[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 21, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65494-65508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22657]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 20, 68

[WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 07-192]


Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-
Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American National Standards 
Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC 
C63TM

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

[[Page 65495]]

SUMMARY: Consistent with recommendations from Commission staff in a 
report (Staff Report), the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on various possible revisions to its hearing 
aid compatibility policies and requirements pertaining to wireless 
services, including several tentative conclusions to modify Sec.  20.19 
and other requirements along the framework proposed in a consensus plan 
(Joint Consensus Plan) recently developed jointly by industry and 
representatives for the deaf and hard of hearing community. In light of 
the current marketplace and in anticipation of future developments in 
wireless offerings, the Commission takes steps to ensure that hearing 
aid users will continue to benefit from the convenience and features 
offered by the newest wireless communications systems being provided to 
American consumers. To the extent people who use hearing aids have 
difficulty finding a wireless mobile telephone that functions 
effectively with those devices because of interference or compatibility 
problems, the Commission states that a continued expansion in the 
number and availability of hearing aid-compatible wireless telephones 
is warranted.

DATES: Comments due on or before December 21, 2007. Reply comments are 
due on or before January 7, 2008.

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.
     E-mail: [email protected], and include the following words in 
the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions 
will be sent in response.
     Mail: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., 
Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002.
     Accessible Formats: Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) for filing comments either by e-mail: 
[email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be 
posted without change to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs including any 
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Spectrum & Competition 
Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6603, 
Washington, DC 20554; or Thomas McCudden, Spectrum & Competition Policy 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6118, Washington, DC 
20554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 07-250 released November 
7, 2007. The complete text of the NPRM is available for public 
inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday 
or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information 
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. [The NPRM may also be purchased from the Commission's 
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 
202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its 
Web site: http://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI 
please provide the appropriate FCC document number, FCC 07-250. The 
NPRM is also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site 
through its Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS): http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/SilverStream/Pages/edocs.html.
    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document 
contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, 
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites 
the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
comment on the information collection requirements contained in this 
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 
Pub. L. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due on or before January 
22, 2008. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden 
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198 (see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), the 
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.'' The Commission notes, however, that Sec.  213 of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, Pub. L. 106-113, provides 
that rules governing frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band become 
effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register without 
regard to certain sections of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 
Commission is therefore not inviting comment on any information 
collections that concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band.
    To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) 
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the web page called ``Currently 
Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the 
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4) 
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies 
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button 
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC 
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or 
its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR 
Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR.''
    For additional information or copies of the information 
collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
    Please send your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 
Management and Budget, via Internet at [email protected] 
or via fax at (202) 395-5167 and to Cathy Williams, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC or via Internet at [email protected].
    The proposed information collection requirements that the 
Commission seeks public comment on are as follows:
    OMB Control No.: 3060-0999.
    Title: Section 20.19, Hearing Aid Compatible Mobile Handsets 
(Hearing Aid Compatibility Act).
    Form Number: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

[[Page 65496]]

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 925.
    Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours--160 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement; Third party 
requirement.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,975 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: None.
    Nature of Response: Mandatory.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for 
confidentiality with this information collection.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Needs and Usage: On November 7, 2007, the Commission released WT 
Docket No. 07-250; FCC 07-192. Commission rules require digital 
wireless phone manufacturers and service providers to make available a 
certain number of digital wireless phones that meet specific 
performance levels set forth in an established technical standard. The 
phones must be made available according to an implementation schedule 
specified in Commission rules. To monitor the progress of 
implementation, it is proposed that digital phone manufacturers and 
service providers submit reports annually from 2008 through 2012. These 
parties currently submit reports to the Commission; however, the 
Commission is proposing to revise the reporting criteria for these 
parties.
    The Commission proposes to require that manufactures include in 
their reports to the Commission the following information: digital 
wireless phones tested; Compliant phone models using the FCC ID number 
and ratings according to C63.19; status of product labeling; outreach 
efforts; total numbers of compliant phone models offered as of the time 
of the report; and information pertaining to product refresh. The 
Commission is proposing that service providers include in their reports 
the following information: compliant phone models using the FCC ID 
number and ratings according to C63.19; status of product labeling; 
outreach efforts; information related to the retail availability of 
compliant phones; total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone 
models offered as of the time of the report; and the ``tiers'' into 
which the compliant phones fall.
    In addition to these criteria, the Commission proposes to require 
both manufacturers and service providers to provide the model number 
and FCC ID directly associated with each model that they are reporting 
as compatible, together with the ``M'' and ``T'' rating that each such 
model has been certified as achieving under the ANSI C63.19 standard. 
The Commission further proposes to require that these reports include 
the air interface(s) and frequency band(s) over which each compatible 
model operates.
    The Commission is seeking OMB approval for the revised proposed 
reporting criteria, if adopted by the Commission, the reports will be 
submitted annually by digital phone manufacturers and services provider 
through 2012.

