proposal, both with respect to its overall 
effectiveness in fulfilling Congress's intent to ensure access to 
telephones for people with hearing loss under Section 710 of the 
Communications Act as amended by the CVAA, and more specifically with 
respect to its various components as these have been

[[Page 206]]

presented jointly by the consumer and industry stakeholders. The 
Commission also seeks comment on several related matters.

1. The Joint Consensus Proposal

    7. Benchmarks. First, the Commission asks commenters to address the 
timeframes that the proposal describes as well as the process for the 
Commission's determination of achievability. Are the proposed new 
benchmarks appropriate for all covered entities and handsets? How will 
these benchmarks effectively meet the needs of consumers while 
protecting innovation and competition for current and future 
operations? The Commission asks commenters who recommend different 
benchmarks for small entities, for certain technologies or services, or 
for meeting the standards for acoustic coupling and inductive coupling 
to explain their reasoning in detail, along with justifications for why 
their preferred alternatives would be better than the approach 
contained in the Joint Consensus Proposal, taking into consideration 
the purposes and goals of Section 710. The Joint Consensus Proposal 
provides that the Commission should commit to pursuing a goal of 100 
percent compatibility within eight years of the effective date at the 
time the revised benchmarks are established. The Commission seeks 
comment on this eight-year period. Would a longer or shorter transition 
period be more appropriate and, if so, why?
    8. De minimis exception to two- and five-year benchmarks. The 
proposal recommends that the existing de minimis exception to the 
benchmarks should continue to apply for manufacturers and carriers that 
offer three or fewer handset models in an air interface and that the 
rule should further provide that manufacturers and carriers that offer 
four or five digital wireless handset models in an air interface should 
ensure that at least two of those handsets models are compliant with 
sections 20.19(b)(1) and (b)(2). The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposed exceptions to the new benchmarks.
    9. Determination of Achievability. The Commission seeks comment on 
the proposed process for determining achievability. For example, in 
determining achievability, should the Commission limit itself to 
assessing information and data collected in years four and five, or 
should it also take account of more recent data and information that 
may be available at that time? Should the Commission seek public 
comment in connection with reaching the achievability determination? 
Are there any aspects of the Joint Consensus Proposal's benchmarks, 
timing, and achievability determination that the Commission should not 
adopt? Should the Commission supplement them with any additional 
requirements or considerations? Regarding the proposed task force, the 
Commission seeks comment on how and through what process or mechanism 
the Commission should establish the task force, on whether the task 
force should be established without delay even if its primary functions 
would not begin until year four, and on how the task force should be 
structured and its membership determined, including how to ensure that 
``all stakeholders'' are adequately represented. The Commission also 
seeks comment on which issues or questions the Commission should ask 
the task force to explore, on the scope and content of the task force's 
report, and on the processes or rules, if any, that should govern its 
activities.
    10. The Commission also seeks comment on how the Commission should 
determine achievability, including the appropriate substantive 
definition, standard, or framework to govern the Commission's 
determination. For example, should the determination of achievability 
be based on relevant factors specified in Section 710, e.g., 
technological feasibility, marketability, and impact on the use and 
development of technology? The Commission notes that the CVAA contains 
a specific definition of achievability that applies in the context of 
sections 716 and 718 of the Act. Specifically, Section 716(g) of the 
Act defines the term ``achievable'' to mean ``with reasonable effort or 
expense, as determined by the Commission.'' Section 716 requires 
providers of advanced communications services and manufacturers of 
equipment used for those services to make their offerings accessible to 
and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless not achievable. 
Section 718 requires manufacturers of telephones used with public 
mobile services to ensure that web browsers on those devices are 
accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or have a visual 
impairment, unless doing so is not achievable. Given that these 
sections similarly contain mandates for equipment accessibility by 
people with disabilities, is it appropriate to apply the CVAA 
achievability definition here as well? Or would an alternative be 
preferable in the context of the Joint Consensus Proposal?
    11. In considering whether the 100 percent goal is achievable, 
should the Commission consider innovative approaches, including 
standards or technologies that are different from the currently 
applicable ANSI standard, that can achieve telephone access for 
consumers with hearing loss? For example, Apple has explained that it 
``work[ed] outside the existing Part 20 framework to advance its goal 
of dramatically improving the user experience for individuals with 
hearing loss,'' and that it developed a new hearing aid platform that 
relies on Bluetooth[supreg] technology. The Commission urges 
stakeholders to think broadly in developing alternative approaches, 
whether they build on Apple's experience or other efforts, as the 
Commission is confident that creativity and innovation can 
significantly advance the interests of consumers with hearing loss 
without hobbling wireless innovation. The Commission is particularly 
interested in commenters' insights regarding alternative compliance 
approaches that can, in a technologically neutral manner, ensure that 
devices are fully accessible for users with hearing loss.

