Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, 173-183 [2015-32757]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
final agency action, the agency may
pursue collection of the unpaid fees.
(e) Over payment. Upon issuance of
final agency action, payment submitted
to NMFS in excess of the Amendment
80 fee determined to be due by the final
agency action will be returned to the
Amendment 80 cooperative unless the
Amendment 80 cooperative’s
representative requests the agency to
credit the excess amount against the
Amendment 80 CQ permit holder’s
future Amendment 80 fee.
(f) Appeals. An Amendment 80
cooperative representative who receives
an IAD for incomplete payment of an
Amendment 80 fee may appeal under
the appeals procedures set out a 15 CFR
part 906.
(g) Annual report. Each year, NMFS
will publish a report describing the
Amendment 80 Cost Recovery Fee
Program.
[FR Doc. 2015–33096 Filed 1–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
[Docket No. USCG–2012–0924]
RIN 1625–AB68
Ballast Water Management Reporting
and Recordkeeping
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule; information
collection approval.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard announces
that it has received approval from the
Office of Management and Budget for an
information collection request
associated with ballast water
management reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in a final
rule we published in the Federal
Register on November 24, 2015. In that
rule, we stated we would publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing the effective date of the
collection-of-information related
sections. This rule establishes February
22, 2016, as the effective date for those
sections.
DATES: The amendments to
§§ 151.2060(b) through (f) and 151.2070,
published November 24, 2015 (80 FR
73105), are effective February 22, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Ms. Regina Bergner,
Environmental Standards Division (CG–
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
OES–3), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
202–372–1431, email Regina.
R.Bergner@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Viewing Documents Associated With
This Rule
To view the final rule published on
November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73105), or
other documents in the docket for this
rulemaking, go to www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number, USCG–2012–
0924, in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Open Docket
Folder’’ in the first item listed. Use the
following link to go directly to the
docket: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2012-0924.
Background
On November 24, 2015, the Coast
Guard published a final rule that
amends the ballast water management
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. 80 FR 73105. The final
rule delayed the effective date of 33 CFR
151.2060(b) through (f) and § 151.2070
because these sections contain
collection-of-information provisions
that require approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. On December 4,
2015, the OMB approved the collection
assigned OMB Control Number 1625–
0069, Ballast Water Management for
Vessels with Ballast Tanks Entering U.S.
Waters. Accordingly, we announce that
33 CFR 151.2060(b) through (f) and
151.2070 are effective February 22,
2016. The approval for this collection of
information expires on December 31,
2018.
This document is issued under the
authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231.
Dated: December 30, 2015.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015–33137 Filed 1–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 07–250; FCC 15–155]
Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile
Handsets
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
173
(Commission) modernizes its wireless
hearing aid compatibility rules. The
Commission adopts these rules to
ensure that people with hearing loss
have full access to innovative handsets
and technologies.
DATES: Effective February 4, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Rowan, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–
1883, email Michael.Rowan@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 Fourth
Report and Order in WT Docket Nos.
15–285 and 07–250; FCC 15–155,
adopted November 19, 2015, and
released on November 20, 2015. This
summary should be read with its
companion document, the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking summary
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. The full text of the
Fourth Report and Order is available for
inspection and copying during business
hours in the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The complete item is also available on
the Commission’s Web site at https://
www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of the Fourth Report and
Order
I. Introduction
1. After review of the record and
consideration of both the requirements
of section 710 as amended by the
Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
(CVAA) and the previous actions taken
in this proceeding, the Commission
revises the scope of the wireless hearing
aid compatibility rules largely as
proposed in the 2010 Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 75 FR
54546, Sept. 8, 2010. Specifically, the
Commission broadens the scope of the
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules,
which have until now covered only
handsets that are used with CMRS
networks meeting specified
characteristics enabling frequency reuse
and seamless handoff. The Commission
now extends the scope to cover
handsets (that is, devices with a builtin speaker held to the ear in any of their
ordinary uses) used with any terrestrial
mobile service that enables two-way
real-time voice communications among
members of the public or a substantial
portion of the public, including both
interconnected and non-interconnected
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
services provided through pre-installed
software applications. In doing so, the
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
174
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Commission establishes a
comprehensive hearing aid
compatibility requirement that ensures
consumers with hearing loss will have
access to the same rapidly evolving
voice technology options available to
other consumers. To ensure testability
under the currently approved technical
standard, the Commission will require
compliance only to the extent these
handsets are used in connection with
voice communication services in bands
covered by Commission-approved
standards for hearing aid compatibility.
Section 20.19(a) is limited to mobile
handsets consistent with the scope of
ANSI Standard C63.19, and remains so
under the expanded scope. The
Commission therefore affirms that
cordless telephones remain subject to
section 68.4 of the Commission’s rules,
including the hearing aid compatibility
requirements applicable to telephones
under Part 68, and are not affected by
the change in scope.
2. While the Commission has taken
steps previously to bring such emerging
voice services under the rules, these
steps are necessary to complete the
process. The Third Report and Order
adopted a technical standard that can be
applied to test VoLTE, Wi-Fi-based
calling, and other IP-based voice
capabilities for hearing aid
compatibility, and indicated an
expectation that handsets that support
covered CMRS voice communications
services over IP-based air interfaces
such as LTE would indeed be subject to
the hearing aid compatibility
requirements as a result. The Third
Report and Order did not expand the
scope provision of the rule beyond
covered CMRS, or clarify the extent to
which the new IP-based voice
technologies and air interfaces
constituted covered CMRS services.
Consistent with the provisions of the
CVAA that expressly extend section 710
to both interconnected and noninterconnected VoIP services, adopting
the expanded scope will ensure that the
wireless hearing aid compatibility
requirements apply to handsets used for
such services regardless of how the
services are classified for other
regulatory purposes, and without regard
to the network architecture over which
the services are provided. The
Commission thus resolves any
uncertainty regarding the extent to
which IP-based voice services covered
by the 2011 ANSI Standard are also
within the scope of the hearing aid
compatibility rules.
3. Its actions also ensure that the
hearing aid compatibility rules cover
modes of voice communications access
that are increasingly available to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
public as well as those that may develop
in the future. For example, the
expanded scope will cover handsets that
enable voice communications through
VoIP software applications installed by
the manufacturer or service provider
regardless of whether the calling
functionality provides interconnection
to the public switched telephone
network. It will also cover advances in
voice technology that have rendered
obsolete some of the current rule’s
limitations on scope, such as provisions
that apply hearing aid compatibility
requirements only to services that
involve frequency reuse and cell site
handoff. Unlike the current scope, the
expanded scope will also apply to a
voice communications service over WiFi that does not utilize an in-network
switching facility that enables reuse of
frequencies and seamless hand-off.
1. Statutory Analysis of Expanded
Scope
4. The Commisson first finds that
section 710, as amended by the CVAA,
provides authority to require hearing aid
compatibility in any device that meets
the Commission’s definition of handset
and that is used in whole or in part for
the delivery of services within the new
scope of the rule. The CVAA expressly
extended section 710 to cover mobile
devices used with advanced
communications services, including
interconnected and non-interconnected
VoIP services, to the extent that such
devices are designed to provide twoway voice communication via a built-in
speaker intended to be held to the ear
in a manner functionally equivalent to
a telephone. Thus, as amended by the
CVAA, section 710 clearly supports
expanding the scope of section 20.19 to
cover the full range of handsets used to
provide consumers with voice
communications services, including IPbased services and voice
communications software.
5. Similarly, the CVAA amendments
to section 710 confirm the
Commission’s prior determination that
obligations should extend to cover a
broad range of mobile handsets, and not
merely those used exclusively as
telephones. For example, these
amendments make clear that covered
devices used with public mobile
services and private radio services
include devices used ‘‘in whole or in
part’’ to provide those services. While
the Commission has recognized that
engineering hearing aid compatibility
for multi-use handsets may require
adjustments to non-voicecommunication features, the statute
provides that equipment must meet
hearing aid compatibility standards
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
without any specific limitation based on
non-communication adjustments. The
Commission reaffirms that the hearing
aid compatibility rules apply to a multiuse handset that can function as a
telephone even though it may serve
additional purposes or have another
primary intended purpose.
6. The Commission further finds that,
in deciding whether to extend the scope
of the wireless hearing aid compatibility
obligations, the Commission must
determine whether the statutory criteria
for lifting the wireless exemption are
satisfied, as it did in 2003 when it first
modified the exemption for wireless
telephones. The Commission examines
each of the four criteria for lifting the
exemption below, and determine that
each criterion has been satisfied. The
Commission finds that (1) individuals
with hearing loss would be adversely
affected absent the expansion of the
rule’s scope; (2) compliance with the
Commission’s hearing aid compatibility
rules for the handsets within the
expanded scope is technologically
feasible; (3) compliance would not
increase costs to such an extent that
such equipment could not be
successfully marketed; and (4) in
consideration of these factors, and the
costs and benefits of the rule change,
expanding the scope of the hearing aid
compatibility rules beyond covered
CMRS is in the public interest.
7. The Commission emphasizes that
the Commission’s analysis of the four
criteria for lifting the exemption is not
restricted to voice communications
services that are deployed in the 698
MHz to 6 GHz band, and that the
Commission finds that the criteria for
lifting the exemption are met for such
services in any frequency band,
including frequencies outside the band
covered by the ANSI 2011 Standard.
Consistent with prior Commission
determinations, however, the
Commission retains the current
restriction in the scope of the rule to the
698 MHz to 6 GHz band at this time, so
that compliance under the rule is
required only for operations in spectrum
bands for which there is an approved
technical standard. As new frequencies
are deployed for comparable voice
services and standards for them
approved, however, incorporating such
frequencies into the rule early in their
deployment will better facilitate access
to handsets using such frequencies
when they are rolled out to the public.
For example, the Incentive Auction
scheduled to begin in early 2016 will
involve new, flexible-use licenses in the
600 MHz Band that are suitable for
providing mobile broadband services.
The Commission expects that the
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
technical standards needed for any such
frequencies will be developed in timely
fashion. To the extent that a
manufacturer believes that compliance
is not technically feasible or would
prevent marketability for devices used
with a future public mobile service—
such as one that operates in the 600
MHz Band—the manufacturer may
apply for a waiver under section
710(b)(3) for the applicable ‘‘new
telephones, or telephone associated
with a new technology or service.’’ By
addressing the statutory exemption as it
applies to additional frequencies now,
the Commission ensures that it need not
engage in a similar statutory analysis
each time ANSI adopts a revision to
cover an additional frequency range,
which will help to expedite
incorporation of such revisions into the
rules and therefore speed the testing and
offering of new hearing aid-compatible
technologies to consumers. The
Commission’s determinations in this
Fourth Report and Order should remove
any doubt that, as new frequencies are
deployed for comparable voice services
and corresponding hearing aid
compatibility standards are developed,
the Commission intends to incorporate
them into the Commission’s
requirements. This will advance the
Commission’s goal that the
Commission’s rules provide people who
use hearing aids and cochlear implants
with continuing access to the most
advanced and innovative technologies
as they develop.
8. Adverse Effect on People with
Hearing Loss. In the FNPRM, the
Commission proposed to find that
failure to extend hearing aid
compatibility requirements broadly to
handsets used for voice
communications with members of the
public or a substantial portion of the
public, including those operating over
new and developing technologies,
would have an adverse effect on people
with hearing loss and deny such
consumers an opportunity to use
advanced functionalities and services
becoming commonplace in society. The
Commission further suggested that the
inability to access such innovative
technologies as they develop would
have an adverse effect on individuals
with hearing loss, and that a broad
scope could address that concern by
encouraging manufacturers to consider
hearing aid compatibility at the earliest
stages of the product design process.
9. Consumer Groups and ASHA
comment that people with hearing loss
who use hearing aids need access to
mobile phone services just like every
other American, including at home,
work, school, and in emergency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
situations, and that updated regulations
can help to ensure that these people can
be fully integrated into society. TIA
comments that manufacturers have
made gains to enhance access by deaf or
hard of hearing individuals to new
technologies and hearing aid-compliant
products, while CTIA contends that the
current rules for hearing aid
compatibility have been highly effective
in ensuring that a wide variety of
compliant wireless handsets are
available to the public.
