[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77747-77757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31404]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 07-250; DA 11-1707]
Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-
Compatible Mobile Handsets
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document the Commission seeks comment on revisions to
the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules. The
Commission's rules define hearing aid compatibility by reference to a
third party technical standard. Recently, a new version of that
technical standard was developed to test the hearing aid compatibility
of the newest generation of digital wireless handsets. The proposed
rules would adopt the revised version of the technical standard into
the Commission's rules.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before January 13,
2012, and reply comments on or before January 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 07-250,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of the document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1883, email [email protected],
or Saurbh Chhabra, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2266,
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM) in WT Docket No. 07-250,
adopted November 1, 2010, and released on November 1, 2010. The full
text of the SFNPRM is available for public inspection and copying
during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at
[[Page 77748]]
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554;
the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com or by calling (800)
378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or email [email protected]. Copies of
the SFNPRM also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number WT Docket No. 07-
250. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal
Communications Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
I. Introduction
1. The Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, 47
CFR 20.19, ensure that consumers with hearing loss are able to access
wireless communications services through a wide selection of handsets
without experiencing disabling radio frequency (RF) interference or
other technical obstacles. In order to ensure that the hearing aid
compatibility rules cover the greatest number of wireless handsets and
reflect recent technological advances, the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
(collectively, ``the Bureaus'') propose in the SFNPRM, pursuant to
authority delegated by the Commission, to adopt the most current
hearing aid compatibility technical standard into the Commission's
rules.
II. Background
2. To define and measure hearing aid compatibility, the
Commission's rules reference the 2007 revision of American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) technical standard C63.19 (the ``2007ANSI
Standard''), formulated by the Accredited Standards Committee
C63[supreg]--Electromagnetic Compatibility (ASC C63[supreg]). Grants of
certification issued before January 1, 2010, under earlier versions of
ANSI C63.19 remain valid. A handset is considered hearing aid-
compatible for acoustic coupling if it meets a rating of at least M3
under the 2007 ANSI Standard. A handset is considered hearing aid-
compatible for inductive coupling if it meets a rating of at least T3.
The 2007ANSI Standard specifies testing procedures for determining the
M-rating and T-rating of digital wireless handsets that operate over
air interfaces that, at the time it was promulgated, were commonly used
for wireless services in the 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz bands.
3. When service rules were established for the 700 MHz band, the
Commission stated its expectation that hearing aid compatibility
standards would be developed for that band. It encouraged ASC
C63[supreg] and others to work together to develop such standards in a
timely manner. ASC C63[supreg] recently adopted an updated version of
the standard, the 2011 ANSI Standard, which includes the 700 MHz band
as well as other new frequencies and technologies. The new standard was
published on May 27, 2011. The standard may be purchased from the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) at the
address indicated in Section 20.19(b)(5) of the Proposed Rules, and a
copy is available for inspection at the Commission's Reference
Information Center. ASC C63[supreg] has requested the Commission to
adopt the newer version of the standard. Some of the features of the
2011 ANSI Standard that are different from the 2007ANSI Standard
include:
The operating frequency range for wireless devices covered
by the standard has been expanded to 698 MHz-6 GHz.
The RF interference level of wireless devices to hearing
aids is measured directly. Under the 2007 ANSI Standard, the RF field
intensity of a wireless device was measured and then an adjustment was
applied to estimate its potential for hearing aid interference. The new
measurement method, along with the introduction of a Modulation
Interference Factor (MIF), allows testing procedures to be applied to
operations over any RF air interface or protocol. As a result of the
change to a direct measurement methodology, the ANSI C63.19-2011
revision is also able to eliminate certain conservative assumptions
that were incorporated into the 2007 standard. Thus, for example it
will be approximately 2.2 dB easier for a Global System for Mobile
Communications (GSM) phone to receive an M3 rating under the 2011
version.
Certain low power transmitters that are unlikely to cause
unacceptable RF interference to hearing aids are exempted from RF
emissions testing and are deemed to meet an M4 rating.
ASC C63[supreg] states that the improved tests in the 2011 ANSI
Standard ``are more correlated to the desired result.'' Thus, ``[t]he
new test methods are improved at measuring the potential for hearing
aid interference.''
