WPC 2BJZ Courier3|jBx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\?"|TX@2'6<FK Z3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNK  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,Section 68.4(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires that, except for secure telephones and  xtelephones used with public mobile and private radio services, every telephone manufactured in  x[the United States (other than for export), or imported for use in the United States, after August  X- x16, 1989, must be hearing aid compatible.Zy yO+- xԍ 47 C.F.R.  68.4(a)(1). A telephone is "hearing aid compatible" when the telephone contains an internal  xelectromagnetic coil that detects, or is compatible with, a similar coil in hearing aids, thus enabling a person with  {O-a hearing aid to use that telephone. See 47 C.F.R.  68.316 for hearing aid compatibility technical standards.  Section 68.4(a)(1) imposes a similar requirement on  X{- x=cordless phones manufactured or imported for use in the United States after August 16, 1991.2{ y {O6-ԍ Id.2  Xd-  XM-  ]x 3. In its July 3, 1996 HAC Order,My {O- xxԍ See Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities, Report and Order,  {Od-CC Docket No. 87124, 11 FCC Rcd 8249 (July 3, 1996) (HAC Order).  the Commission amended its hearing aid compatibility  xkrules. Among the new rules adopted by the Commission was 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c), which is  xzthe subject of the waiver requests before us. This rule mandates that, as of April 1, 1997, all  xregistered telephones, including cordless telephones, manufactured in the United States (other than  xLfor export), or imported for use in the United States, that are hearing aid compatible, must have  X- xthe letters "HAC" permanently affixed thereto. y {O"- x,ԍ 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c). "Permanently affixed" means: ". . . the required nameplate data [are] etched, engraved,  xstamped, indelibly printed or otherwise permanently marked. Alternatively, the required information may be  x permanently marked on a nameplate of metal, plastic, or other material fastened to the enclosure by welding, riveting,  x,etc., or with a permanent adhesive. Such a nameplate must be able to last the expected lifetime of the product." 47  {O%-C.F.R.  300(b)(5). See also HAC Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8291.  The HAC labelling requirements are intended  xxto provide notice to telephone users that a telephone is hearing aid compatible in accordance with  X-section 68.4(a)(1) of the Commission's rules .",N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X-  !ԙx 4. Sharp Request. Sharp states that approximately 8,180 cordless telephones, although  xhearing aid compatible, have been manufactured without HAC labels, and these units cannot be  ximported into the United States before April 1, 1997. Sharp states that it would cause an undue  xKburden if it were required to retrieve these telephones from storage and "rework" them to include  xHAC labels. Sharp further states that these telephones are tentatively scheduled for importation by September 1997.  Xv-  X_-   x5. Panasonic Request. Panasonic states that in accordance with 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c),  xxit has begun to place HAC labels on newly manufactured registered telephones. Panasonic states  xZthat approximately 1,000 hearing aid compatible telephones that are in boxed overseas inventories  xdo not have HAC markings, but the outer boxes do have printed information indicating that the  xenclosed products are hearing aid compatible. Panasonic requests that the Commission grant a  x["limited time waiver" to allow existing overseas inventory to be imported beyond April 1, 1997,  xKand suggests six months as the duration for such a waiver. Panasonic also asks whether it would be acceptable to place HAC markings onto the outer boxes for these telephones.  X-  x6. Lucent Request. Lucent requests an extension of the April 1, 1997 compliance date  xto February 28, 1998. Lucent states that a revised distribution plan for certain of its imported  x\products "has made technical compliance with the Commission's rules difficult and costly."  xApproximately 2 million telephones that were previously imported into the United States have  xzbeen transferred to Mexico for storage, and are scheduled for reimportation into the United  xStates throughout 1997 and into early 1998. Approximately 500,000 more telephones have been  xor will be manufactured overseas prior to April 1, 1997, and will be stored in the Mexico  xfacilities for subsequent import into the United States. All of these 2.5 million telephones are  xhearing aid compatible. Of these 2.5 million telephones, Lucent states that approximately 2.1  xmillion have printed information on the outside packaging that indicates that the product complies  xLwith the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules. Approximately 400,000 of these phones  xhave no such external package information, but do contain information on hearing aid  xxcompatibility in the user documentation inside the packages. Lucent further states that it will cost  x.approximately $2.5 million to unpack, affix permanent labels, and repack all of these 2.5 million  xtelephones. Lucent also states that it would cost approximately $200,000 to place external labels  xon the packages of the 400,000 telephones without outside package information, because these  xytelephones are already packed into bulk pallets and shrinkwrapped. Lucent also states that all  x2.5 million of these telephones are intended for residential use. Finally, Lucent requests that the  xCommission rule that, for these specific overseas inventories, the requirements of 47 C.F.R.   x68.300(c) are applicable upon the date of manufacture, and not upon the date of importation.  X"- III. DISCUSSION A. Waiver Requests  X:&-  O x7. Pursuant to section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, the Commission may waive any  xprovision of its rules, in whole or in part, on its own motion or on petition if good cause for a"#',N(N(ZZ%"  X- xwaiver is shown.<y yOy-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.3.< A petitioner must demonstrate that special circumstances warrant a deviation  X- xfrom the general rule and how such deviation will serve the public interest. Xy {O- xiԍ Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F. 2d. 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990);  Wait Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d. 