10. Consistent with the Commission’s
proposed findings, the Commission
concludes that failure to adopt the
expanded scope would adversely affect
people with hearing loss. Absent the
amended scope, mobile VoIP services
would be covered only to the extent that
they were determined to both satisfy the
definition of CMRS and involve the use
of ‘‘an in-network switching facility that
enables the provider to reuse
frequencies and accomplish seamless
hand-offs of subscriber calls.’’ Those
limitations, the Commission finds,
would materially impede the ability of
people with hearing loss to use many
advanced devices and networks, and the
Commission notes that ongoing
innovation would likely amplify this
harmful impact over time. If handsets
encompassing these emerging
technologies are not broadly made
hearing aid-compatible, consumers with
hearing loss who use hearing aids or
cochlear implants could be left without
full access to new technologies and
networks that are used increasingly by
members of the public to communicate
with one another at home, at work, and
as they travel, including for
communications in critical emergencies.
The Commission notes that mobile
technologies generally are increasingly
important to members of the public.
According to the National Center for
Health Statistics, the percentage of
adults living in households with only
wireless telephones has been steadily
increasing with about 44.1 percent of
adults (about 106 million adults) living
in wireless-only households as of the
last six months of 2014; in addition, as
of the last six months of 2014, 54.1
percent of all children (nearly 40
million children) lived in households
that only used wireless telephones.
Having access to emerging IP-based
voice technologies such as High
Definition Voice may prove particularly
important to individuals with hearing
loss. In addition, as these emerging
handsets evolve to encompass a wide
and growing range of computing and
other functions, a lack of hearing aidcompatible handsets may force
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
175
individuals with hearing loss to choose
between limiting their voice
communications or limiting their access
to many of the other features that these
new handsets offer.
11. In broadening the scope of the
rule, the Commission is mindful that it
is important to ensure hearing aidcompatible access to handsets, voice
technologies, and networks not only
once they are established but also as
they develop in the future. The
Commission anticipates ongoing
innovation in mobile voice technologies
that will lead to more services for
consumers to communicate that do not
use the North American Numbering
Plan or involve the cellular system
architecture reflected in the current
rule. By making clear that hearing aid
compatibility requirements apply not
only to currently available technologies
such as VoLTE but to all mobile
terrestrial services that enable two-way,
real-time voice communications among
members of the public, the Commission
ensures that new consumer devices—
that might be developed or emerge in
the future—will be covered as technical
standards become available, regardless
of regulatory classification or network
architecture, unless a waiver is granted.
The Commission expects manufacturers
to take hearing aid compatibility into
account during the early stages of
product development.
12. Technological Feasibility. In the
FNPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether handsets that are
currently on the market or are planned
for introduction that fall within the
coverage of the proposed rule, but are
not covered by the existing rule, would
meet the existing ANSI standard or a
similar performance standard, for
frequency bands and air interfaces that
are not addressed by the existing
standard. Given that hearing aid
compatibility standards were already
being met for handsets that operate on
a variety of 2G and 3G air interfaces
over two frequency bands, the
Commission stated that, absent evidence
to the contrary, it was likely that such
standards could be met for handsets not
within the class of covered CMRS but
that provide similar services. The
Commission further indicated that
commenters arguing that compliance
was not feasible should provide specific
engineering evidence related to a
defined class of handsets.
13. TIA comments that the
Commission should not expand the
application of the hearing aid
compatibility requirements beyond the
scope of consumer wireless handsets
with CMRS functionality until there is
a better understanding of the obstacles
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
176
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
in making the products and expanding
services, and argues that issues relating
to applying the rules to VoLTE and WiFi with CMRS capability illustrate that
emerging technologies create new and
previously unanticipated technical
challenges.
14. The Commission concludes that it
is technologically feasible to
manufacture newly covered handsets so
they meet the minimum ratings for
hearing aid compatibility under the
current technical standard or, to the
extent they may be deployed in
frequencies not addressed under the
2011 ANSI Standard, under a similar
performance standard. Since the
Commission proposed its analysis in
2010, subsequent developments have
only confirmed that compliance with
the hearing aid compatibility
requirements will generally be feasible
for consumer mobile voice technologies.
Indeed, manufacturers are already
successfully testing and rating VoLTE
operations for both T- and M-rating
compliance, and they are also
successfully testing and rating CMRSenabled voice communications over WiFi (hereinafter ‘‘Wi-Fi Calling’’) for Mrating compliance, demonstrating
empirically that compliance in those
areas is technologically feasible. In
addition, OET’s Laboratory Division
issued guidance in October 2013
describing the technical parameters
related in part to testing VoLTE and WiFi Calling functionalities for both Mratings and T-ratings, and did not
identify any challenges related to
technological feasibility. While the 2013
guidance did observe that the
equipment needed to test for T-coil
compliance for Wi-Fi Calling ‘‘may not
be readily available’’ and therefore
excluded such operations from the
testing obligation, nothing in the record
suggests that the availability of testing
equipment remains a challenge, and
perhaps more significantly, this
limitation does not bear on
technological feasibility.
15. The Commission finds that any
technical challenges to achieving
hearing aid compatibility in handsets
will not differ significantly from those
that manufacturers have already
addressed in achieving hearing aid
compatibility in the broad range of
mobile handsets noted above. Indeed,
because the specifications for new air
interface technologies (such as the Fifth
Generation or 5G wireless technology)
will now be developed with the
expectation that hearing aid
compatibility requirements will apply,
the Commission anticipates that the
need to meet such requirements will be
taken into account early in the design
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
process, which should help to ensure
that compatibility for such technologies
is feasible. The Commission notes that
industry commenters have provided no
example of developing technology
within the adopted scope for which
achieving hearing aid compatibility was
found to be infeasible, and the
Commission knows of no reason that
consumer handsets that operate over
systems within the expanded scope
could not achieve these ratings. As the
Commission noted in 2010, to the extent
the Commission is presented with the
rare case of a new technology that
cannot feasibly meet the requirements,
or cannot do so in full, section 710
expressly provides for a waiver.
16. Marketability. In the FNPRM, the
Commission stated that based on the
number of hearing aid-compatible
models that were already being
successfully marketed across multiple
air interfaces and frequency bands, it
anticipated, in the absence of
convincing evidence to the contrary,
that other telephones offering similar
capabilities and meeting the same or
comparable compliance standards could
also be successfully marketed. The
Commission sought comment on this
statement and on whether there is any
class of handsets for which the cost of
achieving compliance would preclude
successful marketing. The Commission
sought comment on whether, for reasons
of technological infeasibility or
prohibitive costs, any rule provisions
could not be applied to any class of
handsets.
17. Generally, aside from the impact
relating to satellite phones, commenters
did not address in detail whether
compliance would increase costs to
such an extent that equipment could not
be successfully marketed. TIA argues
that an open-ended application of the
rules to other types of wireless handsets
with voice capability but which are not
typically held to the ear would, among
other matters, impose undue financial
burdens. HIA comments that in terms of
costs, compatibility with other devices
is already a factor in hearing aid design,
and thus does not anticipate that a ‘‘to
the ear’’ standard it supports would
impose additional costs on its members.
18. In order to expand the scope of
section 20.19, the Commission must
also find that compliance would not
increase costs to a degree that would
prevent successfully marketing of the
equipment. As discussed above in the
Commission’s analysis of technological
feasibility, manufacturers already offer
numerous hearing aid-compatible
handsets with differing features and
physical characteristics over a variety of
air interfaces, including a number of
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
models certified as hearing aidcompatible over LTE. Further, while
Iridium and Inmarsat raise concerns
about the impact of hearing aid
compatibility requirements on the
marketability of satellite phones, no
commenter raises any concerns about
marketability with respect to handsets
and operations within the expanded
scope the Commission adopts in this
Fourth Report and Order. Considering
the absence of anything in the record
demonstrating compliance costs that
would depart materially from the costs
for handsets that already comply, the
Commission anticipates that handsets
offering comparable voice
communications capabilities to the
public will similarly be marketable. The
Commission therefore finds that
requiring hearing aid compatibility for
handsets newly within the scope of the
requirements will not undermine their
marketability. To the extent the
Commission is presented with the rare
case of a new technology for which
compliance would increase costs to the
extent that the technology could not be
successfully marketed, section 710
expressly provides that the Commission
may waive the requirements.
19. Public Interest. In the FNPRM, the
Commission proposed to find that
expanding the scope of the hearing aid
compatibility requirements to reach
handsets using new technologies would
serve the public interest. In seeking
comments on this proposal, the
Commission stated that its policy ‘‘is to
encourage manufacturers to consider
hearing aid compatibility at the earliest
stages of the product design process.’’
The Commission further stated that the
Hearing Aid Compatibility Act makes
clear that consumers with hearing loss
should be afforded equal access to
communications networks to the fullest
extent feasible. The Commission stated
that commenters should address the
proposed finding that further
modification of the exemption to reach
handsets using new technologies is in
the public interest.
20. Consumer Groups argue that there
are millions of Americans with hearing
loss, technological innovations help
people with disabilities, and they need
access to their mobile phones in
different settings. ASHA and Lintz note
the importance of wireless phones to
those who suffer from hearing loss.
21. The Commission concludes, in
light of the consideration of the costs
and benefits to all telephone users, that
applying the hearing aid compatibility
requirements to all handsets and
services within the expanded scope,
including current and emerging IPbased voice services, will serve the
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
public interest. Most notably, an
expanded scope will ensure that the
country’s approximately 36 million
individuals with hearing loss have
access to the advances in
communications and related technology
that are becoming increasingly essential
to participation in our society. The
expanded scope makes it more likely
that individuals with hearing loss will
have access to the latest technology in
mobile handsets since technological
innovations will generally have to be
considered in the design stage for the
handsets. The Commission further finds
that enabling access to the full—and
growing—range of handsets available to
all other consumers will provide both
social and economic benefits to
consumers with hearing loss. Access to
mobile handsets with innovative
technologies as they develop can benefit
not just an employee with hearing loss
who uses his or her own mobile phone
but the employer and co-workers as
well, by facilitating the full
participation and valuable input of
employees with hearing loss who
otherwise may be restricted in their
ability to fully communicate with their
colleagues. Members of the public will
also generally benefit from being able to
communicate with people with hearing
loss as fully and robustly as possible.
The Commission also notes that the
wireless industry’s comments
demonstrate broad support for covering
advanced services. For example, in its
comments to the 2010 FNPRM, TIA
supports ‘‘expand[ing] the scope of the
hearing aid compatibility rules to
advanced communications
technologies’’ guided by the
Commission’s Policy Statement and
consistent with section 710 of the Act.
For these reasons, the Commission finds
that expanding the scope of section
20.19 as discussed herein advances the
public interest.
22. Public Safety and Private
Enterprise Networks. The Commission
declines, at this time, to extend the
hearing aid compatibility rules to
handsets used exclusively with services
that are not available to the public, such
as services over public safety or private
enterprise networks (meaning those
networks that are designed and
deployed to meet a business’s specific
communications needs). For example,
the Commission does not extend
hearing aid compatibility requirements
to state, local, and Tribal public safety
radio systems used by police, fire, or
emergency medical personnel for
dispatch and emergency response.
Consistent with this determination, the
Commission further clarifies that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
incorporation of a VoIP functionality
operating over Wi-Fi in a public safety
or private enterprise device does not
bring the device under the expanded
scope of the rule. Rather, The expanded
scope will cover only devices used with
the provision of a service available to
the public or a substantial portion of the
public.
23. In the past, the Commission’s
decisions to lift the exemption for
devices used with some wireless
services, and particularly the
Commission’s determination that doing
so is in the public interest, have been
based in part on the Commission’s
findings that these devices and services
have become part of the mass market for
communications. Generally, handsets
for network services such as public
safety or private enterprise networks are
designed for a specialized market with
a limited set of users. Based on the
record before us, there is little evidence
on the extent that these specialized
public safety and private enterprise
devices would satisfy the criteria of
technical feasibility and marketability.
Rather, the record supports the
Commission’s tentative conclusion in
the FNPRM that the different market
circumstances for public safety or
private enterprise networks and the
absence of an existing universe of
hearing aid-compatible handsets would
increase the burden of meeting the
hearing aid compatibility requirements.
In addition, although the Commission
recognizes there are benefits to ensuring
accessibility to public safety or private
enterprise devices, the record reflects
that the typical weight, shape, and other
aspects of the physical design of public
safety and private enterprise devices are
such that the radios conventionally are
not held up to the ear but rather used
with audio that emanates from a
loudspeaker with adjustable volume
control rather than from a telephone
earpiece. As such, the Commission finds
that these devices are generally not
comparable in their typical use to the
wireless handsets covered by the
hearing aid compatibility obligations.