2. Stakeholders' Suggested Requests for Comment

    12. The Joint Proposal itself recommends that the Commission seek 
comment on various issues related to modifying the benchmark regime. In 
particular, it suggests that the Commission seek comment on the 
following issues, which it now does:

    The Commission should seek comment in the NPRM on how the FCC's 
rules should be modified to ensure manufacturers and service 
providers meet the new benchmarks while preserving the ability to 
offer innovative wireless handsets in a rapidly changing market. For 
example, the Commission should seek comment on whether wireless 
handsets can be deemed compliant with the HAC rules through means 
other than by measuring RF interference and inductive coupling. In 
addition, the Commission should seek comment on which compliance 
processes, such as waivers, should be modified to accommodate 
innovation and carriers', especially rural and regional carriers', 
handset inventories and turn-over rates, within a compliance regime 
with the enhanced benchmarks described above. The Commission also 
should seek comment on whether disclosures to consumers could serve 
as a means of compliance for wireless handsets utilizing new air 
interfaces or technologies where HAC standards or testing protocols 
are not yet available. In addition to examining the effect on 
innovation, the Commission should seek comment on the impact of the 
new benchmarks on U.S. product offerings.
    The Commission should also seek comment on the best ways to 
improve collaboration on consumer education including but not 
limited to: making

[[Page 207]]

information about the HAC ratings of wireless handsets and hearing 
aids more easily discoverable and accessible by consumers as well as 
how HAC information should be updated on Web sites in a timely 
manner that is usable by consumers. The Commission should also 
request comment on how the hearing aid industry and other relevant 
stakeholders should take measures to ensure that consumers have 
improved access to the HAC ratings of hearing aids.

    13. In connection with the suggested questions regarding waivers, 
the Commission also seeks comment on how to best to apply the Section 
710(b)(3) waiver process in the context of the Joint Consensus 
Proposal. Should the Commission establish a fixed time period within 
which the Commission must take action on waiver requests? If so, would 
180 days be an appropriate amount of time, considering both the need to 
develop a full record and the importance of avoiding delay in the 
introduction of new technologies? If not 180 days, what amount of time 
would be appropriate? If the Commission establishes a time period for 
Commission action, are there situations in which the Commission should 
have the ability to extend the deadline?

3. Analysis of Statutory Factors

    14. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Joint Consensus 
Proposal is consistent with and warranted under Section 710 of the 
Communications Act. Section 710(b)(2)(B) directs the Commission to use 
a four-part test to periodically reassess exemptions from the hearing 
aid compatibility requirements for wireless handsets. Specifically, the 
statute directs the Commission to revoke or limit an exemption if it 
finds that (1) Continuing the exemption without such revocation or 
limitation would have an adverse effect on individuals with hearing 
loss; (2) compliance with the hearing aid compatibility requirements 
would be technologically feasible for devices to which the exemption 
applies; (3) the cost of compliance would not increase costs to such an 
extent that the newly covered devices could not be successfully 
marketed; and (4) revoking or limiting the exemption is in the public 
interest. The Commission seeks comment on whether this analysis is 
applicable to the changes proposed in the Joint Consensus Proposal, 
whether such changes would meet this four-part test, and whether the 
proposal requires any modifications to satisfy the statutory standard.
    15. Section 710 further directs that, in any rulemaking to 
implement hearing aid compatibility requirements, the Commission should 
(1) specifically consider the costs and benefits to all telephone 
users, including people with and without hearing loss, (2) ensure that 
hearing aid compatibility regulations encourage the use of currently 
available technology and do not discourage or impair the development of 
improved technology, and (3) use appropriate timetables and benchmarks 
to the extent necessary due to technical feasibility or to ensure 
marketability or availability of new technologies to users. The 
Commission therefore asks commenters to address these factors in their 
analysis of the proposal and to explain whether modifications are 
warranted.

4. Standards and Technologies for Meeting Compatibility

    16. The Commission seeks comment on whether the compatibility 
requirement--revised pursuant to the Joint Consensus Proposal or in any 
other manner--should specifically require both a minimum M3 and minimum 
T3 rating, or whether manufacturers should be allowed to meet the 
requirement by incorporating other methods of achieving compatibility 
with hearing aids, such as Bluetooth[supreg]. The Commission is mindful 
that some innovative advances in accessibility features have resulted 
from outside-of-the-box solutions, and the Commission does not wish to 
discourage these types of pioneering advances. The Commission seeks 
comment on the extent to which such alternative approaches are able to 
meet the communications needs of people with hearing loss. 
Specifically, in addition to commenting on the effectiveness of such 
alternatives for aiding in comprehending telephone conversation, the 
Commission asks commenters to provide information about the cost of 
such devices to consumers, as well as the ease of procuring devices 
needed to use such alternatives. Given these criteria, what approaches 
should the Commission recognize as viable alternatives, how should such 
alternative approaches be incorporated into the hearing aid 
compatibility rules, what customer disclosures should be required for 
alternative approaches, and what standards should apply to the 
alternative approaches, particularly with respect to testing and rating 
alternative devices and technologies? How, if at all, would such 
alternative approaches impact the efficacy of the Joint Consensus 
Proposal?
    17. What are the costs and benefits of allowing these alternative 
approaches? For example, Apple proposes that the Commission apply the 
ANSI standards as a ``safe harbor'' for hearing aid compatibility but 
to ``reward innovators for finding other, better solutions that result 
in real accessibility even if they do not meet the ANSI standards.'' 
Although Apple proposes this approach as an alternative method of 
meeting the existing benchmarks, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether to adopt it in conjunction with the Joint Consensus Proposal. 
The Commission also seeks comment on how to determine hearing aid 
compatibility outside of compliance with the applicable ANSI standard. 
The Commission invites commenters to consider alternatives of this kind 
when evaluating the Joint Consensus Proposal.