4. The Commission has recognized that revisions to the ANSI
Standard may be necessary over time to improve hearing aid
compatibility technical standards and accommodate technological
advances and that the Commission's rules should evolve to reflect such
revisions. In particular, to ensure that the hearing aid compatibility
standard codified in the rules would remain current, the Commission in
Section 20.19(k)(2) of the rules delegated to the Chief of WTB and the
Chief of OET the authority, by notice-and-comment rulemaking, to
approve the use of future versions of the standard that do not raise
major compliance issues. In addition, the Commission in Section
20.19(k)(1) of the rules delegated authority to the Chief of WTB and
the Chief of OET to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to adopt future
versions of the ANSI Standard that add additional frequency bands or
air interfaces not covered by previous versions, if the new version
does not impose materially greater obligations than those imposed on
services already subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules. Under
Section 20.19(k)(1), new obligations imposed on manufacturers and
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers as a result of WTB's
and OET's adoption of technical standards for additional frequency
bands and air interfaces shall become effective no less than one year
after release of the order for manufacturers and Tier I (nationwide)
carriers and no less than 15 months after release for other service
providers.
5. The SFNPRM is limited in scope and does not address all pending
issues regarding hearing aid compatibility. Specifically, on August 5,
2010, the Commission released the 2010 SFNPRM, 75 FR 54546 September 8,
2010, which sought comment on extending the scope of the hearing aid
compatibility rules beyond the current category of CMRS, extending the
in-store testing requirement beyond retail stores owned or operated by
service providers, and permitting a user-controlled reduction of power
as a means to meet the hearing aid compatibility standard for all
operations over the GSM air interface in the 1900 MHz band. In
addition, on December 28, 2010, WTB sought comment on the operation and
effectiveness of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules, 76
FR 2625 January 14, 2011. The issues raised in these notices will be
addressed separately from the SFNPRM.
III. Discussion
6. The Bureaus propose to adopt the 2011 ANSI Standard into the
Commission's rules as an applicable technical standard for evaluating
the hearing aid compatibility of wireless phones. The Bureaus believe
doing so would serve the public interest by aligning the Commission's
rules with advances in technology and by bringing additional frequency
bands and air interfaces under the hearing aid
[[Page 77749]]
compatibility regime. The Bureaus further tentatively conclude that
adoption of the new technical standard would not raise any major
compliance issues or impose materially greater obligations with respect
to newly covered frequency bands and air interfaces than those already
imposed under Commission rules. The Bureaus seek comment on these
tentative conclusions and whether adoption of the 2011 ANSI Standard
would impose new or additional costs on handset manufacturers.
7. Under the rules the Bureaus propose, a manufacturer would be
permitted to submit handsets for certification using either the 2007 or
2011 version of the ANSI Standard. Consistent with the Commission's
direction in the 2010 Second Report and Order, FR 54546 (2010), and the
Multi-Band Principles agreed by representatives of industry and
consumer groups, a multi-band and/or multi-mode handset model would be
considered hearing aid-compatible for operations covered under the 2007
ANSI Standard if it obtains certification as meeting at least an M3 or
T3 rating for those operations and is launched within 12 months of the
Federal Register publication of rules adopting the 2011 ANSI Standard.
The will apply even if the handset model has not obtained certification
as hearing aid-compatible for operations not covered under the 2007ANSI
Standard. As under the existing rules, the Bureaus propose to continue
requiring that a handset model meet ANSI technical standards over all
frequency bands and air interfaces over which it operates in order to
be considered hearing aid-compatible over any air interference for (1)
multi-band and/or multi-mode handset models launched later than 12
months after Federal Register publication of rules adopting the 2011
ANSI Standard and (2) handset models that only include operations
covered under the 2007 ANSI Standard. The Bureaus further note that the
Commission's procedures do not permit a handset model to be tested and
certified partly under one revision and partly under another.