The Commission also finds that the
public interest requires that the
Commission proceeds with caution in
order to avoid requirements that may
discourage, delay, or increase the cost of
equipment where public safety or
critical infrastructure operations are
directly at stake. Taking these factors
into consideration, the record precludes
us from finding that the benefit
associated with expanding the rule to
public safety and private enterprise
networks would outweigh the cost.
Accordingly, the Commission finds, at
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
177
this time, that the statutory
requirements are not met in order to
expand the scope of the hearing aid
compatibility rules to include these
devices. The Commission continues to
be sensitive to the needs of those
individuals with hearing loss, however,
and will consider re-visiting this issue
if it comes to the Commission’s
attention that the benefits associated
with expanding the rule come to
outweigh the costs.
24. Non-terrestrial Networks. Based
on the existing record, the Commission
is unable to find that the statutory
criteria for lifting the hearing aid
compatibility exemption have been
satisfied for radio communication
devices operating over non-terrestrial
networks, such as those operating in the
MSS. As Iridium has explained, MSS
handsets operate at significantly higher
power levels than mass market devices
and must communicate with stations
over a dramatically greater distance than
comparable terrestrial technologies.
Iridium also notes that lower sales
volumes, in-house product
development, and longer product
development and marketing cycles due
to infrequent product replacements pose
additional impediments to achieving
hearing aid compatibility. Even if such
challenges could be overcome, the
record supports the conclusion that
each MSS provider would need to
develop its own solution, and the
Commission is concerned that the
increased costs associated with
complying with the rules in those
circumstances, and the MSS industry’s
need to recover those costs over a
relatively limited market, would prevent
the successful marketing of MSS
handsets or discourage further
innovation in such handsets. Further,
because MSS providers offer a
specialized service over customized
technology to a small customer base that
is focused on government, critical
infrastructure, and other large enterprise
users, and not the public at large, the
Commission finds that extending
hearing aid compatibility requirements
to the MSS raises concerns similar to
those noted above regarding public
safety and private enterprise networks.
Indeed, the Commission found last year
that these characteristics justified not
extending to MSS the text-to-911
requirements that the Commission
otherwise imposed broadly on CMRS
providers and all other providers of
interconnected text-messaging
applications. Although there could be
benefits to individuals with hearing loss
from extending the scope of the hearing
aid compatibility rules to cover such
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
178
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
devices and services, the current
differences between MSS and terrestrial
services, as well as concerns and
uncertainty regarding the marketability
and technological feasibility of hearing
aid-compatible MSS devices, do not
allow us at this time to make the
determinations necessary to lift the
exemption for these devices. The
Commission will reevaluate in the
future whether the MSS should remain
exempt from the scope of the hearing
aid compatibility rules.
2. Voice Capability Provided Through
Software
25. Background. When the
Commission first promulgated hearing
aid compatibility rules, applications
that enable voice communications
through third-party software did not
exist. If a digital handset enabled voice
communications, it could do so only
through the native voice capabilities of
the service provider’s network
technology relying on a voice coderdecoder (codec) embedded in the
hardware. Today, mobile voice
communications can be enabled in a
variety of ways, including: Applications
pre-installed by the manufacturer, its
operating system software partner, or a
service provider; applications
downloaded by the end user from the
manufacturer’s store; or applications
that the end user obtains from an
independent source. While third-party
voice applications may rely on a voice
codec built into the operating system or
hardware of the device, they may also
use their own proprietary codec. While
seeking comment in the 2010 FNPRM
on expanding the scope of the hearing
aid compatibility rules beyond covered
CMRS, the Commission also sought
comment on how its hearing aid
compatibility rules should address
circumstances where voice capability
may be enabled on a handset by a party
other than the manufacturer.
26. AT&T, ATIS, Consumer Groups,
CTIA, MetroPCS, Motorola, TIA, and TMobile agree that manufacturers and
service providers should not be required
to ensure compliance for voice
communication capabilities added to a
handset by consumers or third parties
after original purchase. In connection
with this argument, AT&T, CTIA, and
TIA cite section 2(a) of the CVAA,
which they claim limits liability for
certain third-party activities, as support
for exempting them from compliance
responsibility for third party actions.
These commenters oppose subjecting
manufacturers and service providers to
testing requirements for third party
applications unless the manufacturer
and service provider have themselves
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
affirmatively incorporated the
application into a device, arguing, in the
main, that manufacturers and providers
lack control over third party
applications installed in the device by
someone else. In contrast, HIA argues
that hearing aid compatibility should be
ensured both ‘‘at the time of sale’’ and
upon ‘‘installation of a voice feature.’’
As an alternative approach, Consumer
Groups urge the Commission to require
manufacturers and service providers to
include provisions in their licensing
agreements or contracts with software
application developers to ensure that
software maintains the hearing aid
compatibility of a device.
27. Discussion. After consideration of
the record, the Commission agrees with
those commenters that argue against
applying the hearing aid compatibility
requirements to voice applications
added by consumers after their purchase
of the device. The record demonstrates
that testing a device for hearing aid
compatibility for all possible
applications is infeasible at this time
because manufacturers and service
providers are unable to predict what
third-party software a consumer may
choose to install. The Commission
believes it would create incentives to
restrict the open development of new
voice applications if the Commission
holds manufacturers and service
providers responsible for hearing aid
compatibility compliance for all thirdparty voice applications. Certifying a
handset for hearing aid compatibility
does not require testing software-based
voice functions except to the extent that
such software applications are installed
by the manufacturer or service provider,
or at their direction, for use by a
consumer over a given air interface. The
Commission requires that, when testing
a device’s operations over a given air
interface, manufacturers must ensure
the hearing aid compatibility of all voice
communication functionality they
provide over that interface whether such
functionality is provided through
software, hardware, or both. The
Commission declines to limit
responsibility to the subset of such
software installed prior to certification,
as suggested by TIA. Such a restriction
would not ensure compatibility of
software that manufacturers or service
providers install after certification, and
the Commission sees no reason not to
require compatibility of such software.
Because, under the Commission’s
approach, manufacturers and service
providers need only ensure the
compatibility of the software-based
voice operations that are installed by the
manufacturer or service provider or at
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
their direction, and such operations are
necessarily within their control, the
Commission finds that testing any
software-based voice functionality is
technically feasible, not unduly
burdensome, and beneficial to
consumers with hearing loss who may
wish to use such operations.
28. Previously, the Commission has
permitted manufacturers and service
providers to obtain hearing aid
compatibility certification for handsets
that are capable of supporting additional
voice capability without testing for such
operations, including the operations
addressed above, but has required them
to disclose to consumers that not all of
the handsets’ operations have been
tested and rated for hearing aid
compatibility. While the Commission
now establishes a requirement to test
and rate software applications installed
under the circumstances specified above
in order to obtain hearing aid
compatibility certification, the
Commission finds it appropriate to
provide a period of time during which
manufacturers may continue to certify
handsets based on disclosure rather
than testing. The Commission
anticipates that implementing the
requirement to test and rate softwarebased voice functionality will require
additional guidance on testing
parameters, the development of new
systems capable of testing the applicable
codec/air interface combinations, as
well as coordination between
manufacturers, service providers, and
third-party application providers. Given
these implementation issues, the
Commission provides that during the
transition period for applying
deployment benchmarks, manufacturers
may continue to obtain hearing aid
compatibility ratings for a device’s
operation on a given air interface
without testing and rating softwareenabled voice functions, as long as they
disclose to consumers that certain
operations have not been tested and
rated for hearing aid compatibility,
consistent with the disclosure required
in section 20.19(f)(2)(i). The
Commission notes again that ANSI ASC
C63®-EMC, at its November 2015
meeting, formally approved a project to
revise the ANSI C63.19 standard for
hearing aid compatibility to address a
number of topics, including some
technologies not covered in the current
version of the standard. The application
of the transition period to softwarebased voice operations reflects, in part,
the Commission’s expectation that
industry groups will work through the
standards process to finalize all
necessary guidance well before the end
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
of the transition period. If
manufacturers and service providers
come to conclude that such guidance is
not available sufficiently far in advance
of the transition date to allow parties to
come into compliance, they may seek an
extension of the transition deadline by
petitioning the Commission for a waiver
of this regulatory deadline under the
Commission’s waiver rules (e.g.,
sections 1.3 and/or 1.925, as
appropriate). As part of its review of any
petitions to waive this regulatory
deadline, the Commission will consider
possible impacts on consumers with
hearing loss.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3. Transition Period for Applying
Existing Deployment Benchmarks
29. Background. To ensure that a
wide selection of digital wireless
handset models is available to
consumers with hearing loss, the
Commission’s hearing aid compatibility
rules require both manufacturers and
service providers to meet defined
benchmarks for deploying hearing aidcompatible wireless handsets.
Specifically, manufacturers and service
providers are required to offer minimum
numbers or percentages of handset
models that meet the technical
standards for compatibility with hearing
aids operating in modes for acoustic
coupling (M-rating) and inductive
coupling (T-rating). These benchmarks
apply separately to each air interface for
which the manufacturer or service
provider offers handsets.
30. In the 2010 FNPRM, the
Commission sought comment on the
appropriate transition period before
applying these hearing aid compatibility
deployment benchmarks to lines of
handsets that are ‘‘outside the subset of
CMRS that is currently covered by
section 20.19(a).’’ In this regard, the
Communications Act, as amended by
the CVAA, directs the Commission to
‘‘use appropriate timetables or
benchmarks to the extent necessary (1)
due to technical feasibility, or (2) to
ensure the marketability or availability
of new technologies to users.’’
31. In their comments, Clearwire,
CTIA, T-Mobile, and Motorola support a
two-year transition as adequate for
many handsets to come into compliance
with existing benchmarks. RWA,
Blooston, and RTG support longer time
frames of up to an additional 12 months
for small, rural, and/or Tier III service
providers who, these commenters
contend, do not have the same access to
new handsets as Tier I providers. While
it did not propose any specific time
period, HIA states that the transition
period should be no longer than the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
minimum amount of time needed for a
new product design cycle.
32. Discussion. Based on the record in
this proceeding, the Commission finds it
in the public interest to adopt a January
1, 2018 transition date (for
manufacturers and Tier I carriers) and
an April 1, 2018 transition date (for
other service providers) for applying
section 20.19’s deployment benchmarks
and related requirements to newly
covered air interfaces, i.e., those air
interfaces that operate outside the
former scope of the hearing aid
compatibility rules due to either
regulatory status or network architecture
issues. The Commission will begin
enforcing the benchmarks for these
newly covered air interfaces once the
applicable transition period expires.
After the transition is complete, the Mand T-rating deployment benchmarks
for handsets supporting any newly
covered operations will be the same as
those used for currently covered
operations in handsets, and the
Commission will apply the same
benchmark requirements (including the
de minimis rules) to all handsets,
including newly covered operations,
that a manufacturer or a service
provider offers. In this regard, the
Commission notes that TIA argues that
the Commission should extend the de
minimis exception to handsets offered
over air interfaces that a manufacturer
or service provider is phasing out of its
portfolio. This comment appears to go to
the exception’s operation generally and
not to its application after a possible
transition, and therefore it is outside the
scope of the FNPRM.
33. The Commission finds that a
January 1, 2018 transition date is
appropriate for both manufacturers and
Tier I service providers. When the
Commission adopted its initial hearing
aid compatibility rules in 2003, it gave
manufacturers and Tier I carriers 24
months to comply with acoustic
coupling requirements. Similarly, in
2012, OET and WTB adopted a 24month transition period for covered
CMRS operations that use frequency
bands and air interfaces that can be
tested under the 2011 ANSI Standard.
As discussed above, the Commission
finds that any challenges related to
technical feasibility and marketability
will not be significantly different for
newly covered handsets than for
handsets that are currently being made
hearing aid-compatible under the rule.
The Commission finds that a similar
transition period provides adequate
time to adjust handset portfolios to
ensure compliance with the benchmarks
that apply independently to each air
interface, regardless of whether the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
179
voice communications functionality is
network-based or software-based. This
transition period affords manufacturers
a reasonable amount of time to
implement requirements to test and rate
software-based voice functionality.
Although HIA argues that the transition
period should be limited to the length
of a typical product design cycle, the
Commission has previously determined
that two years is an appropriate period
to accommodate the typical handset
industry product development cycle,
and the record in this proceeding
further supports that conclusion. The
Commission finds that a January 1, 2018
transition date for manufacturers and
Tier I service providers is an
appropriate timetable to account for any
issues of technical feasibility and
marketability.