5. Exceptions

    18. The current de minimis exception provides that small 
manufacturers and service providers that offer two or fewer digital 
wireless handset models operating over a particular air interface are 
exempt from the benchmark deployment requirements in connection with 
that air interface, while larger manufacturers and service providers 
with two or fewer handset models have a limited obligation. The 
provision further states that any manufacturer or service provider that 
offers three digital wireless handset models operating over a 
particular air interface must offer at least one such handset model 
that meets the M3 and T3 standards for that air interface. Although the 
Joint Consensus Proposal recommends retaining this exception for the 
new two and five year benchmarks (with an added provision for entities 
offering four or five handsets), it does not expressly address whether 
and how the exception will continue to apply under a subsequent 100 
percent requirement.
    19. The Commission seeks comment on whether to preserve the de 
minimis exception in whole or in part in the event the Commission 
adopts a 100 percent requirement. Should the Commission preserve the 
exception during the transitional periods prior to implementation of a 
100 percent compatibility requirement, as proposed in the Joint 
Consensus Plan? Alternatively, should the Commission phase out the de 
minimis exception over the course of the transitional periods? Should 
the Commission preserve the exception even in the event of a 100 
percent compatibility obligation? How would the de minimis exception 
operate under a 100-percent compatibility requirement? If a qualifying 
manufacturer were to offer a non-compliant handset, could any provider 
make it available to consumers, or would it only be available to 
providers that are also eligible for the exception? If such handsets 
were unavailable to providers that were not eligible for the

[[Page 208]]

exception, would preserving the exception effectively limit consumer 
choice in many cases? If so, are there distinct aspects or features of 
the exception that the Commission should preserve?
    20. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should include any 
other exceptions in the event the Commission adopts a 100 percent 
compatibility requirement, and how such exceptions are consistent with 
and warranted under Section 710's requirements. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether there are particular air interfaces, such as GSM 
operating in the 1900 MHz band, which will face particular difficulties 
in meeting a 100 percent compatibility requirement and, if so, whether 
and how such difficulties should be specifically addressed or 
accommodated under a 100 percent compatibility requirement. Are there 
new technological solutions that should better enable GSM/1900 handsets 
to achieve hearing aid compatibility and, if so, what requirements 
should apply to GSM/1900 handsets given such solutions?

6. Legacy Models

    21. In the event the Commission adopts a 100 percent compatibility 
requirement, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate treatment 
of legacy models. Should non-hearing aid-compatible handsets that 
received equipment authorization prior to the end of any transition 
period be grandfathered to better ensure that manufacturers are able to 
recoup their investments in their legacy handsets? The Commission seeks 
comment on this option, on alternative approaches to grandfathering, 
and on whether, following some additional period after a transition to 
a 100 percent compatibility regime, the Commission should require 
hearing aid compatibility for all handset models offered (as opposed to 
just models released after transitioning to the 100 percent regime).
    22. The Commission further seeks comment on how best to ensure that 
people with hearing loss are able to find hearing aid compatible phones 
that can meet their communication needs during the transition period to 
a 100 percent compatibility requirement. The Commission notes that 
Section 717(d) of the Communications Act, added by the CVAA, requires 
the Commission to maintain a clearinghouse of information about 
accessible products and services required under sections 255, 716, and 
718 of the Act. The Commission launched its Accessibility Clearinghouse 
in October 2011. Among other things, this database allows consumers to 
search for wireless handsets with accessibility features that meet the 
needs of various disabilities, including hearing aid compatible 
handsets. Does this Accessibility Clearinghouse, or the Web sites upon 
which it relies, effectively provide the information needed by 
consumers to locate hearing aid compatible phones? In other words, does 
it enable a consumer to determine without difficulty whether any 
particular handset model is hearing aid compliant? If not, the 
Commission seeks comment on the format and type of information that the 
Commission should include in the Accessibility Clearinghouse in order 
to empower consumers to make educated decisions about their handset 
purchases. The Commission notes, for example, that currently, 
manufacturers are required to electronically file annual compliance 
reports with the Commission on FCC Form 655 in July of each year and 
service providers must electronically file this form with the 
Commission in January of each year. These reports include, among other 
information, the M and T ratings for each handset. Is there a way that 
such information can be used to automatically supplement the 
information now provided in the Accessibility Clearinghouse database? 
In addition, in the event the Commission adopts a 100 percent 
compatibility requirement, will it be necessary to continue providing 
information on hearing aid compatible phones in the Accessibility 
Clearinghouse? It is not the Commission's intention to create 
additional reporting burdens on manufacturers and service providers, 
therefore, the Commission seeks comment on approaches to ensuring that 
the improvements contemplated above do not impose such burdens.
    23. The Commission also seeks comment on whether service providers 
should be able to rely on information in the Accessibility 
Clearinghouse and on Form 655 to the extent that it reflects compliance 
information submitted by manufacturers. Are there any reasons service 
providers should not be able to rely on the Accessibility Clearinghouse 
or Form 655? For example, how should the Commission treat a service 
provider if it offers a handset that a manufacturer has included in the 
Accessibility Clearinghouse and indicated to be compliant in the 
manufacturer's annual FCC Form 655, even if it is later determined that 
the handset does not in fact meet the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements? Should such information create a presumption that the 
service provider is not in breach of the Commission's hearing aid 
compatibility rules?