Therefore, if the proposed rule is adopted, during the 12-month
transition period, a manufacturers that chooses to test the hearing aid
compatibility of those operations within a handset that are only
covered by the 2011 ANSI Standard and not covered under the 2007 ANSI
Standard would have to test all of the operations in the handset using
the 2011 ANSI Standard. Similarly, after the end of the transition
period, any new handset containing operations that are not covered
under the 2007 ANSI Standard would effectively have to be tested using
the 2011 ANSI Standard. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.
8. Under the existing rules, the Commission's benchmarks for
manufacturers and service providers to deploy hearing aid-compatible
handsets apply to operations over those frequency bands that are
covered under the 2007 ANSI Standard. Upon adoption of the proposed
rules, a transition period would commence to apply these benchmarks to
operations covered under the 2011 ANSI Standard. In the 2010 SFNPRM,
the Commission sought comment on a two-year transition period for
applying hearing aid compatibility benchmarks and other requirements to
wireless handsets that fall outside the subset of CMRS that is
currently covered by Section 20.19(a). The Bureaus seek comment on
whether a similar transition period would appropriately balance the
design, engineering, and marketing requirements of manufacturers and
service providers with the needs of consumers with hearing loss in the
context of the rulemaking Would a shorter transition period, but no
less than the minimum periods of 12 months for manufacturers and Tier I
carriers and 15 months for other service providers, better serve the
public interest in expediting the availability of hearing aid-
compatible phones while affording manufacturers sufficient time to
test, produce, and ship such handsets? Alternatively is a period longer
than two years necessary? Consistent with the Commission's current
rules and the minimum periods permitted under the Bureau's delegated
authority, should non-Tier I service providers be given an additional
three months to meet deployment benchmarks in order to account for the
difficulties they face in timely obtaining new handset models? Or,
based on experience under the existing rules, do these service
providers need more than three months additional time?
9. Finally, the Commission's rules provide that whenever a
manufacturers or service provider discloses the hearing aid
compatibility rating of a handset that has not been tested for hearing
aid compatibility over a newly covered air interface, the disclosure
shall include language stated in Section 20.19(f)(2). Handsets that
have been tested and received certification as hearing aid-compatible,
including those deemed to meet an M4 rating without testing under ANSI
C63.19-2011, shall be labeled as such. Handsets launched within 12
months of Federal Register publication of rules adopting the 2011 ANSI
Standard that meet hearing aid compatibility criteria under previously
covered air interfaces, but that have been tested and found not to meet
such criteria under one or more newly covered air interfaces, shall
include adequate disclosure of the fact under rules to be promulgated
by WTB and OET. In the absence of any suggestions as to specific
language to be used for handsets that have been tested under newly
covered air interfaces and found not to meet hearing aid compatibility
criteria, the Bureaus propose not to prescribe disclosure language in
this situation but to rely on a general disclosure requirement backed
by case-by-case resolution in the event of disputes. The Bureaus
understand that most handsets are expected to have little difficulty
meeting the hearing aid compatibility rating criteria over Wi-Fi
(Wireless Fidelity) and other currently existing or imminently expected
air interfaces that are outside the 2007 ANSI Standard. The Bureaus
seek comment on this proposal and invite alternative proposals,
including any proposed disclosure language.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) have prepared
the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (SFNPRM). Written public comments are
requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the SFNPRM
provided in the Dates section of this document. The Commission will
send a copy of the SFNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
SFNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
11. Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2000 provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive
bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band, the Bureaus
believe that it would serve the public interest to analyze the possible
[[Page 77750]]
significant economic impact of the proposed policy and rule changes in
the band on small entities. Accordingly, the IRFA contains an analysis
of this impact in connection with all spectrum that falls within the
scope of the SFNPRM, including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
12. The SFNPRM proposes to amend Section 20.19 of the Commission's
rules by adopting the new ANSI C63.19-2011 standard (the ``2011 ANSI
Standard'') as an applicable hearing aid compatibility technical
standard. The standard establishes testing procedures to establish the
M-rating (acoustic coupling) and T-rating (inductive coupling) to gauge
the hearing aid compatibility of handsets. Specifically, the SFNPRM
seeks comment on tentative conclusions that adopting the new 2011 ANSI
Standard would raise no major compliance issues and would not impose
materially greater obligations with respect to proposed newly covered
frequency bands and air interfaces than those already imposed under the
Commission's rules. By bringing additional frequency bands and air
interfaces under the hearing aid compatibility regime, and by aligning
the Commission's rules with the most current measurement practices, the
proposed rule change would help ensure that consumers with hearing loss
are able to access wireless communications services through a wide
selection of handsets without experiencing disabling interference or
other technical obstacles.