34. The Commission affords an
additional three months for non-Tier I
service providers to meet the
deployment benchmarks and related
requirements for handsets newly subject
to the hearing aid compatibility rules. In
allowing additional time until the April
1, 2018 transition date, the Commission
recognizes that non-Tier I service
providers often have difficulty obtaining
the newest handset models. While some
commenters argue that the transition
period should be longer in certain
instances, the record does not
demonstrate a need for an even greater
transition period for non-Tier I service
providers nor any reason to depart from
prior hearing aid compatibility
transitions in which the Commission
afforded non-Tier I providers an
additional three months beyond the
transition period provided to Tier I
service providers.
35. Given that many manufacturers
and service providers began meeting
benchmarks in 2014 for handsets with
operations over the additional air
interfaces and frequency bands covered
by the 2011 ANSI Standard, including
in the case of the LTE air interface, the
Commission anticipates that these
parties will continue to meet existing
benchmarks during the transition. The
Commission finds this expectation
reasonable for any IP-based voice
services, including VoLTE and Wi-Fi
Calling, given that affected parties are
already meeting deployment
benchmarks for VoLTE operations, and
the record reflects that manufacturers
and service providers are in some cases
already widely complying with hearing
aid compatibility requirements.
36. The Commission notes that, due to
a lack of testing equipment availability,
manufacturers are currently permitted
to obtain certification of handset models
for inductive coupling capability under
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
180
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the 2011 ANSI Standard without testing
and rating any present VoLTE or Wi-Fi
Calling operations, subject to a
disclosure that such handsets have not
been tested and rated for all of their
operations. The Commission
emphasizes that, at the January 1, 2018
transition date, parties will need to meet
requirements to test and rate for
inductive coupling capability, including
for VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling if such
services are included in the handset, in
order to certify such handsets as hearing
aid-compatible and meet applicable
deployment requirements. During the
transition, however, the Commission
will continue the interim process
permitting disclosure instead of
inductive coupling testing and rating for
VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling when used to
provide CMRS-based voice services. The
Commission notes that some newer
VoLTE-enabled handsets have been
tested and rated for inductive coupling
capability. The record reflects an
industry understanding that the current
process allowing for disclosure instead
of testing and rating for inductive
coupling capability in all modes of
operation is temporary. Indeed, the
industry has had notice for over a year
that Commission staff are reassessing
how long the Commission should use
the current process as testing equipment
and protocols become increasingly
available. Thus, the Commission finds
that the January 1, 2018 transition date
is a reasonable point in time at which
the Commission will require full
inductive coupling testing and rating of
handsets with VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling
functionality before certifying these
handsets so manufacturers and service
providers can meet their deployment
benchmarks.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
37. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) included an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities of the rules
considered in the FNPRM in WT Docket
07–250. The Commission sought written
public comments on the FNPRM in this
docket, including comment on the
IRFA. Because the Commission amends
its rules in the Fourth Report and Order,
the Commission has included this Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
which conforms to the RFA. To the
extent that any statement contained in
this FRFA is perceived as creating
ambiguity with respect to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Commission’s rules, or statements made
in preceding sections of this Fourth
Report and Order, the rules and
statements set forth in those preceding
sections shall be controlling.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Fourth Report and Order
38. Until now, the hearing aid
compatibility rules have generally been
limited only to handsets used with twoway switched voice or data services
classified as Commercial Mobile Radio
Service (CMRS), and only to the extent
they are provided over networks
meeting certain architectural
requirements that enable frequency
reuse and seamless handoff. In the
Fourth Report and Order, the
Commission expands the scope of these
rules to cover the emerging wireless
technologies of today and tomorrow.
The rules adopted here eliminate
uncertainty about the scope of the
Commission’s hearing aid compatibility
requirements and ensure that emerging
voice services will be covered regardless
of their classification for other
regulatory purposes and without
restriction to a particular network
architecture. The rules now extend to
handsets (those mobile device that
contain a built-in speaker and are
typically held to the ear in any of their
ordinary uses) used with any terrestrial
mobile service that enables two-way
real-time voice communications among
members of the public or a substantial
portion of the public, including through
the use of pre-installed software
applications. The Commission also
adopts a transition period that ensures
industry stakeholders will be able to
comply with these rules while
continuing to innovate and invest. By
expanding the scope of the
Commission’s rules to those consumer
mobile devices that are typically held to
the ear, are heavily relied on for voice
communications, and operate in bands
covered by approved standards—and
only where compliance is technically
feasible—we target the Commission’s
efforts to those situations where
Commission action can make a
significant impact and best serve the
public interest. In this regard, the
Commission has been mindful of its
obligation to expand hearing aid
compatibility requirements only in
those instances where the record
supports the necessary statutory
findings mandated by the Hearing Aid
Compatibility Act. This action will
require that future technologies comply
with the Commission’s hearing aid
compatibility rules, ensuring that
consumers with hearing loss are not
always trying to catch up to technology
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and providing industry with additional
regulatory certainty.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA
39. There were no comments filed
that specifically addressed the rules and
policies proposed in the IRFA.
3. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Would Apply
40. 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
proposed rules. 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 Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’).
41. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission’s action
may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present.
The Commission therefore describes
here, at the outset, three comprehensive,
statutory small entity size standards.
First, nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.5 million small
businesses, according to the SBA. In
addition, a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there
were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.’’
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate
that there were 89,476 local
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. The Commission
estimates that, of this total, as many as
88,506 entities may qualify as ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, the
Commission estimates that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
42. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Radio
and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing, which is: All such firms
having 750 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 939
establishments in this category that
operated for part or all of the entire year.
Of this total, 912 had less than 500
employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
43. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers.
The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities applicable to
unlicensed communications handset
manufacturers. Therefore, the
Commission will utilize the SBA
definition applicable to Radio and
Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Radio
and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing, which is: All such firms
having 750 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 939
establishments in this category that
operated for part or all of the entire year.
Of this total, 912 had less than 500
employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
44. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except satellite). The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows:
‘‘This industry comprises
establishments engaged in operating and
maintaining switching and transmission
facilities to provide communications via
the airwaves. Establishments in this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum,
such as cellular phone services, paging
services, wireless Internet access, and
wireless video services.’’ The
appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). In this category, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
For this category, census data for 2007
show that there were 1,383 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 1,368 firms had employment of
999 or fewer employees and 15 had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. According to Commission data,
413 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service,
PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR) telephony services. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. The Commission
estimates that approximately half or
more of these firms can be considered
small. Thus, using available data, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of wireless firms can be considered
small.
45. Internet Service Providers. The
2007 Economic Census places these
firms, whose services might include
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), in
one of three categories. The first refers
to whether the service is provided over
the provider’s own telecommunications
facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or
over client-supplied
telecommunications connections (e.g.,
dial-up ISPs). This type of ISP is
classified by the Commission in the
category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers comprise establishments
primarily engaged in operating or
providing access to transmission
facilities or infrastructure that they own
and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or on a combination
of technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
to provide a variety of services, such as
wired telephony services, including
VoIP services, wired cable audio and
video programming distribution, and
wired broadband Internet services. By
exception, establishments providing
satellite distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers
have an SBA small business size
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
181
standard under which an establishment
having 1,500 or fewer employees is
small. The second type of ISP is
classified in the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite). This industry comprises
establishments engaged in operating and
maintaining switching and transmission
facilities to provide communications via
the airwaves. Establishments in this
service have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum,
such as cellular phone services, wireless
Internet access, and wireless video
services. The size standard for Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite) is the same as for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The third
type of ISP is classified under All Other
Telecommunications. This industry
comprises establishments primarily
engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments
providing Internet services or VoIP
services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA
size standard for this industry states that
all establishments in this category
whose annual receipts are $32.5 million
or less are small.
46. For purpose of this rulemaking,
the Commission is concerned only with
those ISPs that are classified either in
the category of Wireless
Communications Carriers (except
satellite) or are classified in the category
of All Other Telecommunications. The
type of handsets which are the subject
of the proposed rulemaking herein is
primarily, if not exclusively, concerned
with wireless handsets. ISPs which are
classified under Wired
Telecommunications are not relevant in
the context of this particular
rulemaking.
47. United States census data for 2007
show that there were 1,383 Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite) firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, PCS, and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
telephony services. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
182
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these
firms can be considered small. Thus,
using available data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers can be
considered small.
48. With regard to the category of All
Other Telecommunications, U.S. Census
data for 2007 state that 2,383 firms were
operational during that year. Of that
number, 2,346 had annual receipts of
less than $25 million. The Commission
estimates that the majority of ISP firms
in this category are small entities.
49. All Other Information Services.
The Census Bureau defines this industry
as including ‘‘establishments primarily
engaged in providing other information
services (except news syndicates,
libraries, archives, Internet publishing
and broadcasting, and Web search
portals).’’ VoIP services over wireless
technologies could be provided by
entities that provide other services such
as email, online gaming, web browsing,
video conferencing, instant messaging,
and other, similar IP-enabled services.
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category;
that size standard is $27.5 million or
less in average annual receipts.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were 367 firms in this
category that operated for the entire
year. Of these, 354 had annual receipts
of under $25 million. The Commission
estimates that the majority of these firms
are small entities that may be affected
by the Commission’s action.
4. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
50. The current hearing aid
compatibility regulations impose a
number of obligations on covered CMRS
providers and the manufacturers of
handsets used with those services,
including: (1) Requirements to deploy a
certain number or percentage of handset
models that meet hearing aid
compatibility standards, (2) ‘‘refresh’’
requirements on manufacturers to meet
their hearing aid-compatible handset
deployment benchmarks in part using
new models, (3) a requirement that
service providers offer hearing aidcompatible handsets with varying levels
of functionality, (4) a requirement that
service providers make their hearing
aid-compatible models available to
consumers for testing at their owned or
operated stores, (5) point of sale
disclosure requirements, (6)
requirements to make consumer
information available on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
manufacturer’s or service provider’s
Web site, and (7) annual reporting
requirements.
51. The Fourth Report and Order
expands the scope of the hearing aid
compatibility rules to cover handsets
used with any terrestrial mobile service
that enables two-way real-time voice
communications among members of the
public or a substantial portion of the
public, including through the use of preinstalled software applications and
other Internet Protocol (IP)-based
technologies. After the transition period,
the rules the Commission adopts will
extend to providers of wireless voice
communications among members of the
public or a substantial portion of the
public using equipment that contains a
built-in speaker and is typically held to
the ear, and to the manufacturers of
such equipment, the same hearing aid
compatibility rules that currently apply
to a defined category of CMRS. The
Commission also clarifies that testing a
handset for hearing aid compatibility
does not require testing software voice
functions except to the extent that such
functionality is installed by the
manufacturer or service provider or at
their direction, for use by a consumer
over a given interface. The Commission
provides that the existing deployment
benchmarks and related requirements
will apply to newly covered handsets
and air interfaces beginning January 1,
2018, with an additional three months
allowed for handsets offered by nonTier I service providers. The
Commission further provides that,
during this transition period,
manufacturers may continue to obtain a
hearing aid compatibility rating for a
handset’s operation on a given interface
without testing software-enabled voice
functions provided they meet applicable
disclosure requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
52. 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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53. In adopting the Fourth Report and
Order, the Commission expands the
scope of the wireless hearing aid
compatibility rules to cover handsets
used with any terrestrial mobile service
that enables two-way real-time voice
communications among members of the
public or a substantial portion of the
public, including through the use of preinstalled software applications. The
change in scope ensures that handsets
with emerging voice technologies are
subject to hearing aid compatibility
requirements. At the same time, the new
scope eases burdens on manufacturers
and service providers, including small
entities, by permitting handsets already
certified to continue to be treated as
hearing aid-compatible without any
need for recertification after the
expanded scope of the hearing aid
compatibility rules goes into effect. The
new scope also eases burdens for small
entities by applying the same de
minimis exception rules when the
existing M- and T-rating deployment
benchmarks begin to apply to all
handsets, including newly covered
operations, that a manufacturer or a
service provider offers.
54. The Commission adopts a
transition period in order to reduce
burdens on small entities and others.
The Commission finds it in the public
interest to adopt a January 1, 2018
transition date (for manufacturers and
Tier I carriers) and an April 1, 2018
transition date (for other service
providers) for applying section 20.19’s
deployment benchmarks and related
requirements to newly covered
operations. Some commenters support
longer time frames of up to an
additional 12 months for small, rural,
and/or Tier III service providers who,
these commenters contend, do not have
the same access to new handsets as Tier
I providers. The Commission considered
this alternative proposal and decided to
afford an additional three months for
non-Tier I service providers to meet the
deployment benchmarks and related
requirements for handsets newly subject
to the hearing aid compatibility rules. In
allowing additional time until the April
1, 2018 transition date, the Commission
recognizes that non-Tier I service
providers often have difficulty obtaining
the newest handset models. The
Commission determined that the record
does not demonstrate a need for a longer
transition period for non-Tier I service
providers (including small entities) nor
provide any reason to depart from prior
hearing aid compatibility transitions in
which the Commission afforded nonTier I providers an additional three
months beyond the transition period
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
provided to Tier I service providers
because, in part, a shorter period would
better meet the needs of consumers with
hearing loss.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Secretary.