7. Burden Reduction

    24. In the event the Commission ultimately transitions to a 100-
percent compatibility regime, the Commission proposes to ease or 
eliminate the reporting, disclosure, labeling, and other requirements 
imposed under the current rules. The Commission seeks comment on the 
extent to which these requirements are unnecessary or unwarranted in 
the event the Commission moves to a 100 percent regime, and on the 
costs and benefits of easing such requirements as they relate to 
consumers, manufacturers, and service providers.
    25. Currently, manufacturers are required to electronically file 
annual compliance reports with the Commission on FCC Form 655 in July 
of each year and service providers must electronically file this form 
with the Commission in January of each year. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether to end the reporting requirements for manufacturers 
and service providers in the event the Commission moves to a 100 
percent regime or at some point thereafter. The Commission notes that 
numerous parties, especially rural and small service providers, have 
asserted that preparing these annual reports is burdensome. While these 
reports help the Commission monitor compliance with the hearing aid 
compatibility benchmarks, will such monitoring still be necessary, and 
will the benefits of these reports still outweigh the burdens, in the 
event the Commission moves to a 100 percent compatibility regime? 
Alternatively, should the Commission eliminate the reporting 
requirement only for service providers, on the grounds that 
manufacturers' reports will be sufficient under a 100 percent regime to 
ensure all models available to consumers are compliant? Should the 
Commission maintain the reporting requirement for other groups for a 
certain period of time while non-compliant legacy models remain in 
inventory? Should the Commission maintain reporting requirements for 
manufacturers and service providers who offer handsets that are exempt 
from hearing aid compatibility requirements or can be used for services 
that are exempt from these rules? The Commission notes that the Joint 
Consensus Plan would establish two new benchmarks, at year two and year 
five. Should the Commission modify the content or applicability of the 
reporting requirements that apply during the period following either 
the two or five

[[Page 209]]