13. Under the rules the Bureaus propose, beginning on the date that
final rules become effective, a manufacturer would be permitted to
submit handsets for certification using either ANSI C63.19 2007 (``the
2007 ANSI Standard'') or the 2011 ANSI Standard. A multi-band and/or
multi-mode handset model launched earlier than 12 months after Federal
Register publication of new rules codifying the 2011 ANSI Standard
would be considered hearing aid-compatible for operations covered under
the current the 2007 ANSI Standard. For multi-band and/or multi-mode
handset models launched after this period, as well as for handset
models that only include operations covered under the 2007 ANSI
Standard, the Bureaus propose to continue applying the current
principle that a handset model must meet ANSI C63.19 technical
standards over all frequency bands and air interfaces over which it
operates in order to be considered hearing aid-compatible over any air
interface. The SFNPRM seeks comment on the proposal. The purpose of
this proposed rule change is to limit the compliance burdens on
businesses, both large and small, with respect to handset models that
are already deployed or in development at the time new rules are
adopted.
14. The SFNPRM also seeks comment on how to phase in the 2011 ANSI
Standard over a defined period of time. The Bureaus seeks comment on
whether a two-year period for applying the hearing aid-compatible
handset deployment benchmarks to newly covered air interfaces would
appropriately balance the design, engineering, and marketing
requirements of manufacturers and service providers with the needs of
consumers with hearing loss for compatible handsets over the newest
network technologies. The Bureaus also seek comment on whether non-Tier
I service providers should be given additional time to meet deployment
benchmarks in order to account for the difficulties they face in timely
obtaining new handset models. The purpose of this proposed rule change
is to create a time frame for implementation that would be the most
efficient and least burdensome for businesses, both large and small,
while ensuring that consumers with hearing loss have timely access to
wireless communications.
15. Finally, the SFNPRM seeks comment on a proposal not to
prescribe specific disclosure language to be used for handsets that
meet hearing aid compatibility criteria over previously covered air
interfaces but have been tested and found not to meet such criteria
over Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) or other air interfaces that are outside
the 2007 ANSI Standard. Rather, the Bureaus would rely on a general
requirement to disclose the hearing aid compatibility status of such
handsets. The Bureaus seek comment on this tentative conclusion and
invite alternative proposals. This proposed rule change would be a
minimally intrusive means of ensuring that consumers with hearing loss
have the information they need to choose a handset that will operate
correctly with their hearing aid or cochlear implant.
2. Legal Basis
16. The potential actions about which comment is sought in the
SFNPRM would be authorized pursuant to the authority contained in
Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 610.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
17. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. To assist the
Commission in analyzing the total number of potentially affected small
entities, the Commission requests commenters to estimate the number of
small entities that may be affected by any rule changes that might
result from the SFNPRM.
18. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Bureaus action may, over time, affect small entities
that are not easily categorized at present. The Bureaus therefore
describe 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 Bureaus estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as ``small governmental
jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Bureaus estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
19. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for small businesses in the category ``Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).'' Under that SBA
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The
census category of ``Cellular and Other
[[Page 77751]]
Wireless Telecommunications'' is no longer used and has been superseded
by the larger category ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite).'' The Census Bureau defines this larger category to include
``* * * 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.''
20. In this category, the SBA has deemed a wireless
telecommunications carrier to be small if it has fewer than 1,500
employees. For this category of carriers, Census data for 2007, which
supersede similar data from the 2002 Census, shows 1,383 firms in this
category. Of these 1,383 firms, only 15 (approximately 1%) had 1,000 or
more employees. While there is no precise Census data on the number of
firms in the group with fewer than 1,500 employees, it is clear that at
least the 1,368 firms with fewer than 1,000 employees would be found in
that group. Thus, at least 1,368 of these 1,383 firms (approximately
99%) had fewer than 1,500 employees. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that at least 1,368 (approximately 99%) had fewer than 1,500
employees and, thus, would be considered small under the applicable SBA
size standard.
21. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed
small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479
licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15,
1999, the Commission completed the re-auction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-
Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that
auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
22. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status.
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won
14 licenses.
23. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards ``small
entity'' bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that
had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous
calendar years. The Commission awards ``very small entity'' bidding
credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each
of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small
business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The Commission has
held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders
claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million
size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band.
The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels was conducted in
1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses
under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for
the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for
the 800 MHz band was conducted in 2002 and included 23 Basic Economic
Area licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five
licenses.
24. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses
for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders
that won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels
in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15
million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of
2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz
SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed ``small
business'' status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three
auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic area licenses in the 800
MHz SMR band claimed status as small businesses.
25. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Bureaus do not know how many firms
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to
extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers
have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15
million in revenues. In addition, the Bureaus do not know how many of
these firms have 1500 or fewer employees. The Bureaus assume, for
purposes of the analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended
implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small
business size standard is approved by the SBA.
26. Advanced Wireless Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz
bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-
2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3). For the AWS-1
bands, the Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity
with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $15 million. In 2006, the Commission conducted its first
auction of AWS-1 licenses. In that initial AWS-1 auction, 31 winning
bidders identified themselves as very small businesses. Twenty-six of
the winning bidders identified themselves as small businesses. In a
subsequent 2008 auction, the Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses. Four
winning bidders identified themselves as very small businesses, and
three of the winning bidders identified themselves as small
[[Page 77752]]
businesses. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although the Bureaus do not know for
certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, the
Bureaus note that these bands are comparable to those used for cellular
service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet
adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but has proposed to
treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1
service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors,
such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing
markets, technologies, and services.
27. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (``BETRS''). In the present
context, the Bureaus will use the SBA's small business size standard
applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),
i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and
the Bureaus estimate that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity
licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by
the rules and policies adopted herein.
28. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The Commission
defined ``small business'' for the wireless communications services
(WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million
for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' as
an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the
three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In
the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25,
1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as
very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that
qualified as a small business entity.
29. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order,
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three
years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. In 2000, the
Commission conducted an auction of 52 Major Economic Area (``MEA'')
licenses. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine
bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total
of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses
commenced and closed in 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were
sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that
won a total of two licenses.
30. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
licenses.
31. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) was conducted in
2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won
by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed
small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won
licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June
13, 2003, and included 256 licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed
small or very small business status, and nine winning bidders claimed
entrepreneur status. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5
licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band. All three winning bidders claimed
small business status.
32. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of A, B and
E block 700 MHz licenses was held in 2008. Twenty winning bidders
claimed small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million
for the preceding three years). Thirty three winning bidders claimed
very small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three
years).
33. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. These services operate on
several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for
television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the
Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in the
service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number
of Offshore Radiotelephone Service licensees that would qualify as
small under the SBA's small business size standard for the category of
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under that SBA
small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained
in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms in this category
that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 1000
employees, and 15 firms had more than 1000 employees. Thus under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of firms can be considered small.
34. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (``MDS'') and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (``MMDS'') systems, and
[[Page 77753]]
``wireless cable,'' transmit video programming to subscribers and
provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave
frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (``BRS'') and Educational
Broadband Service (``EBS'') (previously referred to as the
Instructional Television Fixed Service (``ITFS'')). In connection with
the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size
standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more
than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions
resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for
493 Basic Trading Areas (``BTAs''). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met
the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of
stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, the Bureaus
estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain
small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that
hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS
licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number
of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent
licensees not already counted, the Bureaus find that there are
currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small
businesses under either the SBA standard or the Commission's rules. In
2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in
the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits:
(i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed
$15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years
(small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid;
(ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed
$3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years
(very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning
bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues
that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.
Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten
winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won
four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won
three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won
six licenses.
35. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services
small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently
2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in the
analysis as small entities. Thus, the Bureaus estimate that at least
1,932 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television
Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic
census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is
defined as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies.'' For these services, the Commission
uses the SBA small business size standard for the category ``Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),'' which is 1,500 or
fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable
services the Bureaus must, however, use the most current census data.
Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002
Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year. Of
those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more
than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
36. Government Transfer Bands. The Commission adopted small
business size standards for the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz,
and the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands. Specifically,
with respect to these bands, the Commission defined an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not
exceeding $40 million as a ``small business,'' and an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not
exceeding $15 million as a ``very small business.'' SBA has approved
these small business size standards for the aforementioned bands.
Correspondingly, the Commission adopted a bidding credit of 15 percent
for ``small businesses'' and a bidding credit of 25 percent for ``very
small businesses.'' This bidding credit structure was found to have
been consistent with the Commission's schedule of bidding credits,
which may be found at Section 1.2110(f)(2) of the Commission's rules.
The Commission found that these two definitions will provide a variety
of businesses seeking to provide a variety of services with
opportunities to participate in the auction of licenses for this
spectrum and will afford such licensees, who may have varying capital
costs, substantial flexibility for the provision of services. The
Commission noted that it had long recognized that bidding preferences
for qualifying bidders provide such bidders with an opportunity to
compete successfully against large, well-financed entities. The
Commission also noted that it had found that the use of tiered or
graduated small business definitions is useful in furthering its
mandate under Section 47 U.S.C. 309(j) to promote opportunities for and
disseminate licenses to a wide variety of applicants. An auction for
one license in the 1670-1674 MHz band commenced on April 30, 2003 and
closed the same day. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was
not a small entity.
37. 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, 784 had less than 500
employees and 155 had more than 100 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
38. The proposed rules will not impose any new reporting,
recordkeeping, or information collection requirements on small
entities.
5. Steps Proposed To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically
[[Page 77754]]
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.''
40. The Bureaus seek comment generally on the effect the rule
changes considered in the SFNPRM would have on small entities, on
whether alternative rules should be adopted for small entities in
particular, and on what effect such alternative rules would have on
those entities. The Bureaus invite comment on ways in which the
Commission can achieve its goals while minimizing the burden on small
wireless service providers, equipment manufacturers, and other
entities.
41. More specifically, the Bureaus seek comment on possible
alternatives to their tentative conclusion to adopt the new 2011 ANSI
Standard into the Commission's rules as a permissible technical
standard for evaluating the hearing aid compatibility of wireless
phones. The Bureaus note that adopting the new technical standard as
permissible rather than mandatory may ease burdens on manufacturers,
including small entities, and the Bureaus invite commenters to suggest
alternatives that may further reduce possible burdens on small
entities. The Bureaus also tentatively conclude that adoption of this
new technical standard would not raise any major compliance issues or
impose materially greater obligations with respect to newly covered
frequency bands and air interfaces than those already imposed under
Commission rules. The Bureaus seek comment on whether alternatives to
adopting this new technical standard would impose lesser obligations on
small entities.
42. Under the rules the Bureaus propose in the SFNPRM, a multi-band
and/or multi-mode handset model launched earlier than 12 months after
Federal Register publication of new rules codifying the 2011 ANSI
Standard would be considered hearing aid-compatible for operations
covered under the 2007 ANSI Standard even if it has not obtained
certification as being hearing aid-compatible for its other operations.
This proposal is intended to reduce burdens on small entities and
others with respect to handset models that are currently deployed or in
development. For multi-band and/or multi-mode handset models launched
after this period, as well as for handset models that only include
operations covered under the 2007 ANSI Standard, the Bureaus propose to
retain the current principle that a handset model must meet ANSI C63.19
technical standards over all frequency bands and air interfaces over
which it operates in order to be considered hearing aid-compatible over
any air interface. The Bureaus invite commenters to suggest similar
alternatives that may ease compliance burdens on small entities.