 I. Introduction

    1. In this NPRM, the Commission takes steps to ensure that hearing 
aid users will continue to benefit from the convenience and features 
offered by the newest wireless communications systems being provided to 
American consumers. The actions proposed by the Commission are designed 
to take account of an evolving marketplace of new technologies and 
services. The proposals set forth in this NPRM draw upon 
recommendations proposed in the Staff Report. Several of these 
proposals, in turn, are based on an interconnected set of rule changes 
set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan recently developed jointly by 
industry and representatives for the deaf and hard of hearing 
community. The specifics of the Joint Consensus Plan, along with a 
proposed model rule, are contained in the Supplemental Comments of the 
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). ATIS states 
that its working group developed this comprehensive plan reflecting the 
joint input of the wireless industry and consumers with hearing loss. 
In a separate petition, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
supports the adoption of an updated technical standard as proposed in 
the Joint Consensus Plan, and it states that the new standard includes 
further improvements that reflect changes in technology, and 
efficiencies and improvements in testing procedures.

II. Discussion

    2. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on recommendations in 
the Staff Report and on the various proposals set forth in the Joint 
Consensus Plan. The Commission makes a number of tentative conclusions 
based on the broad consensus established by those participating in the 
development of the Joint Consensus Plan. In the context of several of 
these tentative conclusions, the Commission requests comment regarding 
the appropriate deployment regime for Tier II/III carriers and other 
service providers that are not Tier I carriers, which generally were 
not included within the Joint Consensus Plan's framework. The 
Commission requests that manufacturers and service providers be as 
specific as possible regarding the impact of these proposals on their 
operations, and that any alternative proposals be supported by evidence 
as to their feasibility and effectiveness. Affected consumers, 
including those with hearing difficulties, should support any new 
proposals with explanations of not only the benefits but also the costs 
to service providers, manufacturers, or other consumers, and why such 
costs are outweighed by the benefits. The Joint Consensus Plan contains 
many interrelated provisions, and the Commission notes the emphasis 
that its proponents place on adopting the plan as a whole in order to 
maintain the balance achieved during negotiations by its various member 
participants.
    3. Requirements and Deadlines for Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset 
Deployment.
    4. The Commission seeks comment on a set of new requirements for 
manufacturers and certain carriers as they deploy hearing aid-
compatible handsets in the years to come. The first proposal in the 
Joint Consensus Plan is to modify several deployment deadlines as set 
forth in Sec.  20.19 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 20.19, including 
the requirement that manufacturers and wireless service providers 
ensure that, by February 18, 2008, at least 50 percent of their handset 
models over each air interface offered meet an M3 or better rating for 
RF interference reduction, as specified in ANSI Standard C63.19, as 
well as the requirements for deployment of handsets that meet a T3 
rating for inductive coupling capability under the same standard. In 
this context, the plan also proposes new ``product refresh'' and 
``multiple tier'' requirements in order to ensure people with hearing 
loss have access to new, advanced devices.
    5. Deployment Benchmarks and Deadlines. The Commission seeks 
comment on tentative conclusions to adopt new hearing aid-compatible 
handset deployment benchmarks for manufacturers and service providers 
between 2008 and 2011, consistent with those recommended in the Staff 
Report and proposed as part of the Joint Consensus Plan. These include 
proposals (1) to modify requirements currently in effect for February 
18, 2008, and establish future requirements to provide handsets that 
incorporate reduced RF interference in recognition of technology and 
market obstacles currently faced by manufacturers and

[[Page 65497]]