year benchmark but prior to the implementation of a 100 percent 
compatibility requirement?
    26. The existing hearing aid compatibility rules also require 
manufacturers and service providers to label their hearing aid-
compatible handsets with the appropriate M and T ratings and provide 
information on the rating system, and to meet certain disclosure 
requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets that are not 
compatible over all their operations. The rules also require 
manufacturers and service providers to provide information on their Web 
sites, such as a list of all hearing aid-compatible models currently 
offered, the associated rating information for those handsets, and an 
explanation of the rating system. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether, in the event the Commission moves to a 100 percent 
compatibility regime, the current labeling and disclosure requirements 
should be eliminated, simplified, or amended. Alternatively, should the 
Commission continue to require disclosure of rating information in 
packaging and on Web sites for hearing aid-compatible handset models so 
that consumers can distinguish between M3 and M4 ratings, between T3 
and T4 ratings, and between hearing aid-compatible handsets and 
grandfathered non-compatible models?
    27. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to eliminate the 
product refresh rule applicable to manufacturers and the differing 
levels of functionality rule applicable to service providers if the 
Commission moves to a 100 percent compatibility regime or adopts other 
modifications to the benchmarks. The product refresh rule requires 
manufacturers that offer new handset models in a year to ensure that a 
certain number of the new models are hearing aid-compatible. The 
differing levels of functionality rule requires service providers to 
offer a range of hearing aid-compatible models with differing levels of 
functionality in terms of capabilities, features, and price. In the 
context of benchmarks that do not require 100 percent of handsets to be 
hearing aid-compatible, these additional requirements help to ensure 
that people with hearing loss have access to handsets with the latest 
features and functions and at different price points. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that a refresh rule would serve no purpose after 
a 100 percent requirement takes effect, given that it merely imposes a 
fractional obligation on new models, which would be entirely subsumed 
by the new requirement. The Commission seeks comment on this 
conclusion. The Commission further seeks comment on whether a 100 
percent requirement on manufacturers would also be sufficient to ensure 
that service providers offer a range of hearing aid-compatible models 
with differing levels of functionality. Will maintaining the differing 
levels of functionality requirement help to ensure that low-income 
Americans with hearing loss have access to affordable hearing aid-
compatible handsets?
    28. Finally, to the extent the Commission moves to a 100 percent 
compatibility regime, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should eliminate or otherwise ease the deployment benchmarks 
applicable to the overall handset portfolios of manufacturers and 
service providers. Will benchmarks remain necessary, even after a 
transition to a 100 percent requirement, to ensure that manufacturers 
and service providers do not weight their portfolios toward non-
compliant grandfathered handsets? If so, for how long? Would an 
additional two-year period be an appropriate time-frame to sunset these 
service provider requirements? Alternatively, should the Commission 
eliminate deployment benchmarks for Tier III service providers 
immediately upon moving to a 100 percent regime, but preserve it for 
Tier I and II service providers for an additional two or three years? 
What are the costs and benefits of eliminating the benchmarks on 
service providers if all or nearly all new models offered by 
manufacturers will be compliant?

8. Alternative to the Joint Consensus Proposal

    29. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how to revise the 
current benchmark system in the event that, based on the record the 
Commission receives, the Commission determines not to adopt the Joint 
Consensus Proposal. Should the Commission pursue another approach to 
transition to a 100 percent compatibility requirement, consistent with 
the factors identified in Section 710? What would be an appropriate 
transition period? Should the Commission consider exceptions, waivers, 
burden reductions, legacy handset rules, and alternative approaches to 
measuring compliance, as discussed above in connection with the Joint 
Consensus Proposal?

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and rules 
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 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 NPRM provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the 
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    31. To ensure that a wide selection of digital wireless handset 
models is available to consumers with hearing loss, the Commission's 
rules require both manufacturers and service providers to meet defined 
benchmarks for offering hearing aid-compatible wireless phones. 
Specifically, manufacturers and service providers are required to offer 
minimum numbers or percentages of handset models that meet specified 
technical standards for compatibility with hearing aids operating in 
both acoustic coupling and inductive coupling modes. These benchmarks 
apply separately to each air interface for which the manufacturer or 
service provider offers handsets.
    32. The wireless hearing aid compatibility rules have incorporated 
this fractional benchmark approach since the provision was first 
established in 2003, but the Commission has on occasion revised the 
specific benchmarks that manufacturers and service providers are 
required to meet. The current benchmarks were established in 2008 when 
the Commission adopted the Joint Consensus Plan submitted by an 
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) working group 
that included Tier I carriers, handset manufacturers, and several 
organizations representing the interests of people with hearing loss. 
That plan provided for benchmarks to increase over time, up to a final 
set of benchmarks that became effective in 2010 and remain in place 
today.
    33. The current deployment benchmarks require that, subject to a de 
minimis exception described below, a handset manufacturer must meet, 
for each air interface over which its models operate, (1) at least an 
M3 rating for RF interference reduction for at least one-third of its 
models using that air interface (rounded down), with a minimum of two 
models, and (2) a T3 rating for inductive coupling for at least one-
third of its models using that interface (rounded down), with a

[[Page 210]]