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969). We find that Sharp,  xPanasonic and Lucent have met this burden. We are persuaded that the expense involved in  xunpacking, labelling, and repacking individual telephones that have already been manufactured  xLand are awaiting importation would not serve the public interest. We condition these waivers,  xhowever, on petitioners using an alternative, less burdensome means, consistent with the intent  xLof 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c), to provide information regarding the hearing aid compatibility of these  xtelephones to consumers. Specifically, if the external packaging of the product does not indicate  xthat the enclosed product is hearing aid compatible, we direct the petitioners to attach labelling  xthat indicates that the product is hearing aid compatible, on the outside of the individual product packages.   Px8. The intent of the Commission's HAC labelling requirements is to give notice to  xtelephone users that a particular telephone is hearing aid compatible. This labelling is especially  ximportant in environments such as workplaces and hotels, where employers or owners often  xrelocate telephones, and thus need some way to be sure that they are in compliance with their  X- xobligations to provide hearing aid compatible telephones under 47 C.F.R.  68.112. y {O- xԍ 47 C.F.R.  68.112,  inter alia, contains hearing aid compatibility requirements for telephones provided in workplaces, confined settings (e.g., hospitals and nursing homes), and hotels and motels.  We find  xthat the alternative step of placing a label on the product packaging will provide this information  Xb- xyto initial purchasers, which would include both business and residential customers. Business  xpurchasers of these telephones will have to alert their employees or customers that these  xtelephones are indeed hearing aid compatible, just as they do now with telephones issued prior to the HAC labelling requirement.  X-  x9. We further conclude that, in the case of Sharp and Panasonic, the specific labelling  xrequirements of 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c) should be waived for the overseas inventories of  x.telephones specified by the petitioners for a sixmonth period, from April 1, 1997 until October  xj1, 1997. In the case of Lucent, we conclude that the specific labelling requirements of 47 C.F.R.  xz 68.300(c) should be waived for the overseas inventories specified in its request for a nine xmonth period ending January 1, 1998. Our decision to grant Lucent a waiver for a longer period  xof time is due to the large number of unlabelled telephones identified by Lucent. We find that  xthe sixmonth (for Sharp and Panasonic) and ninemonth (for Lucent) waivers for these specified  xinventories of overseas telephones, in conjunction with the alternative labelling steps described  x=above, strike a fair balance between the need to inform consumers of a telephone's hearing aid  xcompatibility, and the objective of not imposing unreasonable burdens on the petitioners. As  xof October 1, 1997 for Sharp and Panasonic, and January 1, 1998 for Lucent, the petitioners must  x[ensure that all telephones imported into the United States after that date comply with 47 C.F.R."  ,N(N(ZZ"  68.300(c).   `x10. We find that sixmonth and ninemonth waivers give sufficient time for the  xpetitioners to adjust their importation schedules so that any inventories that do not comply with  x47 C.F.R.  68.300(c) can be imported to the United States prior to the expiration of the waiver  x-periods. We conclude that the record does not justify Lucent's request that this compliance date be extended even further, until February 28, 1998.  XH- B. Clarification of 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c)  X -   x11. Sharp requests that we clarify why the effective dates are "based upon the date of  ximportation as opposed to the date of manufacture commonly used in other requirements." We  xclarify that the obligations imposed by 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c) attach either at the date of  xmanufacture, for telephones manufactured in the United States (other than for export), or the  ximportation date, for telephones manufactured overseas for sale in the United States. The  xlanguage of the Commission's rule parallels the manufacturing and importation requirements  X- xLestablished by Congress in the 1988 Hearing Aid Compatibility Act.U y {O -ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  610(b)(1)(B).U The purpose of this rule  x=is to ensure that all registered telephones introduced into the United States market after a date  xcertain contain HAC labels. A rule based only upon the date of manufacture, and not taking into  x-account imported telephones, would not achieve this purpose, especially when a large number of  xtelephones sold in the U.S. market are manufactured overseas. Lucent asks that we apply the  xrequirements of 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c) on the basis of the date of manufacture, not on the basis  xof the date of importation, for certain overseas inventories. We deny Lucent's request, because this result would be inconsistent with the plain language of the rule.  X- IV. ORDERING CLAUSES  X-  _ x12. Accordingly, pursuant to authority delegated in Section 0.91, 47 C.F.R.  0.91,  xsection 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, and section 1.3 of the Commission's  xrules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the requests for waiver of section  xy68.300(c) of the Commission's rules and regulations, 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c), by Sharp, Panasonic, and Lucent ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed herein, and otherwise DENIED.   x13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 1, 1997 compliance date at section  xk68.300(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c), IS WAIVED until October 1, 1997,  xfor the overseas inventories of telephones manufactured prior to April 1, 1997, cited by Sharp and Panasonic in their requests, subject to the conditions imposed herein.   x14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 1, 1997 compliance date at section  x\68.300(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  68.300(c), IS WAIVED until January 1, 1998,  x[for the overseas inventories of telephones manufactured prior to April 1, 1997, cited by Lucent"h$Z ,N(N(ZZF#" in its request, subject to the conditions imposed herein.   x15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the petitions for waiver are granted SUBJECT TO  xjTHE FOLLOWING CONDITION: If no statements appear indicating that the enclosed product  xis hearing aid compatible on the external packaging of the product, petitioners shall attach on the  xoutside of the individual product packages labelling that indicates that the product is hearing aid compatible. phpxhhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION xhhKathleen B. Levit |"UX z |"UX  xhhDeputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier Bureau