service providers, and (2) to provide more options to consumers with 
severe hearing loss by imposing additional requirements on both service 
providers and manufacturers to make handsets available that are 
compatible with hearing aids operating in the telecoil mode. In 
addition to seeking comment on the recommendations and proposals in the 
Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission asks commenters to address 
specifically questions raised in the Staff Report, including those 
concerning appropriate benchmarks and deadlines to apply to service 
providers other than Tier I carriers, and those concerning whether 
staggering of deadlines between manufacturers and service providers is 
appropriate.
    6. M3- and T3-Rated Benchmarks/Deadlines. Section 20.19(c) and (d) 
of the Commission's rules contains the current deadlines for deployment 
of public mobile radio service handset models that meet both the M3 (or 
higher) and T3 (or higher) ratings for compatibility with hearing aids. 
The Commission seeks comment on modifying these provisions consistent 
with the proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan, both by adopting 
reduced and alternative benchmarks for deploying handsets compatible 
with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling (also known as 
microphone) mode and by increasing future benchmarks for compatibility 
with hearing aids operating in inductive coupling (also known as 
telecoil) mode.
    7. With respect to acoustic coupling compatibility, in recognition 
of marketplace and technical realities, the Commission seeks comment on 
a tentative conclusion to adopt a lower threshold for equipment 
manufacturers to deploy M3-rated (or higher) handsets. In place of the 
current requirement that 50 percent of handset models per air interface 
meet hearing aid compatibility standards by February 18, 2008, the 
Commission proposes that manufacturers be obligated, for each air 
interface for which they offer handsets, to meet the requirement, as 
proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, of 33% of manufacturers' non-de 
minimis portfolio models offered to service providers in the United 
States. Thus, for example, if a manufacturer produces a total of 12 
models capable of operating over the GSM air interface (regardless of 
whether these are single-mode or multi-mode models), at least four of 
those models would have to meet an M3 or higher rating. Moreover, a 
multi-mode handset could not be counted as compatible over any air 
interface unless it is compatible in all air interfaces over which it 
operates.
    8. The Commission notes that technological issues make it difficult 
to produce a wide variety of Global System for Mobile Communications 
(GSM) handsets that both meet the M3 standard for reduced RF 
interference for acoustic coupling and include certain popular 
features, and the Commission seeks to promulgate rules that are as 
technology-impartial as possible. The Commission tentatively concludes 
that, in context with the other proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan, 
these reduced thresholds strike an appropriate balance between 
maintaining technological neutrality and ensuring availability of 
hearing aid-compatible handsets to affected consumers. The Commission 
asks whether differences, in terms of the nature of the signals emitted 
and burdens of the formulae used to calculate compliance ratings under 
the ANSI technical standard, support its tentative conclusion and 
justify this lower benchmark. The Commission asks whether either the 
GSM or Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) air interface have an 
advantage over the other in terms of rule compliance. The Commission 
asks whether any impacts to hard of hearing consumers due to the 
production of fewer numbers of compatible handset models would be 
offset by the requirement that manufacturers regularly include new 
compatible models in their product lines.
    9. For Tier I (nationwide) carriers, the Commission seeks comment 
on a tentative conclusion to adopt an alternative schedule to the 50 
percent M3-rated (or higher) February 18, 2008 deployment deadline. 
These carriers would have the choice of complying with either the 
current rule or a new schedule based on total numbers of compliant 
handset models. This schedule would create obligations for service 
providers to provide an increasing number of handset models per air 
interface over which they offer service by future dates as follows: 
February 18, 2008: eight M3-rated (or higher) handset models; February 
18, 2009: nine M3-rated (or higher) handset models; February 18, 2010: 
ten M3-rated (or higher) handset models. The Commission seeks comment 
on its tentative conclusion to modify the rule as proposed.
    10. Along with these proposals to modify the deployment 
requirements regarding reduced RF interference for acoustic coupling 
compatibility, the Commission also seeks comment on a tentative 
conclusion to increase the benchmarks for manufacturers' and Tier I 
carriers' deployment of handsets meeting a T3 (or higher) rating for 
inductive coupling capability. Because customers' options for handsets 
that enable inductive coupling with telecoils have been more limited 
than for acoustic coupling compatibility, additional requirements of 
this nature could benefit some of the most disadvantaged wireless users 
in the deaf and hard of hearing community, who are more likely to rely 
on telecoil-equipped hearing aids. Under its proposed rule changes, the 
Commission would now require manufacturers to meet the greater of two 
measures for each air interface for which they offer handsets in 2009 
through 2011, as follows: a minimum of two T3-rated (or higher) models 
for each air interface for which the manufacturer offers four or more 
handset models to service providers; or at least 20%/25%/33% of models 
that the manufacturer offers over each air interface rated T3 (or 
higher) by February 18, 2009/2010/2011 respectively. As proposed, these 
percentage calculations would be rounded down to the nearest whole 
number in determining the minimum number of handsets to be produced. In 
addition, the Commission notes that each non-de minimis manufacturer 
would still be required to produce at least two or more T3-rated (or 
higher) handsets per air interface for which it offers handsets.
    11. Service providers are currently not required to deploy 
additional T3-rated (or higher) handset models once they have met the 
September 18, 2006 deadline for offering two compliant handset models 
per air interface. Under its proposed rule changes, the Commission 
would now require Tier I carriers to meet the lesser of the following 
requirements for each air interface over which they offer service: (1) 
February 18, 2008: 33% of digital wireless handset models are T3-rated 
(or higher); or (2) a schedule as follows: February 18, 2008: three T3-
rated (or higher) handsets; February 18, 2009: five T3-rated (or 
higher) handsets; February 18, 2010: seven T3-rated (or higher) 
handsets; and February 18, 2011: Ten T3-rated (or higher) handsets. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that these increased requirements for 
deployment of T3-rated (or higher) handsets are necessary and 
appropriate for both manufacturers and Tier I carriers. The Commission 
seeks comment on its tentative conclusion. The Commission also seeks 
comment on any additional deadlines or deployment milestones that may 
be appropriate to adopt at this time, such as any future M4 or T4 
handset compliance requirements.