6. Report to Congress
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as
follows:
55. The Commission will send a copy
of the Fourth Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be
sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act. In addition,
the Commission will send a copy of the
Fourth Report and Order, including this
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the
Fourth Report and Order and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be
published in the Federal Register.
B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis
56. The Fourth Report and Order does
not contain substantive new or modified
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It
does not contain any substantive new or
modified information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
C. Congressional Review Act
57. The Commission will include a
copy of this Fourth Report and Order
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Ordering Clauses
58. 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 Fourth Report and Order is
hereby adopted.
59. It is further ordered that the rule
amendments will become effective 30
days after their publication in the
Federal Register.
60. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Fourth Report and Order, including
the Final 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:31 Jan 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 20 is
revised 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.
2. Section 20.19 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2),
(a)(3)(iv), and (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:
■
§ 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile
handsets.
(a) * * *
(1) Service providers. (i) On or after
January 1, 2018 for Tier I carriers and
April 1, 2018 for service providers other
than Tier I carriers, the hearing aid
compatibility requirements of this
section apply to providers of digital
mobile service in the United States to
the extent that they offer terrestrial
mobile service that enables two-way
real-time voice communications among
members of the public or a substantial
portion of the public, including both
interconnected and non-interconnected
VoIP services, and such service is
provided over frequencies in the 698
MHz to 6 GHz bands.
(ii) Prior to January 1, 2018 for Tier
I carriers and April 1, 2018 for service
providers other than Tier I carriers, the
hearing aid compatibility requirements
of this section apply to providers of
digital CMRS in the United States to the
extent that they offer real-time, two-way
switched voice or data service that is
interconnected with the public switched
network and utilizes an in-network
switching facility that enables the
provider to reuse frequencies and
accomplish seamless hand-offs of
subscriber calls, and such service is
provided over frequencies in the 698
MHz to 6 GHz bands.
(2) Manufacturers. On or after January
1, 2018, the requirements of this section
also apply to the manufacturers of the
wireless handsets that are used in
delivery of the services specified in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. Prior
to January 1, 2018, the requirements of
this section also apply to the
manufacturers of the wireless handsets
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
183
that are used in delivery of the services
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(3) * * *
(iv) Service provider refers to a
provider of digital mobile service to
which the requirements of this section
apply.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) of this section, a wireless
handset used for digital mobile service
only over the 698 MHz to 6 GHz
frequency bands is hearing aidcompatible with regard to radio
frequency interference or inductive
coupling if it meets the applicable
technical standard set forth in paragraph
(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section for all
frequency bands and air interfaces over
which it operates, and the handset has
been certified as compliant with the test
requirements for the applicable standard
pursuant to § 2.1033(d) of this chapter.
A wireless handset that incorporates
operations outside the 698 MHz to 6
GHz frequency bands is hearing aidcompatible if the handset otherwise
satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (b).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–32757 Filed 1–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 141219999–5432–02]
RIN 0648–XE345
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015
Tribal Fishery Allocations for Pacific
Whiting; Reapportionment Between
Tribal and Non-Tribal Sectors
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Reapportionment of tribal
Pacific whiting allocation; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
reapportionment of 30,000 metric tons
(mt) of Pacific whiting from the tribal
allocation to the non-tribal commercial
fishery sectors via automatic action on
September 21, 2015, in order to allow
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 173-183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32757]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 15-155]
Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) modernizes its wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.
The Commission adopts these rules to ensure that people with hearing
loss have full access to innovative handsets and technologies.
DATES: Effective February 4, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1883, email Michael.Rowan@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 Fourth
Report and Order in WT Docket Nos. 15-285 and 07-250; FCC 15-155,
adopted November 19, 2015, and released on November 20, 2015. This
summary should be read with its companion document, the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking summary published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. The full text of the Fourth Report and Order is
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete item is also available on the
Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of the Fourth Report and Order
I. Introduction
1. After review of the record and consideration of both the
requirements of section 710 as amended by the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) and the
previous actions taken in this proceeding, the Commission revises the
scope of the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules largely as
proposed in the 2010 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 75
FR 54546, Sept. 8, 2010. Specifically, the Commission broadens the
scope of the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, which have until
now covered only handsets that are used with CMRS networks meeting
specified characteristics enabling frequency reuse and seamless
handoff. The Commission now extends the scope to cover handsets (that
is, devices with a built-in speaker held to the ear in any of their
ordinary uses) used with any terrestrial mobile service that enables
two-way real-time voice communications among members of the public or a
substantial portion of the public, including both interconnected and
non-interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
provided through pre-installed software applications. In doing so, the
[[Page 174]]
Commission establishes a comprehensive hearing aid compatibility
requirement that ensures consumers with hearing loss will have access
to the same rapidly evolving voice technology options available to
other consumers. To ensure testability under the currently approved
technical standard, the Commission will require compliance only to the
extent these handsets are used in connection with voice communication
services in bands covered by Commission-approved standards for hearing
aid compatibility. Section 20.19(a) is limited to mobile handsets
consistent with the scope of ANSI Standard C63.19, and remains so under
the expanded scope. The Commission therefore affirms that cordless
telephones remain subject to section 68.4 of the Commission's rules,
including the hearing aid compatibility requirements applicable to
telephones under Part 68, and are not affected by the change in scope.
2. While the Commission has taken steps previously to bring such
emerging voice services under the rules, these steps are necessary to
complete the process. The Third Report and Order adopted a technical
standard that can be applied to test VoLTE, Wi-Fi-based calling, and
other IP-based voice capabilities for hearing aid compatibility, and
indicated an expectation that handsets that support covered CMRS voice
communications services over IP-based air interfaces such as LTE would
indeed be subject to the hearing aid compatibility requirements as a
result. The Third Report and Order did not expand the scope provision
of the rule beyond covered CMRS, or clarify the extent to which the new
IP-based voice technologies and air interfaces constituted covered CMRS
services. Consistent with the provisions of the CVAA that expressly
extend section 710 to both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP
services, adopting the expanded scope will ensure that the wireless
hearing aid compatibility requirements apply to handsets used for such
services regardless of how the services are classified for other
regulatory purposes, and without regard to the network architecture
over which the services are provided. The Commission thus resolves any
uncertainty regarding the extent to which IP-based voice services
covered by the 2011 ANSI Standard are also within the scope of the
hearing aid compatibility rules.
3. Its actions also ensure that the hearing aid compatibility rules
cover modes of voice communications access that are increasingly
available to the public as well as those that may develop in the
future. For example, the expanded scope will cover handsets that enable
voice communications through VoIP software applications installed by
the manufacturer or service provider regardless of whether the calling
functionality provides interconnection to the public switched telephone
network. It will also cover advances in voice technology that have
rendered obsolete some of the current rule's limitations on scope, such
as provisions that apply hearing aid compatibility requirements only to
services that involve frequency reuse and cell site handoff. Unlike the
current scope, the expanded scope will also apply to a voice
communications service over Wi-Fi that does not utilize an in-network
switching facility that enables reuse of frequencies and seamless hand-
off.
1. Statutory Analysis of Expanded Scope
4. The Commisson first finds that section 710, as amended by the
CVAA, provides authority to require hearing aid compatibility in any
device that meets the Commission's definition of handset and that is
used in whole or in part for the delivery of services within the new
scope of the rule. The CVAA expressly extended section 710 to cover
mobile devices used with advanced communications services, including
interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP services, to the extent that
such devices are designed to provide two-way voice communication via a
built-in speaker intended to be held to the ear in a manner
functionally equivalent to a telephone. Thus, as amended by the CVAA,
section 710 clearly supports expanding the scope of section 20.19 to
cover the full range of handsets used to provide consumers with voice
communications services, including IP-based services and voice
communications software.
5. Similarly, the CVAA amendments to section 710 confirm the
Commission's prior determination that obligations should extend to
cover a broad range of mobile handsets, and not merely those used
exclusively as telephones. For example, these amendments make clear
that covered devices used with public mobile services and private radio
services include devices used ``in whole or in part'' to provide those
services. While the Commission has recognized that engineering hearing
aid compatibility for multi-use handsets may require adjustments to
non-voice-communication features, the statute provides that equipment
must meet hearing aid compatibility standards without any specific
limitation based on non-communication adjustments. The Commission
reaffirms that the hearing aid compatibility rules apply to a multi-use
handset that can function as a telephone even though it may serve
additional purposes or have another primary intended purpose.
6. The Commission further finds that, in deciding whether to extend
the scope of the wireless hearing aid compatibility obligations, the
Commission must determine whether the statutory criteria for lifting
the wireless exemption are satisfied, as it did in 2003 when it first
modified the exemption for wireless telephones. The Commission examines
each of the four criteria for lifting the exemption below, and
determine that each criterion has been satisfied. The Commission finds
that (1) individuals with hearing loss would be adversely affected
absent the expansion of the rule's scope; (2) compliance with the
Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules for the handsets within
the expanded scope is technologically feasible; (3) compliance would
not increase costs to such an extent that such equipment could not be
successfully marketed; and (4) in consideration of these factors, and
the costs and benefits of the rule change, expanding the scope of the
hearing aid compatibility rules beyond covered CMRS is in the public
interest.
7. The Commission emphasizes that the Commission's analysis of the
four criteria for lifting the exemption is not restricted to voice
communications services that are deployed in the 698 MHz to 6 GHz band,
and that the Commission finds that the criteria for lifting the
exemption are met for such services in any frequency band, including
frequencies outside the band covered by the ANSI 2011 Standard.
Consistent with prior Commission determinations, however, the
Commission retains the current restriction in the scope of the rule to
the 698 MHz to 6 GHz band at this time, so that compliance under the
rule is required only for operations in spectrum bands for which there
is an approved technical standard. As new frequencies are deployed for
comparable voice services and standards for them approved, however,
incorporating such frequencies into the rule early in their deployment
will better facilitate access to handsets using such frequencies when
they are rolled out to the public. For example, the Incentive Auction
scheduled to begin in early 2016 will involve new, flexible-use
licenses in the 600 MHz Band that are suitable for providing mobile
broadband services. The Commission expects that the
[[Page 175]]
technical standards needed for any such frequencies will be developed
in timely fashion. To the extent that a manufacturer believes that
compliance is not technically feasible or would prevent marketability
for devices used with a future public mobile service--such as one that
operates in the 600 MHz Band--the manufacturer may apply for a waiver
under section 710(b)(3) for the applicable ``new telephones, or
telephone associated with a new technology or service.'' By addressing
the statutory exemption as it applies to additional frequencies now,
the Commission ensures that it need not engage in a similar statutory
analysis each time ANSI adopts a revision to cover an additional
frequency range, which will help to expedite incorporation of such
revisions into the rules and therefore speed the testing and offering
of new hearing aid-compatible technologies to consumers. The
Commission's determinations in this Fourth Report and Order should
remove any doubt that, as new frequencies are deployed for comparable
voice services and corresponding hearing aid compatibility standards
are developed, the Commission intends to incorporate them into the
Commission's requirements. This will advance the Commission's goal that
the Commission's rules provide people who use hearing aids and cochlear
implants with continuing access to the most advanced and innovative
technologies as they develop.
8. Adverse Effect on People with Hearing Loss. In the FNPRM, the
Commission proposed to find that failure to extend hearing aid
compatibility requirements broadly to handsets used for voice
communications with members of the public or a substantial portion of
the public, including those operating over new and developing
technologies, would have an adverse effect on people with hearing loss
and deny such consumers an opportunity to use advanced functionalities
and services becoming commonplace in society. The Commission further
suggested that the inability to access such innovative technologies as
they develop would have an adverse effect on individuals with hearing
loss, and that a broad scope could address that concern by encouraging
manufacturers to consider hearing aid compatibility at the earliest
stages of the product design process.
9. Consumer Groups and ASHA comment that people with hearing loss
who use hearing aids need access to mobile phone services just like
every other American, including at home, work, school, and in emergency
situations, and that updated regulations can help to ensure that these
people can be fully integrated into society. TIA comments that
manufacturers have made gains to enhance access by deaf or hard of
hearing individuals to new technologies and hearing aid-compliant
products, while CTIA contends that the current rules for hearing aid
compatibility have been highly effective in ensuring that a wide
variety of compliant wireless handsets are available to the public.