minimum of two models. Similarly, for each of the air interfaces their 
handsets use, service providers also must meet an M3 rating for at 
least 50 percent of their models or ten models, and must meet a T3 
rating for at least one-third of their models or ten models. In 
general, under the de minimis exception, manufacturers and service 
providers that offer two or fewer wireless handset models for any given 
covered air interface are exempt from these benchmarks for those 
models.
    34. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a historic 
agreement (hereinafter, the ``Joint Consensus Proposal'') among key 
consumer and industry stakeholders that would revise the current 
benchmarks. In brief, the Joint Consensus Proposal provides that within 
two years of the effective date of new rules adopted, 66 percent of 
wireless handsets offered to consumers should be compliant with the 
Commission's acoustic coupling radio frequency interference (M rating) 
and inductive coupling (T rating) requirements. The proposal provides 
that within five years of the effective date of new rules adopted, 85 
percent of wireless handsets offered to consumers should be compliant 
with the Commission's M and T ratings. The proposal provides that this 
benchmark should apply directly to manufacturers and carriers that 
offer six or more digital wireless handset models in an air interface, 
with additional compliance periods for Tier I and Non-Tier I carriers 
of six months and eighteen months, respectively, to account for limits 
on handset availability and inventory turn-over rates. In addition to 
these two-year and five-year benchmarks, the proposal provides that the 
Commission should commit to pursue that 100 percent of wireless 
handsets offered to consumers should be compliant within eight years. 
The Joint Consensus Proposal conditions the transition to 100 percent, 
however, on a Commission determination within seven years of the rules' 
effective date that reaching the 100 percent goal is achievable, based 
in part on review of a report by a task force to be established for 
this purpose.
    35. While the Commission finds that the existing fractional 
benchmarks have been successful in making a broad variety of hearing 
aid-compatible handsets available to consumers with hearing loss, the 
Commission recognizes its statutory obligation to periodically reassess 
any exemptions from the hearing aid compatibility requirements. The 
Commission proposes to adopt the Joint Consensus Proposal, finding that 
it provides an effective approach to replacing the fractional system 
with one that will give consumers with hearing loss the same selection 
of wireless handsets that is available to the general public.
2. Legal Basis
    36. The potential actions about which comment is sought in this 
NPRM 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.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
    37. 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. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 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 NPRM.
    38. As discussed above, in the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment 
on a revision to the deployment benchmarks. While these changes would 
affect the specific obligations of covered entities under the rules, it 
would not alter the scope of entities subject to the rules, and 
accordingly, the Commission finds that the analysis of the categories 
and number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules 
is the same as for the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the 
Commission provided in connection with the revision to those rules 
adopted in the Fourth Report and Order. Accordingly, the Commission 
incorporates the analysis in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
accompanying the Fourth Report and Order, as the description and 
estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rules 
would apply.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    39. The Commission is not proposing to impose any additional 
reporting or record keeping requirements. Rather, as discussed in the 
next section, the Commission is seeking comment on whether, if it 
adopts a 100 percent requirement, it can reduce regulatory burden on 
all wireless handset manufacturers and wireless service providers 
regardless of size by eliminating and streamlining the related hearing 
aid compatibility requirements. Presently, these requirements include 
annual reporting, disclosure, labeling, and other regulatory 
requirements. As part of its decision to eliminate or reduce regulatory 
burden, the Commission will consider whether it can reduce regulatory 
burden for small service providers and manufactures, if it cannot be 
done for all service providers and manufacturers.
5. Steps Proposed To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    40. 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) exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    41. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to adopt the terms of the 
Joint Consensus Proposal, including provisions that will help to 
minimize impact on small entities. The Joint Consensus Proposal 
recommends, and the Commission proposes, that while increasing the 
benchmarks at year two and year five, the Commission keeps in place the 
existing de minimis exception for manufacturers and service providers 
offering three handsets or less. The current de minimis exception 
provides that small manufacturers and service providers that offer two 
or fewer digital wireless handsets operating over a particular air 
interface are exempt from the benchmark deployment requirements in 
connection with that air interface, while larger manufacturers

[[Page 211]]