43. As a result of the proposed adoption of the 2011 ANSI Standard,
after an appropriate transition period the deployment benchmarks set
forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 20.19 would become
applicable to manufacturers and service providers offering handsets
that operate over newly covered frequency bands and air interfaces. The
Bureaus seek comment on alternatives to the two-year transition period
that would appropriately balance the design, engineering, and marketing
requirements of manufacturers and service providers with the needs of
consumers with hearing loss for compatible handsets over the newest
network technologies. In recognition that smaller service providers may
encounter greater difficulties transitioning to the 2011 ANSI Standard,
the Bureaus propose in the SFNPRM that smaller service providers should
have three months longer to transition than Tier I carriers. The
Bureaus invite comment on whether alternative transition periods,
particularly for small entities, would further lessen the burden on
small entities while protecting the interest of hard-of-hearing
consumers in having access to a wide variety of wireless handsets.
44. Finally, handsets launched up to 12 months after Federal
Register publication of rules the 2011 ANSI Standard that meet hearing
aid compatibility criteria under previously covered air interfaces, but
that have been tested and found not to meet such criteria under one or
more newly covered air interfaces, shall include adequate disclosure of
this fact under rules to be promulgated by WTB and OET. In the absence
of any suggestions as to specific language to be used for handsets that
have been tested under newly covered air interfaces and found not to
meet hearing aid compatibility criteria, the Bureaus propose not to
prescribe disclosure language in this situation but to rely on a
general disclosure requirement backed by case-by-case resolution in the
event of disputes. The Bureaus seek comment on whether any alternative
proposals may further reduce the impact on small entities.
45. For the duration of the docketed proceeding, the Commission
will continue to examine alternatives with the objectives of
eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing any significant
economic impact on small entities.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
46. None.
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
47. The SFNPRM does not contain proposed information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any 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. Other Procedural Matters
1. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
48. The proceeding the SFNPRM initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents
[[Page 77755]]
shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed
to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with
rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in the proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Comment Filing Procedures
49. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[dec222] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[dec222] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of the proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[dec222] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[dec222] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[dec222] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
50. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202)
418-0432 (tty).
51. For further information regarding the SFNPRM, contact Michael
Rowan, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1883, email
[email protected], or Saurbh Chhabra, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, (202) 418-2266, email [email protected].
Ordering Clauses
52. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r),
and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and
610, that the second further notice of proposed rulemaking is hereby
adopted.
53. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the second
further notice of proposed rulemaking on or before 30 days after
publication of the second further notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register and reply comments on or before 45 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
54. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the second further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
55. The action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to
Sections 0.241(a)(1), 0.331(d), and 20.19(k) of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 0.241(a)(1), 0.331(d), and 20.19(k).
List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment,
Incorporated by reference, and Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Rick Kaplan,
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
Julius P. Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERICIAL MOBILE SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 301, 303, 316, and
332 unless otherwise noted. Section 20.12 is also issued under 47
U.S.C. 1302. Section 20.19 is also issued under 47 U.S.C. 610.
2. Section 20.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1)
and (2), adding paragraph (b)(3), revising paragraphs (b)(5), (c)
introductory text, (d) introductory text, revising (f)(2), (f)(2)(i),
and (f)(2)(ii) and adding paragraph (f)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.
(a) * * *
(1) 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.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For radio frequency interference. A wireless handset submitted
for equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to
hearing aid compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the M3 rating
associated with the technical standard set forth in either the standard
document ``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of
Compatibility Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing
Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) or ANSI C63.19-2011 (May 27,
2011). Any grants of certification issued before January 1, 2010, under
previous versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid
compatibility purposes.
(2) For inductive coupling. A wireless handset submitted for
equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing
aid compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the T3 rating associated
with the technical standard set forth in either the standard document
``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility
Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-
2007 (June 8, 2007) or ANSI C63.19-2011 (May 27, 2011). Any grants of
certification issued before January 1, 2010, under previous
[[Page 77756]]
versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility
purposes.
(3) Handsets operating over multiple frequency bands or air
interfaces.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a
wireless handset used for digital CMRS 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(s) set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (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
the 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.
(ii) A handset that is introduced by the manufacturer prior to [12
months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register],
and that does not meet the requirements for hearing aid compatibility
under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, is hearing aid-compatible
for radio frequency interference or inductive coupling only with
respect to those frequency bands and air interfaces for which technical
standards are stated in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) if it meets the
applicable technical standard(s) set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of this section for all such 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.