10. Consistent with the Commission's proposed findings, the
Commission concludes that failure to adopt the expanded scope would
adversely affect people with hearing loss. Absent the amended scope,
mobile VoIP services would be covered only to the extent that they were
determined to both satisfy the definition of CMRS and involve the use
of ``an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to
reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber
calls.'' Those limitations, the Commission finds, would materially
impede the ability of people with hearing loss to use many advanced
devices and networks, and the Commission notes that ongoing innovation
would likely amplify this harmful impact over time. If handsets
encompassing these emerging technologies are not broadly made hearing
aid-compatible, consumers with hearing loss who use hearing aids or
cochlear implants could be left without full access to new technologies
and networks that are used increasingly by members of the public to
communicate with one another at home, at work, and as they travel,
including for communications in critical emergencies. The Commission
notes that mobile technologies generally are increasingly important to
members of the public. According to the National Center for Health
Statistics, the percentage of adults living in households with only
wireless telephones has been steadily increasing with about 44.1
percent of adults (about 106 million adults) living in wireless-only
households as of the last six months of 2014; in addition, as of the
last six months of 2014, 54.1 percent of all children (nearly 40
million children) lived in households that only used wireless
telephones. Having access to emerging IP-based voice technologies such
as High Definition Voice may prove particularly important to
individuals with hearing loss. In addition, as these emerging handsets
evolve to encompass a wide and growing range of computing and other
functions, a lack of hearing aid-compatible handsets may force
individuals with hearing loss to choose between limiting their voice
communications or limiting their access to many of the other features
that these new handsets offer.
11. In broadening the scope of the rule, the Commission is mindful
that it is important to ensure hearing aid-compatible access to
handsets, voice technologies, and networks not only once they are
established but also as they develop in the future. The Commission
anticipates ongoing innovation in mobile voice technologies that will
lead to more services for consumers to communicate that do not use the
North American Numbering Plan or involve the cellular system
architecture reflected in the current rule. By making clear that
hearing aid compatibility requirements apply not only to currently
available technologies such as VoLTE but to all mobile terrestrial
services that enable two-way, real-time voice communications among
members of the public, the Commission ensures that new consumer
devices--that might be developed or emerge in the future--will be
covered as technical standards become available, regardless of
regulatory classification or network architecture, unless a waiver is
granted. The Commission expects manufacturers to take hearing aid
compatibility into account during the early stages of product
development.
12. Technological Feasibility. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether handsets that are currently on the market or are
planned for introduction that fall within the coverage of the proposed
rule, but are not covered by the existing rule, would meet the existing
ANSI standard or a similar performance standard, for frequency bands
and air interfaces that are not addressed by the existing standard.
Given that hearing aid compatibility standards were already being met
for handsets that operate on a variety of 2G and 3G air interfaces over
two frequency bands, the Commission stated that, absent evidence to the
contrary, it was likely that such standards could be met for handsets
not within the class of covered CMRS but that provide similar services.
The Commission further indicated that commenters arguing that
compliance was not feasible should provide specific engineering
evidence related to a defined class of handsets.
13. TIA comments that the Commission should not expand the
application of the hearing aid compatibility requirements beyond the
scope of consumer wireless handsets with CMRS functionality until there
is a better understanding of the obstacles
[[Page 176]]
in making the products and expanding services, and argues that issues
relating to applying the rules to VoLTE and Wi-Fi with CMRS capability
illustrate that emerging technologies create new and previously
unanticipated technical challenges.
14. The Commission concludes that it is technologically feasible to
manufacture newly covered handsets so they meet the minimum ratings for
hearing aid compatibility under the current technical standard or, to
the extent they may be deployed in frequencies not addressed under the
2011 ANSI Standard, under a similar performance standard. Since the
Commission proposed its analysis in 2010, subsequent developments have
only confirmed that compliance with the hearing aid compatibility
requirements will generally be feasible for consumer mobile voice
technologies. Indeed, manufacturers are already successfully testing
and rating VoLTE operations for both T- and M-rating compliance, and
they are also successfully testing and rating CMRS-enabled voice
communications over Wi-Fi (hereinafter ``Wi-Fi Calling'') for M-rating
compliance, demonstrating empirically that compliance in those areas is
technologically feasible. In addition, OET's Laboratory Division issued
guidance in October 2013 describing the technical parameters related in
part to testing VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling functionalities for both M-
ratings and T-ratings, and did not identify any challenges related to
technological feasibility. While the 2013 guidance did observe that the
equipment needed to test for T-coil compliance for Wi-Fi Calling ``may
not be readily available'' and therefore excluded such operations from
the testing obligation, nothing in the record suggests that the
availability of testing equipment remains a challenge, and perhaps more
significantly, this limitation does not bear on technological
feasibility.
15. The Commission finds that any technical challenges to achieving
hearing aid compatibility in handsets will not differ significantly
from those that manufacturers have already addressed in achieving
hearing aid compatibility in the broad range of mobile handsets noted
above. Indeed, because the specifications for new air interface
technologies (such as the Fifth Generation or 5G wireless technology)
will now be developed with the expectation that hearing aid
compatibility requirements will apply, the Commission anticipates that
the need to meet such requirements will be taken into account early in
the design process, which should help to ensure that compatibility for
such technologies is feasible. The Commission notes that industry
commenters have provided no example of developing technology within the
adopted scope for which achieving hearing aid compatibility was found
to be infeasible, and the Commission knows of no reason that consumer
handsets that operate over systems within the expanded scope could not
achieve these ratings. As the Commission noted in 2010, to the extent
the Commission is presented with the rare case of a new technology that
cannot feasibly meet the requirements, or cannot do so in full, section
710 expressly provides for a waiver.
16. Marketability. In the FNPRM, the Commission stated that based
on the number of hearing aid-compatible models that were already being
successfully marketed across multiple air interfaces and frequency
bands, it anticipated, in the absence of convincing evidence to the
contrary, that other telephones offering similar capabilities and
meeting the same or comparable compliance standards could also be
successfully marketed. The Commission sought comment on this statement
and on whether there is any class of handsets for which the cost of
achieving compliance would preclude successful marketing. The
Commission sought comment on whether, for reasons of technological
infeasibility or prohibitive costs, any rule provisions could not be
applied to any class of handsets.
17. Generally, aside from the impact relating to satellite phones,
commenters did not address in detail whether compliance would increase
costs to such an extent that equipment could not be successfully
marketed. TIA argues that an open-ended application of the rules to
other types of wireless handsets with voice capability but which are
not typically held to the ear would, among other matters, impose undue
financial burdens. HIA comments that in terms of costs, compatibility
with other devices is already a factor in hearing aid design, and thus
does not anticipate that a ``to the ear'' standard it supports would
impose additional costs on its members.
18. In order to expand the scope of section 20.19, the Commission
must also find that compliance would not increase costs to a degree
that would prevent successfully marketing of the equipment. As
discussed above in the Commission's analysis of technological
feasibility, manufacturers already offer numerous hearing aid-
compatible handsets with differing features and physical
characteristics over a variety of air interfaces, including a number of
models certified as hearing aid-compatible over LTE. Further, while
Iridium and Inmarsat raise concerns about the impact of hearing aid
compatibility requirements on the marketability of satellite phones, no
commenter raises any concerns about marketability with respect to
handsets and operations within the expanded scope the Commission adopts
in this Fourth Report and Order. Considering the absence of anything in
the record demonstrating compliance costs that would depart materially
from the costs for handsets that already comply, the Commission
anticipates that handsets offering comparable voice communications
capabilities to the public will similarly be marketable. The Commission
therefore finds that requiring hearing aid compatibility for handsets
newly within the scope of the requirements will not undermine their
marketability. To the extent the Commission is presented with the rare
case of a new technology for which compliance would increase costs to
the extent that the technology could not be successfully marketed,
section 710 expressly provides that the Commission may waive the
requirements.
19. Public Interest. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to find
that expanding the scope of the hearing aid compatibility requirements
to reach handsets using new technologies would serve the public
interest. In seeking comments on this proposal, the Commission stated
that its policy ``is to encourage manufacturers to consider hearing aid
compatibility at the earliest stages of the product design process.''
The Commission further stated that the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act
makes clear that consumers with hearing loss should be afforded equal
access to communications networks to the fullest extent feasible. The
Commission stated that commenters should address the proposed finding
that further modification of the exemption to reach handsets using new
technologies is in the public interest.
20. Consumer Groups argue that there are millions of Americans with
hearing loss, technological innovations help people with disabilities,
and they need access to their mobile phones in different settings. ASHA
and Lintz note the importance of wireless phones to those who suffer
from hearing loss.
21. The Commission concludes, in light of the consideration of the
costs and benefits to all telephone users, that applying the hearing
aid compatibility requirements to all handsets and services within the
expanded scope, including current and emerging IP-based voice services,
will serve the
[[Page 177]]
public interest. Most notably, an expanded scope will ensure that the
country's approximately 36 million individuals with hearing loss have
access to the advances in communications and related technology that
are becoming increasingly essential to participation in our society.
The expanded scope makes it more likely that individuals with hearing
loss will have access to the latest technology in mobile handsets since
technological innovations will generally have to be considered in the
design stage for the handsets. The Commission further finds that
enabling access to the full--and growing--range of handsets available
to all other consumers will provide both social and economic benefits
to consumers with hearing loss. Access to mobile handsets with
innovative technologies as they develop can benefit not just an
employee with hearing loss who uses his or her own mobile phone but the
employer and co-workers as well, by facilitating the full participation
and valuable input of employees with hearing loss who otherwise may be
restricted in their ability to fully communicate with their colleagues.
Members of the public will also generally benefit from being able to
communicate with people with hearing loss as fully and robustly as
possible. The Commission also notes that the wireless industry's
comments demonstrate broad support for covering advanced services. For
example, in its comments to the 2010 FNPRM, TIA supports ``expand[ing]
the scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules to advanced
communications technologies'' guided by the Commission's Policy
Statement and consistent with section 710 of the Act. For these
reasons, the Commission finds that expanding the scope of section 20.19
as discussed herein advances the public interest.
22. Public Safety and Private Enterprise Networks. The Commission
declines, at this time, to extend the hearing aid compatibility rules
to handsets used exclusively with services that are not available to
the public, such as services over public safety or private enterprise
networks (meaning those networks that are designed and deployed to meet
a business's specific communications needs). For example, the
Commission does not extend hearing aid compatibility requirements to
state, local, and Tribal public safety radio systems used by police,
fire, or emergency medical personnel for dispatch and emergency
response. Consistent with this determination, the Commission further
clarifies that the incorporation of a VoIP functionality operating over
Wi-Fi in a public safety or private enterprise device does not bring
the device under the expanded scope of the rule. Rather, The expanded
scope will cover only devices used with the provision of a service
available to the public or a substantial portion of the public.
23. In the past, the Commission's decisions to lift the exemption
for devices used with some wireless services, and particularly the
Commission's determination that doing so is in the public interest,
have been based in part on the Commission's findings that these devices
and services have become part of the mass market for communications.
Generally, handsets for network services such as public safety or
private enterprise networks are designed for a specialized market with
a limited set of users. Based on the record before us, there is little
evidence on the extent that these specialized public safety and private
enterprise devices would satisfy the criteria of technical feasibility
and marketability. Rather, the record supports the Commission's
tentative conclusion in the FNPRM that the different market
circumstances for public safety or private enterprise networks and the
absence of an existing universe of hearing aid-compatible handsets
would increase the burden of meeting the hearing aid compatibility
requirements. In addition, although the Commission recognizes there are
benefits to ensuring accessibility to public safety or private
enterprise devices, the record reflects that the typical weight, shape,
and other aspects of the physical design of public safety and private
enterprise devices are such that the radios conventionally are not held
up to the ear but rather used with audio that emanates from a
loudspeaker with adjustable volume control rather than from a telephone
earpiece. As such, the Commission finds that these devices are
generally not comparable in their typical use to the wireless handsets
covered by the hearing aid compatibility obligations. The Commission
also finds that the public interest requires that the Commission
proceeds with caution in order to avoid requirements that may
discourage, delay, or increase the cost of equipment where public
safety or critical infrastructure operations are directly at stake.
Taking these factors into consideration, the record precludes us from
finding that the benefit associated with expanding the rule to public
safety and private enterprise networks would outweigh the cost.