with two or fewer handsets have a limited obligation. The provision 
further states that any manufacturer or service provider that offers 
three digital wireless handset models operating over a particular air 
interface must offer at least one such handset model with at least an 
M3 and T3 rating for that air interface. In addition to retaining this 
exception to the benchmarks, the Commission proposes to adopt the Joint 
Consensus Proposal's recommendation that manufacturers and service 
providers offering either four or five handsets in an air interface be 
required to ensure that at least two of those handset models comply 
with the Commission's M and T rating requirements, rather than be 
required to meet the new 66 percent and 85 percent benchmarks. Finally, 
the Joint Consensus Proposal also provides additional time to small 
carriers to meet the benchmarks. Specifically, it provides that, while 
manufacturers must meet the new 66 percent and 85 percent benchmarks 
after two and five years, respectively, following the effective date of 
the rules, all non-nationwide carriers will have eighteen additional 
months to reach each benchmark (i.e., eighteen months after the two and 
five year deadlines applicable to manufacturers).
    42. With respect to adoption of a 100 percent requirement, the 
Joint Consensus Proposal conditions the transition to 100 percent 
hearing aid compatibility on a Commission determination, after the 
receipt and review of a report from a newly established task force, 
that reaching the 100 percent goal is ``achievable.'' The NPRM seeks 
comment on how the Commission should determine achievability and what 
criteria should be utilized in making this determination. The NPRM also 
seeks comment on whether the current de minimis exception or the 
expanded de minimis exception, as proposed by the Joint Consensus 
Proposal, should be preserved in whole or in part if the Commission 
determines that adopting a 100 percent benchmark is achievable. In 
making the determination of achievable and whether to keep or expand 
the de minimis exception, the Commission will be considering, in part, 
whether small handset manufacturers and service providers have the 
resources to meet a 100 percent obligation or whether some 
accommodation, such as an exception, needs to be made for these 
entities.
    43. In addition to the de minimis exception, the Commission seeks 
comment on other possible exceptions to the 100 percent requirement. 
These exceptions could apply to all manufacturers of wireless handsets 
or to some subset of wireless handset manufacturers, such as small 
entities generally (i.e., including those that do not fall within the 
de minimis exception). Further, the Commission seeks comment on which 
compliance process, such as waivers, should be modified to accommodate 
innovation and carriers', especially rural and regional carriers', 
handset inventories and turn-over rates, within a compliance regime 
with the enhanced benchmarks. These modifications would benefit all 
wireless handset manufacturers, including small entities, with their 
compliance obligations.
    44. In the event the Commission adopts a 100 percent requirement, 
the NPRM seeks comment on grandfathering legacy handsets that are not 
hearing aid-compatible. The NPRM ask whether the Commission should 
allow manufacturers, including small manufacturers, of wireless 
handsets the ability to recoup their investment in non-hearing aid-
compatible legacy handsets. Under this proposal, the Commission would 
allow wireless handset manufacturers to continue to offer handset 
models that have not been certified as hearing aid-compatible after the 
transition period to 100 percent ends if the manufacturer received 
equipment authorization for the handset prior to the end of that 
period. This proposal should help to minimize the economic impact of a 
100 percent requirement on small entities.
    45. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether transitioning to a 100 
percent requirement would justify easing or eliminating several 
requirements associated with the hearing aid compatibility rules, which 
would further reduce the net economic impact of the adopted changes on 
these manufacturers and providers, including small entities. First, 
under the current rules, manufacturers are required to electronically 
file annual compliance reports with the Commission on FCC Form 655 in 
July of each year and service providers must electronically file this 
form with the Commission in January of each year. While these reports 
help the Commission to monitor compliance with the hearing aid 
compatibility benchmarks, numerous parties, especially rural and small 
entities, have asserted that having to file these annual reports is 
burdensome. The Commission seeks comment on whether to end or modify 
the reporting requirements for manufacturers and service providers at 
some point as the benchmarks increase. These changes to the reporting 
requirements would benefit all service providers and manufacturers, 
including small providers and manufacturers.
    46. The existing hearing aid compatibility rules also require that 
manufacturers and service providers meet certain labeling and 
disclosure requirements for hearing aid-compatible handsets, and 
provide information on their Web sites, such as making available on 
their publicly-accessible Web sites a list of all hearing aid-
compatible models currently offered, the associated rating information 
for those handsets, and an explanation of the rating system. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether, upon implementation of the 100 
percent requirement, the current labeling and disclosure requirements 
should be eliminated or amended.
    47. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if it adopts a 
100 percent requirement or other modifications to the benchmarks, it 
should eliminate the product refresh rule applicable to manufacturers, 
which provides that each manufacturer that offers any new model for a 
particular air interface during the calendar year must ``refresh'' its 
offering of hearing aid-compatible handset models by offering a mix of 
new and existing models that comply with the hearing aid compatibility 
technical standards. It further seeks comment on eliminating the 
differing levels of functionality rule applicable to service providers. 
Finally, if the Commission adopts a 100 percent requirement, the NPRM 
seeks comment on whether to eliminate or otherwise ease the deployment 
benchmarks applicable to the overall handset portfolios of 
manufacturers and service providers. Elimination of these rules would 
benefit small entities as well as larger manufacturers and service 
providers.
    48. The Commission seeks comment generally on the effect, economic 
impact, or burden of the rule changes considered in the NPRM on small 
entities. It further seeks comment on any alternatives that would 
reduce the economic impact on small entities. It also seeks comment on 
whether there are any alternatives the Commission could implement that 
could achieve the Commission's goals while at the same time minimizing 
or further reducing the burdens on small entities, 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 handset manufacturers and 
service providers. For the duration of this docketed proceeding, the 
Commission will continue to examine alternatives with

[[Page 212]]

the objectives of eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing 
any significant economic impact on small entities.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules
    49. None.

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    50. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed 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. 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 the Commission might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.

C. Other Procedural Matters

1. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
    51. The proceeding that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiates 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance 
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
2. Comment Filing Procedures
    52. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 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. All filings related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
should refer to WT Docket No. 15-285. Comments may be filed using: (1) 
The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 
Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. 
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 
24121 (May 1, 1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy 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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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 email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

V. Ordering Clauses

    53. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 
and 610, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    54. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on or before January 14, 2016, and reply comments 
on or before January 29, 2016.
    55. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, 
Incorporation by reference, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reason discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a) 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, unless 
otherwise noted.


[[Page 213]]


0
2. Section 20.19 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory 
text, adding paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C), revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii), 
adding paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (c)(3)(iii), revising paragraph 
(c)(4)(ii) and paragraph (d) introductory text, adding paragraphs 
(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(iii), and (d)(3)(iii), revising paragraph 
(d)(4)(ii), adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (4), revising paragraph 
(i)(1), and adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.19  Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.