[[Page 65498]]

    12. Service Providers Other than Tier I Carriers. As explained in 
the Staff Report, the Joint Consensus Plan is silent with respect to 
service providers that are not Tier I carriers. Accordingly, the 
Commission seeks comment generally on the appropriate deployment regime 
for these wireless service providers. As a general matter, in order to 
make the benefits of compatible handsets available to all consumers who 
need them, all service providers should be expected to meet the same 
benchmarks unless they cannot reasonably do so. At the same time, the 
Commission notes that in the past numerous Tier II and Tier III 
carriers have requested, and many have been granted, extension of 
compatible handset deployment deadlines because they were unable timely 
to obtain compliant handsets in sufficient quantities from 
manufacturers. The Commission therefore asks commenters to address 
whether there is anything inherent in the characteristics of Tier II 
and Tier III carriers, resellers, and mobile virtual network operators 
(MVNOs), or other categories of smaller service providers, that would 
prevent them from meeting either the RF interference reduction or 
inductive coupling-capable handset numbers and percentages set out for 
Tier I carriers.
    13. Staggered Deadlines for Deployment. The Commission also 
specifically seeks comment on whether, with respect to offering 
compliant handsets, the Commission should require different, staggered 
deployment deadlines for manufacturers and service providers, such as 
whether manufacturers should be required to offer compliant handsets at 
some time prior to all service providers, or to some subset of smaller 
providers. The Commission notes that many Tier II and Tier III carriers 
have requested waivers of hearing aid compatibility deadlines, 
complaining among other things that manufacturers have not made 
compliant handsets available sufficiently in advance of the deadline so 
that these service providers could, in turn, make them available to 
consumers. Instituting a short interval between the manufacturers' and 
some or all service providers' deadlines might be appropriate to 
address the circumstances that have engendered these waiver requests. 
Because of market realities, Tier II and Tier III carriers may have 
more difficulty than Tier I carriers in obtaining handsets. The 
Commission notes that the Joint Consensus Plan does not request any 
staggered deadlines for Tier I carriers. The Commission asks commenters 
to address specifically whether staggering of deadlines is appropriate 
in the context of its proposed future hearing aid compatibility 
requirements, and if so, for how long and for what subset of service 
providers.
    14. New Requirements for Handset Deployment. The Commission 
proposes, in accord with the Staff Report and the Joint Consensus Plan, 
additional specific measures to ensure that such a range of compatible 
handset models will be available so that consumers will have access to 
hearing aid-compatible handsets with the newest features, as well as 
more economical models.
    15. The Commission tentatively concludes that its rules should 
require equipment manufacturers to meet a ``product refresh'' 
requirement, as recommended in the Staff Report and described in the 
Joint Consensus Plan. This proposal would mandate that manufacturers 
meet RF interference reduction thresholds for acoustic coupling 
compatibility in some of their new models each year, enough so that, 
for manufacturers offering four or more handsets using a given air 
interface, half of the minimum required number of M3-rated or higher 
handset models would be new models introduced during the calendar year. 
To make this calculation, the number of new compliant models to be 
produced would be 50 percent of the total required number of compliant 
models, rounded up to the nearest whole number. For manufacturers that 
produce three total M3-rated models per air interface, at least one new 
M3-rated (or higher) model shall be introduced every other calendar 
year. If a manufacturer is not introducing a new model in a calendar 
year, then under the proposed rule it would not be required to refresh 
its list of compliant handsets.
    16. Notwithstanding its tentative conclusion, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether this requirement should be modified in any way. For 
example, it asks whether there are any modifications that would better 
promote hard of hearing individuals' access to new handset models 
without causing undue costs to other parties. The Commission also asks 
whether the proposed ``product refresh'' requirement would sufficiently 
ensure that, over time, compatible phones become available across all 
frequency bands as standards are promulgated and equipment is rolled 
out. The Commission also solicits comment on whether there are any 
possible less burdensome or intrusive approaches or incentives that 
would enable the deaf and hard of hearing community to select fresh 
models on a regular basis. For any proposal, the Commission asks 
commenters to address the disadvantages of deviating from the standard 
proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan. Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on any implementation issues, such as reporting requirements 
that may be necessary with regard to these obligations, and any 
enforcement issues.
    17. In addition to a ``product refresh'' rule for manufacturers, 
the Commission tentatively concludes that its hearing aid compatibility 
rules should require Tier I carriers to offer to consumers hearing aid-
compatible handsets with different levels of functionality. As 
described in the Staff Report, a proposed requirement set forth in the 
Joint Consensus Plan would obligate Tier I carriers to offer handset 
models from ``multiple tiers,'' and include a concomitant requirement 
that these providers' reports include information on the carriers' 
implementation of tiering. In the context of the language in the Joint 
Consensus Plan stating carriers will self-define their tiers, the 
Commission interprets the term ``tiers'' to refer to levels of 
functionality. The Commission further intends functionality to include 
the extent to which a handset model has the capability to operate over 
multiple frequency bands for which hearing aid compatibility standards 
have been established. The Commission seeks comment on a tentative 
conclusion to require Tier I carriers to provide access to handsets 
with different levels of functionality. If commenters support this 
tentative conclusion, the Commission asks them to specifically address 
how such an obligation might be effectively implemented and enforced in 
its rules.
    18. 2007 ANSI C63.19 Technical Standard.
    19. The Commission seeks comment on changing the current hearing 
aid compatibility technical standard codified in Sec.  20.19(b) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 20.19(b). It seeks comment on a tentative 
conclusion to change the current practice permitting use of multiple 
versions of ANSI C63.19 and, instead, codify a single 2007 version of 
the testing standard. ANSI C63.19-2007, an updated version of the 
technical standard for determining hearing aid compatibility, has been 
recently approved by the Accredited Standards Committee on 
Electromagnetic Compatibility, C63\TM\ and adopted by ANSI. Under the 
Commission's proposal, this new 2007 standard would replace the 2001, 
2005 draft, and 2006 versions of the technical standard. The