Accordingly, the Commission finds, at this time, that the statutory
requirements are not met in order to expand the scope of the hearing
aid compatibility rules to include these devices. The Commission
continues to be sensitive to the needs of those individuals with
hearing loss, however, and will consider re-visiting this issue if it
comes to the Commission's attention that the benefits associated with
expanding the rule come to outweigh the costs.
24. Non-terrestrial Networks. Based on the existing record, the
Commission is unable to find that the statutory criteria for lifting
the hearing aid compatibility exemption have been satisfied for radio
communication devices operating over non-terrestrial networks, such as
those operating in the MSS. As Iridium has explained, MSS handsets
operate at significantly higher power levels than mass market devices
and must communicate with stations over a dramatically greater distance
than comparable terrestrial technologies. Iridium also notes that lower
sales volumes, in-house product development, and longer product
development and marketing cycles due to infrequent product replacements
pose additional impediments to achieving hearing aid compatibility.
Even if such challenges could be overcome, the record supports the
conclusion that each MSS provider would need to develop its own
solution, and the Commission is concerned that the increased costs
associated with complying with the rules in those circumstances, and
the MSS industry's need to recover those costs over a relatively
limited market, would prevent the successful marketing of MSS handsets
or discourage further innovation in such handsets. Further, because MSS
providers offer a specialized service over customized technology to a
small customer base that is focused on government, critical
infrastructure, and other large enterprise users, and not the public at
large, the Commission finds that extending hearing aid compatibility
requirements to the MSS raises concerns similar to those noted above
regarding public safety and private enterprise networks. Indeed, the
Commission found last year that these characteristics justified not
extending to MSS the text-to-911 requirements that the Commission
otherwise imposed broadly on CMRS providers and all other providers of
interconnected text-messaging applications. Although there could be
benefits to individuals with hearing loss from extending the scope of
the hearing aid compatibility rules to cover such
[[Page 178]]
devices and services, the current differences between MSS and
terrestrial services, as well as concerns and uncertainty regarding the
marketability and technological feasibility of hearing aid-compatible
MSS devices, do not allow us at this time to make the determinations
necessary to lift the exemption for these devices. The Commission will
reevaluate in the future whether the MSS should remain exempt from the
scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules.
2. Voice Capability Provided Through Software
25. Background. When the Commission first promulgated hearing aid
compatibility rules, applications that enable voice communications
through third-party software did not exist. If a digital handset
enabled voice communications, it could do so only through the native
voice capabilities of the service provider's network technology relying
on a voice coder-decoder (codec) embedded in the hardware. Today,
mobile voice communications can be enabled in a variety of ways,
including: Applications pre-installed by the manufacturer, its
operating system software partner, or a service provider; applications
downloaded by the end user from the manufacturer's store; or
applications that the end user obtains from an independent source.
While third-party voice applications may rely on a voice codec built
into the operating system or hardware of the device, they may also use
their own proprietary codec. While seeking comment in the 2010 FNPRM on
expanding the scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules beyond
covered CMRS, the Commission also sought comment on how its hearing aid
compatibility rules should address circumstances where voice capability
may be enabled on a handset by a party other than the manufacturer.
26. AT&T, ATIS, Consumer Groups, CTIA, MetroPCS, Motorola, TIA, and
T-Mobile agree that manufacturers and service providers should not be
required to ensure compliance for voice communication capabilities
added to a handset by consumers or third parties after original
purchase. In connection with this argument, AT&T, CTIA, and TIA cite
section 2(a) of the CVAA, which they claim limits liability for certain
third-party activities, as support for exempting them from compliance
responsibility for third party actions. These commenters oppose
subjecting manufacturers and service providers to testing requirements
for third party applications unless the manufacturer and service
provider have themselves affirmatively incorporated the application
into a device, arguing, in the main, that manufacturers and providers
lack control over third party applications installed in the device by
someone else. In contrast, HIA argues that hearing aid compatibility
should be ensured both ``at the time of sale'' and upon ``installation
of a voice feature.'' As an alternative approach, Consumer Groups urge
the Commission to require manufacturers and service providers to
include provisions in their licensing agreements or contracts with
software application developers to ensure that software maintains the
hearing aid compatibility of a device.
27. Discussion. After consideration of the record, the Commission
agrees with those commenters that argue against applying the hearing
aid compatibility requirements to voice applications added by consumers
after their purchase of the device. The record demonstrates that
testing a device for hearing aid compatibility for all possible
applications is infeasible at this time because manufacturers and
service providers are unable to predict what third-party software a
consumer may choose to install. The Commission believes it would create
incentives to restrict the open development of new voice applications
if the Commission holds manufacturers and service providers responsible
for hearing aid compatibility compliance for all third-party voice
applications. Certifying a handset for hearing aid compatibility does
not require testing software-based voice functions except to the extent
that such software applications are installed by the manufacturer or
service provider, or at their direction, for use by a consumer over a
given air interface. The Commission requires that, when testing a
device's operations over a given air interface, manufacturers must
ensure the hearing aid compatibility of all voice communication
functionality they provide over that interface whether such
functionality is provided through software, hardware, or both. The
Commission declines to limit responsibility to the subset of such
software installed prior to certification, as suggested by TIA. Such a
restriction would not ensure compatibility of software that
manufacturers or service providers install after certification, and the
Commission sees no reason not to require compatibility of such
software. Because, under the Commission's approach, manufacturers and
service providers need only ensure the compatibility of the software-
based voice operations that are installed by the manufacturer or
service provider or at their direction, and such operations are
necessarily within their control, the Commission finds that testing any
software-based voice functionality is technically feasible, not unduly
burdensome, and beneficial to consumers with hearing loss who may wish
to use such operations.
28. Previously, the Commission has permitted manufacturers and
service providers to obtain hearing aid compatibility certification for
handsets that are capable of supporting additional voice capability
without testing for such operations, including the operations addressed
above, but has required them to disclose to consumers that not all of
the handsets' operations have been tested and rated for hearing aid
compatibility. While the Commission now establishes a requirement to
test and rate software applications installed under the circumstances
specified above in order to obtain hearing aid compatibility
certification, the Commission finds it appropriate to provide a period
of time during which manufacturers may continue to certify handsets
based on disclosure rather than testing. The Commission anticipates
that implementing the requirement to test and rate software-based voice
functionality will require additional guidance on testing parameters,
the development of new systems capable of testing the applicable codec/
air interface combinations, as well as coordination between
manufacturers, service providers, and third-party application
providers. Given these implementation issues, the Commission provides
that during the transition period for applying deployment benchmarks,
manufacturers may continue to obtain hearing aid compatibility ratings
for a device's operation on a given air interface without testing and
rating software-enabled voice functions, as long as they disclose to
consumers that certain operations have not been tested and rated for
hearing aid compatibility, consistent with the disclosure required in
section 20.19(f)(2)(i). The Commission notes again that ANSI ASC
C63[supreg]-EMC, at its November 2015 meeting, formally approved a
project to revise the ANSI C63.19 standard for hearing aid
compatibility to address a number of topics, including some
technologies not covered in the current version of the standard. The
application of the transition period to software-based voice operations
reflects, in part, the Commission's expectation that industry groups
will work through the standards process to finalize all necessary
guidance well before the end
[[Page 179]]
of the transition period. If manufacturers and service providers come
to conclude that such guidance is not available sufficiently far in
advance of the transition date to allow parties to come into
compliance, they may seek an extension of the transition deadline by
petitioning the Commission for a waiver of this regulatory deadline
under the Commission's waiver rules (e.g., sections 1.3 and/or 1.925,
as appropriate). As part of its review of any petitions to waive this
regulatory deadline, the Commission will consider possible impacts on
consumers with hearing loss.
3. Transition Period for Applying Existing Deployment Benchmarks
29. Background. To ensure that a wide selection of digital wireless
handset models is available to consumers with hearing loss, the
Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules require both manufacturers
and service providers to meet defined benchmarks for deploying hearing
aid-compatible wireless handsets. Specifically, manufacturers and
service providers are required to offer minimum numbers or percentages
of handset models that meet the technical standards for compatibility
with hearing aids operating in modes for acoustic coupling (M-rating)
and inductive coupling (T-rating). These benchmarks apply separately to
each air interface for which the manufacturer or service provider
offers handsets.
30. In the 2010 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the
appropriate transition period before applying these hearing aid
compatibility deployment benchmarks to lines of handsets that are
``outside the subset of CMRS that is currently covered by section
20.19(a).'' In this regard, the Communications Act, as amended by the
CVAA, directs the Commission to ``use appropriate timetables or
benchmarks to the extent necessary (1) due to technical feasibility, or
(2) to ensure the marketability or availability of new technologies to
users.''
31. In their comments, Clearwire, CTIA, T-Mobile, and Motorola
support a two-year transition as adequate for many handsets to come
into compliance with existing benchmarks. RWA, Blooston, and RTG
support longer time frames of up to an additional 12 months for small,
rural, and/or Tier III service providers who, these commenters contend,
do not have the same access to new handsets as Tier I providers. While
it did not propose any specific time period, HIA states that the
transition period should be no longer than the minimum amount of time
needed for a new product design cycle.
32. Discussion. Based on the record in this proceeding, the
Commission finds it in the public interest to adopt a January 1, 2018
transition date (for manufacturers and Tier I carriers) and an April 1,
2018 transition date (for other service providers) for applying section
20.19's deployment benchmarks and related requirements to newly covered
air interfaces, i.e., those air interfaces that operate outside the
former scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules due to either
regulatory status or network architecture issues. The Commission will
begin enforcing the benchmarks for these newly covered air interfaces
once the applicable transition period expires. After the transition is
complete, the M- and T-rating deployment benchmarks for handsets
supporting any newly covered operations will be the same as those used
for currently covered operations in handsets, and the Commission will
apply the same benchmark requirements (including the de minimis rules)
to all handsets, including newly covered operations, that a
manufacturer or a service provider offers. In this regard, the
Commission notes that TIA argues that the Commission should extend the
de minimis exception to handsets offered over air interfaces that a
manufacturer or service provider is phasing out of its portfolio. This
comment appears to go to the exception's operation generally and not to
its application after a possible transition, and therefore it is
outside the scope of the FNPRM.
33. The Commission finds that a January 1, 2018 transition date is
appropriate for both manufacturers and Tier I service providers. When
the Commission adopted its initial hearing aid compatibility rules in
2003, it gave manufacturers and Tier I carriers 24 months to comply
with acoustic coupling requirements. Similarly, in 2012, OET and WTB
adopted a 24-month transition period for covered CMRS operations that
use frequency bands and air interfaces that can be tested under the
2011 ANSI Standard. As discussed above, the Commission finds that any
challenges related to technical feasibility and marketability will not
be significantly different for newly covered handsets than for handsets
that are currently being made hearing aid-compatible under the rule.
The Commission finds that a similar transition period provides adequate
time to adjust handset portfolios to ensure compliance with the
benchmarks that apply independently to each air interface, regardless
of whether the voice communications functionality is network-based or
software-based. This transition period affords manufacturers a
reasonable amount of time to implement requirements to test and rate
software-based voice functionality. Although HIA argues that the
transition period should be limited to the length of a typical product
design cycle, the Commission has previously determined that two years
is an appropriate period to accommodate the typical handset industry
product development cycle, and the record in this proceeding further
supports that conclusion. The Commission finds that a January 1, 2018
transition date for manufacturers and Tier I service providers is an
appropriate timetable to account for any issues of technical
feasibility and marketability.
34. The Commission affords an additional three months for non-Tier
I service providers to meet the deployment benchmarks and related
requirements for handsets newly subject to the hearing aid
compatibility rules. In allowing additional time until the April 1,
2018 transition date, the Commission recognizes that non-Tier I service
providers often have difficulty obtaining the newest handset models.
While some commenters argue that the transition period should be longer
in certain instances, the record does not demonstrate a need for an
even greater transition period for non-Tier I service providers nor any
reason to depart from prior hearing aid compatibility transitions in
which the Commission afforded non-Tier I providers an additional three
months beyond the transition period provided to Tier I service
providers.
35. Given that many manufacturers and service providers began
meeting benchmarks in 2014 for handsets with operations over the
additional air interfaces and frequency bands covered by the 2011 ANSI
Standard, including in the case of the LTE air interface, the
Commission anticipates that these parties will continue to meet
existing benchmarks during the transition. The Commission finds this
expectation reasonable for any IP-based voice services, including VoLTE
and Wi-Fi Calling, given that affected parties are already meeting
deployment benchmarks for VoLTE operations, and the record reflects
that manufacturers and service providers are in some cases already
widely complying with hearing aid compatibility requirements.