* * * * *
    (c) Phase-in of requirements relating to radio frequency 
interference. Until [eight years after the effective date of the 
rules], the following applies to each manufacturer and service provider 
that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the services 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section and that does not fall 
within the de minimis exception set forth in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) [Beginning two years after the effective date of the rules], 
each manufacturer of wireless handsets models must ensure that 66 
percent of the wireless handset offered to consumers shall comply with 
the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 
[Beginning five years after the effective date of the rules], each 
manufacturer of wireless handsets must ensure that 85 percent of the 
wireless handset models offered to consumers shall comply with the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (ii) Refresh requirement. Until [eight years after the effective 
date of the rules], for each year a manufacturer elects to produce a 
new model, each manufacturer that offers any new model for a particular 
air interface during the calendar year must ``refresh'' its offerings 
of hearing aid-compatible handset models by offering a mix of new and 
existing models that comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
according to the following requirements:
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) [Beginning two and half years after the effective date of the 
rules], ensure that 66 percent of the wireless handset models offered 
to consumers shall comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section. [Beginning five and half years after the 
effective date of the rules], ensure that 85 percent of the wireless 
handset models offered to consumers shall comply with the requirements 
set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (3) * * *
    (iii) [Beginning three and half years after the effective date of 
the rules], ensure that 66 percent of the wireless handset models 
offered to consumers shall comply with the requirements set forth in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. [Beginning six and half years after 
the effective date of the rules], ensure that 85 percent of the 
wireless handset models offered to consumers shall comply with the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Offering models with differing levels of functionality. Until 
[eight years after the effective date of the rules], each service 
provider must offer its customers a range of hearing aid-compatible 
models with differing levels of functionality (e.g., operating 
capabilities, features offered, prices). Each provider may determine 
the criteria for determining these differing levels of functionality, 
and must disclose its methodology to the Commission pursuant to 
paragraph (i)(3)(vii) of this section.
    (d) Phase-in of requirements relating to inductive coupling 
capability. Until [eight years after the effective date of the rules], 
the following applies to each manufacturer and service provider that 
offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the services specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section and that does not fall within the de 
minimis exception set forth in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (iii) [Beginning two years after the effective date of the rules], 
each manufacturer of wireless handsets models must ensure that 66 
percent of the wireless handset offered to consumers shall comply with 
the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 
[Beginning five years after the effective date of the rules], each 
manufacturer of wireless handsets must ensure that 85 percent of the 
wireless handset models offered to consumers shall comply with the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) * * *
    (iii) [Beginning two and half years after the effective date of the 
rules], ensure that 66 percent of the wireless handset models offered 
to consumers shall comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section. [Beginning five and half years after the 
effective date of the rules], ensure that 85 percent of the wireless 
handset models offered to consumers shall comply with the requirements 
set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (3) * * *
    (iii) [Beginning three and half years after the effective date of 
the rules], ensure that 66 percent of the wireless handset models 
offered to consumers shall comply with the requirements set forth in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. [Beginning six and half years after 
the effective date of the rules], ensure that 85 percent of the 
wireless handset models offered to consumers shall comply with the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Offering models with differing levels of functionality. Until 
[eight years after the effective date of the rules], each service 
provider must offer its customers a range of hearing aid-compatible 
models with differing levels of functionality (e.g., operating 
capabilities, features offered, prices). Each provider may determine 
the criteria for determining these differing levels of functionality, 
and must disclose its methodology to the Commission pursuant to 
paragraph (i)(3)(vii) of this section.
    (e) * * *
    (3) Beginning [two years after the effective date of the rules], 
manufacturers that offer four or five digital wireless handset models 
in an air interface must offer at least two handset models compliant 
with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section in that air interface.
    (4) Beginning [two and a half years after the effective date of the 
rules] for Tier I carriers and [three and half years after the 
effective date of the rules] for other service providers, service 
providers that offer four or five digital wireless handset models in an 
air interface must offer at least two handset models compliant with 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section in that air interface.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) Reporting dates. Until [eight years after the effective date of 
the rules], manufacturers shall submit reports on efforts toward 
compliance with the requirements of this section on July 15, 2009, and 
annually thereafter. Until [eight years after the effective date of the 
rules], service providers shall submit reports on efforts toward 
compliance with the requirements of this section on January 15, 2009, 
and annually thereafter. Information in the reports must be up-to-date 
as of the last day of the calendar month preceding the due date of the 
report.
* * * * *

[[Page 214]]

    (m) Compatibility requirements for all new models. To the extent 
the Commission has determined it achievable, beginning [eight years 
after the effective date of the rules], all wireless handset models 
that a manufacturer offers in the United States and that are within the 
scope of this section must be certified as hearing aid-compatible under 
the standards of paragraph (b) of this section.

[FR Doc. 2015-32756 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P