[[Page 65499]]

Commission explains that it would retain the current practice of 
permitting the Chief of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), in 
coordination with the Chief of Office of Engineering & Technology 
(OET), on delegated authority, to approve use of future versions of the 
standard, including multiple alternative versions, to the extent that 
the changes do not raise major compliance issues.
    20. ANSI filed a petition this year requesting that the Commission 
adopt this 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 technical standard as the 
permanent standard. ANSI states in its petition that further 
improvements have been made to the technical standard to reflect 
changes in technology, and efficiencies and improvements in testing 
procedures. Because the standard that has been adopted by ANSI is 
stricter in some respects than prior versions, and is the result of 
broad participation from diverse groups, the Commission proposes that 
the standard be codified in its rules in order to better promote the 
development of hearing aid-compatible handsets that hearing-impaired 
consumers can readily use. Commenters should address whether they 
support such a rule change, and if not, identify an acceptable 
alternative to its tentative conclusion.
    21. The Commission also seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to 
phase in the 2007 standard. Under this proposal, the Commission would 
permit both the 2006 and 2007 versions of the standard to be used for 
new RF interference and inductive coupling hearing aid compatibility 
certifications through 2009. A newly-certified handset would therefore 
have to meet, at minimum, an M3 or T3 rating as set forth in either the 
2006 or 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 standard to be considered 
compatible, while grants of equipment authorization previously issued 
under other versions of the standard would remain valid for hearing aid 
compatibility purposes. Then, beginning on January 1, 2010, the 
Commission would only permit use of the 2007 version of the standard 
for obtaining new grants of equipment authorization, while continuing 
to recognize the validity of existing grants under previous versions of 
the standard. The Commission seeks comment on whether this two step 
phase-in period appropriately balances the interests in bringing state-
of-the-art compatible handsets to hard of hearing consumers and in 
avoiding unreasonable burdens on manufacturers and service providers. 
It also asks commenters to consider whether there are alternative 
implementations of the 2007 standard that would better serve these 
goals.
    22. Reporting Obligations, Public Information, and Outreach.
    23. The Commission seeks comment on proposed requirements relating 
to manufacturers' and service providers' filing of hearing aid 
compatibility reports with the Commission, as well as other public 
information and outreach measures.
    24. Reporting. The Commission tentatively concludes not only to 
continue requiring service providers and manufacturers to report 
regularly on the availability of hearing aid-compatible products, but 
to enhance and improve the content of the reports that are filed. As 
reported in the Staff Report, there is evidence in the record that some 
of the information in the existing compliance reports may not be as 
complete or as helpful as possible for consumers, wireless service 
providers, or the Commission. Furthermore, staff encountered 
difficulties when verifying the ratings for certain handset models 
identified in compliance reports, because many of the compliance 
reports referenced the handset manufacturer and model number but did 
not include the associated FCC ID. In order to address these 
shortcomings, the Joint Consensus Plan includes proposed requirements 
that will render the reports more helpful to consumers and others by 
providing them with better information concerning the commercial 
availability of compliant handsets. Specifically, the Joint Consensus 
Plan recommends that reports include:
    25. Manufacturers: digital wireless phones tested; compliant phone 
models using the FCC ID number and ratings according to C63.19; status 
of product labeling; outreach efforts; total numbers of compliant phone 
models offered as of the time of the report; and information pertaining 
to product refresh.
    26. Service providers: compliant phone models using the FCC ID 
number and ratings according to C63.19; status of product labeling; 
outreach efforts; information related to the retail availability of 
compliant phones; total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone 
models offered as of the time of the report; and the ``tiers'' into 
which the compliant phones fall.
    27. The Commission proposes to adopt these reporting criteria and 
asks commenters to address whether they capture the appropriate 
information and level of detail. In particular, to clarify the 
information collection recommended in the Joint Consensus Plan, the 
Commission proposes to require both manufacturers and service providers 
to provide the model number and FCC ID directly associated with each 
model that they are reporting as compatible, together with the ``M'' 
and ``T'' rating that each such model has been certified as achieving 
under the ANSI C63.19 standard. The Commission would accept the 
manufacturer's determination of whether a device is a distinct model 
consistent with the manufacturer's marketing practices, so long as 
models that have no distinguishing variations of form, features, or 
user capabilities, or that only differentiate units sold to a 
particular carrier, are not separately counted as distinct models to 
customers. The Commission further proposes to require that reports 
include the air interface(s) and frequency band(s) over which each 
compatible model operates. The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposed additional requirements. In addition, the Commission asks 
whether it should vary the information sought depending on the type of 
service provider (e.g., Tier I carrier vs. other service provider).
    28. The Commission also seeks comment on additional ways to improve 
the quality and usefulness of the reports, including whether the 
Commission should require additional information beyond that proposed 
in the Joint Consensus Plan. Unless commenters support another process, 
the Commission proposes to authorize Commission staff to develop a 
standardized reporting format for collecting information.
    29. In addition, the Commission seeks comment regarding the 
schedule under which the Commission should require future reports. 
Under the proposal contained in the Joint Consensus Plan, the 
Commission would adopt a staggered schedule whereby manufacturers would 
be required to provide an annual status report to the Commission 
beginning November 30, 2007, Tier I carriers would be required to 
provide an annual status report to the Commission six months later 
beginning May 30, 2008, and Tier II and III carriers would be required 
to provide an annual status report beginning May 30, 2009. These 
reporting requirements would continue annually thereafter through the 
November report in 2012. The Commission seeks comment on a tentative 
conclusion to adopt substantially this schedule, but with certain 
refinements. First, given the timing of this proceeding, the Commission 
expects that manufacturers and service providers will be required to 
comply with current rules for November 2007 reporting. To the extent 
the Commission maintains the current November 17, 2007 reporting 
deadline