36. The Commission notes that, due to a lack of testing equipment
availability, manufacturers are currently permitted to obtain
certification of handset models for inductive coupling capability under
[[Page 180]]
the 2011 ANSI Standard without testing and rating any present VoLTE or
Wi-Fi Calling operations, subject to a disclosure that such handsets
have not been tested and rated for all of their operations. The
Commission emphasizes that, at the January 1, 2018 transition date,
parties will need to meet requirements to test and rate for inductive
coupling capability, including for VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling if such
services are included in the handset, in order to certify such handsets
as hearing aid-compatible and meet applicable deployment requirements.
During the transition, however, the Commission will continue the
interim process permitting disclosure instead of inductive coupling
testing and rating for VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling when used to provide
CMRS-based voice services. The Commission notes that some newer VoLTE-
enabled handsets have been tested and rated for inductive coupling
capability. The record reflects an industry understanding that the
current process allowing for disclosure instead of testing and rating
for inductive coupling capability in all modes of operation is
temporary. Indeed, the industry has had notice for over a year that
Commission staff are reassessing how long the Commission should use the
current process as testing equipment and protocols become increasingly
available. Thus, the Commission finds that the January 1, 2018
transition date is a reasonable point in time at which the Commission
will require full inductive coupling testing and rating of handsets
with VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling functionality before certifying these
handsets so manufacturers and service providers can meet their
deployment benchmarks.
II. Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
37. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission)
included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities of the rules considered in the FNPRM in WT Docket 07-250. The
Commission sought written public comments on the FNPRM in this docket,
including comment on the IRFA. Because the Commission amends its rules
in the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission has included this Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) which conforms to the RFA. To
the extent that any statement contained in this FRFA is perceived as
creating ambiguity with respect to the Commission's rules, or
statements made in preceding sections of this Fourth Report and Order,
the rules and statements set forth in those preceding sections shall be
controlling.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Fourth Report and Order
38. Until now, the hearing aid compatibility rules have generally
been limited only to handsets used with two-way switched voice or data
services classified as Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), and only
to the extent they are provided over networks meeting certain
architectural requirements that enable frequency reuse and seamless
handoff. In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission expands the
scope of these rules to cover the emerging wireless technologies of
today and tomorrow. The rules adopted here eliminate uncertainty about
the scope of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements
and ensure that emerging voice services will be covered regardless of
their classification for other regulatory purposes and without
restriction to a particular network architecture. The rules now extend
to handsets (those mobile device that contain a built-in speaker and
are typically held to the ear in any of their ordinary uses) used with
any terrestrial mobile service that enables two-way real-time voice
communications among members of the public or a substantial portion of
the public, including through the use of pre-installed software
applications. The Commission also adopts a transition period that
ensures industry stakeholders will be able to comply with these rules
while continuing to innovate and invest. By expanding the scope of the
Commission's rules to those consumer mobile devices that are typically
held to the ear, are heavily relied on for voice communications, and
operate in bands covered by approved standards--and only where
compliance is technically feasible--we target the Commission's efforts
to those situations where Commission action can make a significant
impact and best serve the public interest. In this regard, the
Commission has been mindful of its obligation to expand hearing aid
compatibility requirements only in those instances where the record
supports the necessary statutory findings mandated by the Hearing Aid
Compatibility Act. This action will require that future technologies
comply with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules, ensuring
that consumers with hearing loss are not always trying to catch up to
technology and providing industry with additional regulatory certainty.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
39. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
40. 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 proposed rules. 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 Small Business
Administration (``SBA'').
41. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's action may, over time, affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory
small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In
addition, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of
this total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Commission estimates that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
42. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ``This
[[Page 181]]
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and
television studio and broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such
firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data
for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category
that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912
had less than 500 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms can be considered small.
43. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers. The Commission has not developed
a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed communications
handset manufacturers. Therefore, the Commission will utilize the SBA
definition applicable to Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this
category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for
part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 912 had less than 500
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
44. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The
Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry
comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging
services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.'' The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). In this category, a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or
more. According to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular
service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) telephony services. Of
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees. The Commission estimates that approximately half
or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus, using available
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can
be considered small.
45. Internet Service Providers. The 2007 Economic Census places
these firms, whose services might include Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP), in one of three categories. The first refers to whether the
service is provided over the provider's own telecommunications
facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or over client-supplied
telecommunications connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs). This type of ISP
is classified by the Commission in the category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers comprise
establishments primarily engaged in operating or providing access to
transmission facilities or infrastructure that they own and/or lease
for the transmission of voice, data, sound, and video using wired
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a
single technology or on a combination of technologies. Establishments
in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired cable audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this
industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers have an SBA small business
size standard under which an establishment having 1,500 or fewer
employees is small. The second type of ISP is classified in the
category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).
This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and
maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this service have
spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as
cellular phone services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video
services. The size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except satellite) is the same as for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The third type of ISP is classified under All Other
Telecommunications. This industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or
VoIP services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA size standard for this industry
states that all establishments in this category whose annual receipts
are $32.5 million or less are small.
46. For purpose of this rulemaking, the Commission is concerned
only with those ISPs that are classified either in the category of
Wireless Communications Carriers (except satellite) or are classified
in the category of All Other Telecommunications. The type of handsets
which are the subject of the proposed rulemaking herein is primarily,
if not exclusively, concerned with wireless handsets. ISPs which are
classified under Wired Telecommunications are not relevant in the
context of this particular rulemaking.
47. United States census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite) firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
[[Page 182]]
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can
be considered small. Thus, using available data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers can
be considered small.
48. With regard to the category of All Other Telecommunications,
U.S. Census data for 2007 state that 2,383 firms were operational
during that year. Of that number, 2,346 had annual receipts of less
than $25 million. The Commission estimates that the majority of ISP
firms in this category are small entities.
49. All Other Information Services. The Census Bureau defines this
industry as including ``establishments primarily engaged in providing
other information services (except news syndicates, libraries,
archives, Internet publishing and broadcasting, and Web search
portals).'' VoIP services over wireless technologies could be provided
by entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming,
web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar
IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category; that size standard is $27.5 million or less
in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2007,
there were 367 firms in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of these, 354 had annual receipts of under $25 million. The
Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small
entities that may be affected by the Commission's action.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
50. The current hearing aid compatibility regulations impose a
number of obligations on covered CMRS providers and the manufacturers
of handsets used with those services, including: (1) Requirements to
deploy a certain number or percentage of handset models that meet
hearing aid compatibility standards, (2) ``refresh'' requirements on
manufacturers to meet their hearing aid-compatible handset deployment
benchmarks in part using new models, (3) a requirement that service
providers offer hearing aid-compatible handsets with varying levels of
functionality, (4) a requirement that service providers make their
hearing aid-compatible models available to consumers for testing at
their owned or operated stores, (5) point of sale disclosure
requirements, (6) requirements to make consumer information available
on the manufacturer's or service provider's Web site, and (7) annual
reporting requirements.
51. The Fourth Report and Order expands the scope of the hearing
aid compatibility rules to cover handsets used with any terrestrial
mobile service that enables two-way real-time voice communications
among members of the public or a substantial portion of the public,
including through the use of pre-installed software applications and
other Internet Protocol (IP)-based technologies. After the transition
period, the rules the Commission adopts will extend to providers of
wireless voice communications among members of the public or a
substantial portion of the public using equipment that contains a
built-in speaker and is typically held to the ear, and to the
manufacturers of such equipment, the same hearing aid compatibility
rules that currently apply to a defined category of CMRS. The
Commission also clarifies that testing a handset for hearing aid
compatibility does not require testing software voice functions except
to the extent that such functionality is installed by the manufacturer
or service provider or at their direction, for use by a consumer over a
given interface. The Commission provides that the existing deployment
benchmarks and related requirements will apply to newly covered
handsets and air interfaces beginning January 1, 2018, with an
additional three months allowed for handsets offered by non-Tier I
service providers. The Commission further provides that, during this
transition period, manufacturers may continue to obtain a hearing aid
compatibility rating for a handset's operation on a given interface
without testing software-enabled voice functions provided they meet
applicable disclosure requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
52. 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.''
53. In adopting the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission expands
the scope of the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules to cover
handsets used with any terrestrial mobile service that enables two-way
real-time voice communications among members of the public or a
substantial portion of the public, including through the use of pre-
installed software applications. The change in scope ensures that
handsets with emerging voice technologies are subject to hearing aid
compatibility requirements. At the same time, the new scope eases
burdens on manufacturers and service providers, including small
entities, by permitting handsets already certified to continue to be
treated as hearing aid-compatible without any need for recertification
after the expanded scope of the hearing aid compatibility rules goes
into effect. The new scope also eases burdens for small entities by
applying the same de minimis exception rules when the existing M- and
T-rating deployment benchmarks begin to apply to all handsets,
including newly covered operations, that a manufacturer or a service
provider offers.
54. The Commission adopts a transition period in order to reduce
burdens on small entities and others. The Commission finds it in the
public interest to adopt a January 1, 2018 transition date (for
manufacturers and Tier I carriers) and an April 1, 2018 transition date
(for other service providers) for applying section 20.19's deployment
benchmarks and related requirements to newly covered operations. Some
commenters support longer time frames of up to an additional 12 months
for small, rural, and/or Tier III service providers who, these
commenters contend, do not have the same access to new handsets as Tier
I providers. The Commission considered this alternative proposal and
decided to afford an additional three months for non-Tier I service
providers to meet the deployment benchmarks and related requirements
for handsets newly subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules. In
allowing additional time until the April 1, 2018 transition date, the
Commission recognizes that non-Tier I service providers often have
difficulty obtaining the newest handset models. The Commission
determined that the record does not demonstrate a need for a longer
transition period for non-Tier I service providers (including small
entities) nor provide any reason to depart from prior hearing aid
compatibility transitions in which the Commission afforded non-Tier I
providers an additional three months beyond the transition period
[[Page 183]]
provided to Tier I service providers because, in part, a shorter period
would better meet the needs of consumers with hearing loss.
6. Report to Congress
55. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy
of the Fourth Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Fourth Report and Order
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.
B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
56. The Fourth Report and Order does not contain substantive new or
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It does not contain any
substantive new or modified information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
C. Congressional Review Act
57. The Commission will include a copy of this Fourth Report and
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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).
III. Ordering Clauses
58. 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 Fourth Report and Order is hereby adopted.
59. It is further ordered that the rule amendments will become
effective 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register.
60. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Fourth Report and Order, including the Final 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.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised 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.
0
2. Section 20.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2),
(a)(3)(iv), and (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.
(a) * * *
(1) Service providers. (i) On or after January 1, 2018 for Tier I
carriers and April 1, 2018 for service providers other than Tier I
carriers, the hearing aid compatibility requirements of this section
apply to providers of digital mobile service in the United States to
the extent that they offer terrestrial mobile service that enables two-
way real-time voice communications among members of the public or a
substantial portion of the public, including both interconnected and
non-interconnected VoIP services, and such service is provided over
frequencies in the 698 MHz to 6 GHz bands.
(ii) Prior to January 1, 2018 for Tier I carriers and April 1, 2018
for service providers other than Tier I carriers, the hearing aid
compatibility requirements of this section apply to providers of
digital CMRS in the United States to the extent that they offer real-
time, two-way switched voice or data service that is interconnected
with the public switched network and utilizes an in-network switching
facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls, and such service is provided
over frequencies in the 698 MHz to 6 GHz bands.
(2) Manufacturers. On or after January 1, 2018, the requirements of
this section also apply to the manufacturers of the wireless handsets
that are used in delivery of the services specified in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section. Prior to January 1, 2018, the requirements
of this section also apply to the manufacturers of the wireless
handsets that are used in delivery of the services specified in
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3) * * *
(iv) Service provider refers to a provider of digital mobile
service to which the requirements of this section apply.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a
wireless handset used for digital mobile service only over the 698 MHz
to 6 GHz frequency bands is hearing aid-compatible with regard to radio
frequency interference or inductive coupling if it meets the applicable
technical standard set forth in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this
section for all frequency bands and air interfaces over which it
operates, and the handset has been certified as compliant with the test
requirements for the applicable standard pursuant to Sec. 2.1033(d) of
this chapter. A wireless handset that incorporates operations outside
the 698 MHz to 6 GHz frequency bands is hearing aid-compatible if the
handset otherwise satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (b).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-32757 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P