* * * * *
(5) The following standards are incorporated by reference in this
section: Accredited Standards Committee C63\TM\--Electromagnetic
Compatibility, ``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of
Compatibility Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing
Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007), Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., publisher; and Accredited Standards
Committee C63\TM\--Electromagnetic Compatibility, ``American National
Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility Between Wireless
Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-2011 (May 27,
2011), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
publisher. These incorporations by reference were approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the
date of the approval, and notice of any change in these materials will
be published in the Federal Register. The materials are available for
inspection at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th St.
SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554
and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of these materials at NARA, call (202)
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
The materials are also available for purchase from IEEE Operations
Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141, by calling (732) 981-
0060, or going to http://www.ieee.org/portal/site.
(c) Phase-in of requirements relating to radio frequency
interference. The following applies to each manufacturer and service
provider that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the
services specified in paragraph (a) of this section and that does not
fall within the de minimis exception set forth in paragraph (e) of this
section. However, prior to [24 months after date of publication of the
Final Rule in the Federal Register] for manufacturers and Tier I
carriers and [27 months after date of publication of the Final Rule in
the Federal Register] for service providers other than Tier I carriers,
the requirements of this section do not apply to handset operations
over frequency bands and air interfaces for which technical standards
are not stated in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007).
* * * * *
(d) Phase-in of requirements relating to inductive coupling
capability. The following applies to each manufacturer and service
provider that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the
services specified in paragraph (a) of this section and that does not
fall within the de minimis exception set forth in paragraph (e) of this
section. However, prior to [24 months after date of publication of the
Final Rule in the Federal Register] for manufacturers and Tier I
carriers and [27 month after date of publication of the Final Rules in
the Federal Register] for service providers other than Tier I carriers,
the requirements of this section do not apply to handset operations
over frequency bands and air interfaces for which technical standards
are not stated in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Disclosure requirements relating to handsets treated as hearing
aid-compatible over fewer than all their operations.
(i) Each manufacturer and service provider shall ensure that,
wherever it provides hearing aid compatibility ratings for a handset
that is considered hearing aid-compatible for some of its operations
under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section and that has not been tested
for hearing aid compatibility under ANSI C63.19-2011 (May 27, 2011), or
any handset that operates over frequencies outside of the 698 MHz to 6
GHz bands, it discloses to consumers, by clear and effective means
(e.g., inclusion of call-out cards or other media, revisions to
packaging materials, supplying of information on Web sites), that the
handset has not been rated for hearing aid compatibility with respect
to some of its operation(s). The disclosure shall include the following
language:
This phone has been tested and rated for use with hearing aids for
some of the wireless technologies that it uses. However, there may be
some newer wireless technologies used in this phone that have not been
tested yet for use with hearing aids. It is important to try the
different features of this phone thoroughly and in different locations,
using your hearing aid or cochlear implant, to determine if you hear
any interfering noise. Consult your service provider or the
manufacturer of this phone for information on hearing aid
compatibility. If you have questions about return or exchange policies,
consult your service provider or phone retailer.
(ii) However, service providers are not required to include this
language in the packaging material for handsets that incorporate a Wi-
Fi air interface and that were obtained by the service provider before
March 8, 2011, provided that the service provider otherwise discloses
by clear and effective means that the handset has not been rated for
hearing aid compatibility with respect to Wi-Fi operation.
(iii) Each manufacturer and service provider shall ensure that,
wherever it provides hearing aid compatibility ratings for a handset
that is considered hearing aid-compatible for some of its operations
under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section and that has been tested and
found not to meet hearing aid compatibility requirements under ANSI
C63.19-2011 (May 27, 2011) for operations over one or more air
interfaces or frequency bands for which technical standards are not
stated in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007), it discloses to consumers,
by clear and
[[Page 77757]]
effective means (e.g., inclusion of call-out cards or other media,
revisions to packaging materials, supplying of information on Web
sites), that the handset does not meet the relevant rating or ratings
with respect to such operation(s).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-31404 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P