[[Page 65500]]

during the rulemaking, commenters should consider how the remaining 
schedule may need to be modified.
    30. In addition, the Commission questions the Joint Consensus Plan 
proposal to adopt a delayed reporting requirement for Tier II and III 
carriers whereby their next reports would not be required until a year 
after the Tier I carriers' reports. In light of the recommendations in 
the Staff Report and its objectives, especially for consumers who 
receive service from such providers, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it serves the public interest to delay their next reports for a 
period of 18 months to two years from their reports that will be 
submitted in November 2007, or whether they should instead be held to 
the same schedule as Tier I carriers in order to provide a steady 
source of information to consumers and to the Commission. Moreover, 
given that Tier II and III carriers have already been filing reports 
regularly, the Commission seeks comment on the extent of the burdens 
that would be avoided by postponing their first reports as proposed 
under the Joint Consensus Plan, balanced against the extent of 
information that would be lost by introducing a gap of 18 months or 
more in their reporting. Commenters should also address whether the 
reporting deadlines for Tier II and III carriers should depend on its 
adoption of staggered deployment deadlines. Finally, if the Commission 
adopts different reporting deadlines for Tier I versus Tier II and III 
carriers, the Commission seeks comment on the rules that should apply 
to resellers and to MVNOs.
    31. Public Information and Outreach. In addition to the content and 
frequency of manufacturer and service provider reports, the Commission 
seeks comment on other ways to increase the availability of hearing aid 
compatibility information to consumers, service providers, and other 
interested parties. As explained in the Staff Report, the Commission's 
existing databases and websites are of limited value for these 
purposes. For example, although OET's equipment authorization database 
has information about hearing aid compatibility ratings associated with 
manufacturers' equipment, the database maintains such information based 
on FCC IDs, not handset model numbers, and it does not maintain a 
single clear, current record associated with each ID. Thus, it is 
difficult--particularly for an inexperienced user--to search for 
hearing aid-compatible models based either on the manufacturer's name 
or on the model's FCC ID. Similarly, the Disability Rights Office (DRO) 
of the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau maintains a website that 
explains the disability access rules and provides contact information 
for manufacturers and service providers, but this website does not 
include information regarding the compatibility of particular handset 
models. As noted in the Staff Report, although a consumer wishing to 
file a complaint under Sec.  255 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 
255, can locate the designated agent's name and contact information 
from the Commission's website, no similar information is available 
under the process governing complaints for violations of hearing aid 
compatibility requirements. Under the hearing aid compatibility 
complaint process, consumers are responsible for identifying the agent 
designated by manufacturers or service providers for service of 
complaints under 47 CFR 68.418(b). The Commission notes that it 
extended its part 68, subpart E rules to allow consumers to file 
informal complaints under those rules if they find that wireless 
service providers or manufacturers of wireless equipment are not 
complying with its hearing aid compatibility rules.
    32. In recognition of these shortcomings, the Commission seeks 
comment on potential measures to improve the value of these databases 
and websites for parties seeking hearing aid compatibility information, 
including, for example, adding a relevant search function to the 
equipment authorization database or adding links to manufacturers' and 
service providers' websites from the DRO's web page. In addition to the 
ongoing efforts of Commission staff to continue to improve information 
available to consumers, service providers, and other interested 
parties, the Commission seeks comment as to any specific measures the 
Commission should require or take, such as requiring manufacturers to 
include in their equipment authorization filings the handset models 
associated with each FCC ID number, and to update this information when 
they introduce new models. Also, the Commission asks whether it should 
adopt new part 2 rules to require a filing for permissive changes that 
includes trade names and model numbers. The Commission also requests 
comment on whether to require manufacturers and service providers 
subject to the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules to follow 
the same procedures as those applicable to Sec.  255 complaints, and to 
have the Commission publish hearing aid compatibility designated 
agents' contact information on the DRO website.
    33. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can encourage 
digital wireless handset manufacturers and service providers to engage 
in additional outreach efforts to assist consumers with hearing 
disabilities as they shop for wireless phones. As recommended in the 
Staff Report, the Commission seeks comment on how best to promote the 
availability of useful hearing aid compatibility information on 
manufacturers' and service providers' websites, including whether the 
Commission should not only encourage but require the posting of such 
information. The Commission further seeks comment as to what 
requirements or guidelines, if any, it should provide regarding the 
content of such postings.
    34. Consistent with the recommendations in the Staff Report, the 
Commission also seeks comment generally on any other ways that wireless 
manufacturers, service providers, and independent retailers can improve 
the effectiveness of their in-store testing, consumer education, and 
other consumer outreach efforts. These efforts would, ideally, include 
new ways of publicly identifying compliant phones for consumers and 
audiologists, as well as efforts that independent retailers could take 
to facilitate such identification. In addition, in order to assist 
consumers as they shop for wireless phones, the Commission also asks 
whether there are additional steps it can take to facilitate the flow 
of information between consumers, manufacturers, and service providers 
to meet its hearing aid compatibility outreach objectives.
    35. Other Components of Joint Consensus Plan, and Related 
Proposals.
    36. As recommended in the Staff Report, the Commission seeks 
comment on several additional proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan, as 
well as on matters related to those proposals.
    37. Other Spectrum Bands. The Joint Consensus Plan contains a 
request that the Commission apply the Commission's hearing aid 
compatibility rules to all spectrum bands that are used for the 
provision of Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) in the United 
States, subject to standards development. The Commission determined 
earlier this year that all digital CMRS providers, regardless of the 
particular band in which they were operating, as well as manufacturers 
of handsets capable of providing such services, should be subject to 
the hearing aid compatibility requirements set forth in Sec.  20.19 to 
the extent that a

[[Page 65501]]

service satisfies the scope provision for hearing aid compatibility set 
forth in its part 20 rules. The Commission seeks comment generally on 
whether any further action is necessary or appropriate in this regard, 
and in particular on several specific questions that relate to the 
extension of hearing aid compatibility requirements to new frequency 
bands. First, the Commission seeks comment on how its current hearing 
aid compatibility requirements apply to mobile satellite service (MSS) 
providers that offer CMRS and whether any revisions to the hearing aid 
compatibility rules are appropriate respecting such providers, in order 
to promote consistent treatment for all CMRS providers that offer 
functionally equivalent services. In this regard, the Commission asks 
commenters to address whether it should make a difference if an MSS 
provider offers service purely through a satellite-based network or 
through a combined network that relies on both satellite and ancillary 
terrestrial component (ATC) facilities.
    38. Second, the Commission agrees with the recommendation in the 
Staff Report that standard-setting bodies should strive to develop 
hearing aid compatibility standards together with technical operating 
specifications for new frequency bands. The Commission seeks comment on 
any measures that the Commission should take to promote this practice.
    39. Third, the Commission has held that if a handset manufacturer 
or service provider offers a multi-band handset in order to comply with 
the hearing aid compatibility requirements, the handset must be hearing 
aid-compatible in each frequency band over which it operates. The 
Commission tentatively concludes to codify this requirement in Sec.  
20.19 of the rules. The Commission further tentatively concludes, 
consistent with this principle, that multi-band phones should not be 
counted as compatible in any band if they operate over frequency bands 
for which technical standards have not been established. The Commission 
believes this limitation would conform with consumers' expectation that 
a phone labeled ``hearing aid compatible'' is compatible in all its 
operations. Treating such handsets as not compatible would also create 
incentives for industry bodies to develop compatibility standards for 
new frequency bands more quickly. The Commission seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion.
    40. Fourth, the Commission notes that the ANSI C63.19 standard 
includes target values for hearing aid compatibility validation 
procedures for operation over specific air interfaces at frequencies in 
the ranges of 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz. Accordingly, the Commission 
tentatively concludes to revise Sec.  20.19(b), 47 CFR 20.19(b), to 
include services operating over any frequencies within these two bands, 
to the extent they employ air interfaces for which hearing aid 
compatibility technical standards have been established and approved by 
the Commission.
    41. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether it can, 
and should, establish a mechanism under which hearing aid compatibility 
regulations would become applicable to future frequency bands as soon 
as, or within a defined period after, technical standards are 
established for relevant air interfaces. Under its current rules, the 
Commission must modify Sec.  20.19 pursuant to rulemaking to add new 
services or new frequency bands. Amending Sec.  20.19 so that a rule 
change is not necessary every time technical standards are established 
for new services, new air interfaces, or new frequency bands 
potentially would bring the benefits of compatible handsets more 
quickly to consumers and would provide greater certainty to all 
affected parties. In addition, to the extent that manufacturers and 
service providers are already meeting their obligations to offer 
defined numbers or percentages of hearing aid-compatible handsets over 
previously covered services, the automatic extension of its rules to 
additional frequency bands may not impose significant additional 
burdens, and may even assist manufacturers and service providers in 
achieving compliance by permitting them to count multi-band models as 
compliant. The Commission asks commenters to address both the benefits 
and the drawbacks of an automatic effectiveness regime, as well as what 
the specific rules should entail. Under existing rules, the Commission 
generally must approve revised versions of ANSI C63.19 for such revised 
standards to take effect for purposes of its hearing aid compatibility 
requirements. The Commission asks whether a standard should be 
considered ``established'' for a new frequency band upon its 
promulgation by C63, or whether there should be a process for the 
Commission or its staff to review or approve the standard, and if so 
what should that process be.
    42. Multi-Mode Handsets. The Commission tentatively concludes to 
adopt the proposal in the Joint Consensus Plan stating that multi-mode 
handsets do not satisfy Sec.  20.19 for any air interface unless they 
are compatible in all air interfaces over which they operate. The 
Commission further tentatively concludes, consistent with its tentative 
conclusion regarding multi-band handsets, that multi-mode phones should 
not be counted as compatible in any mode if they operate over air 
interfaces for which technical standards have not been established. The 
Commission believes this rule would conform to consumers' expectations 
and would help promote the rapid development of compatibility standards 
for new air interfaces. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative 
conclusions and on any other potential measures to promote the 
development of compatibility standards for new air interfaces together 
with technical operating specifications.
    43. De Minimis Exception. The Commission adopted a de minimis 
exception, which relieves wireless service providers and handset 
manufacturers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models 
in the United States from the hearing aid compatibility compliance 
obligations. The Joint Consensus Plan proposes that the Commission 
retain the de minimis exception and clarify that it applies on a per-
air interface basis. The Commission notes that it has already clarified 
that the de minimis exception applies on a per-air interface basis, 
rather than across a manufacturer's or carrier's entire product line. 
The Commission tentatively concludes that this clarification should be 
codified in its rules. The Commission also invite further comment on 
the question of whether to narrow the de minimis exception.
    44. 2010 Further Review. The Joint Consensus Plan proposes that the 
Commission establish a further review of the hearing aid compatibility 
rules in 2010. The Commission tentatively concludes to adopt this 
proposal, and the Commission seeks comment. In particular, given the 
timing of the obligations the Commission proposes, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether such a review would be more appropriate at a later 
date, such as in 2012. The Commission states that once the proposed 
deployment deadlines have passed and the Commission can assess the 
effectiveness of any action it takes arising out of its proposals, it 
may decide to add new or additional obligations, or on the other hand, 
reduce its oversight role if the state of competition or technology 
supports such action.
    45. Volume Controls. Consistent with the Joint Consensus Plan's 
recommendation, the Commission urges all interested parties to 
specifically look into adding volume controls to wireless

[[Page 65502]]

handsets. The Commission seeks comment on whether any volume control 
requirements should be incorporated into its rules, and if so what they 
should be. The Commission also invites comment on interference from 
handset screen displays, including whether any measures are appropriate 
to promote the deployment of phones that enable users to turn off their 
screens.
    46. Emerging Technologies.
    47. The Commission seeks comment on whether its hearing aid 
compatibility rules should be modified to address new technologies 
being used and offered by manufacturers and providers in their wireless 
handsets and networks. Under current Commission rules, manufacturers 
and service providers are required to meet the Commission's hearing aid 
compatibility standards only to the extent that handsets are associated 
with digital CMRS networks that ``offer real-time, two-way switched 
voice or data service that is interconnected with the public switched 
network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the 
provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of 
subscriber calls.'' 47 CFR 20.19(a). The Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should extend some or a portion of the hearing aid 
compatibility requirements under Sec.  20.19 to wireless handsets that 
may fall outside the definition of CMRS and the criteria in Sec.  
20.19(a), such as handsets that operate on unlicensed Wireless Fidelity 
(WiFi) networks that do not employ an in-network switching facility 
that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless 
hand-offs. The Staff Report provides several examples of service 
providers offering access to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
applications over WiFi and other wireless technologies. The Commission 
agrees with the recommendation in the Staff Report that the Commission 
should consider whether to change its rules to address these 
developments.
    48. First, the Commission seeks comment generally on the 
application of its hearing aid compatibility rules to VoIP applications 
provided over wireless technologies such as WiFi and other emerging 
technologies. The Commission asks commenters to address how current and 
anticipated future use of VoIP applications over wireless networks, 
both interconnected and non-interconnected, would be treated under the 
interaction of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act and its rules. 47 
U.S.C. 610(b)(2). The Commission asks several questions about the scope 
and applicability of Sec.  20.19(a) in these situations. Commenters 
suggesting changes are asked to address not only the policy reasons for 
their proposed revisions, but also the Commission's legal authority to 
adopt them.
    49. In addition, the Commission solicits comment as to whether any 
new hearing aid compatibility rules are appropriate to address handsets 
that combine covered mobile voice operation with data services provided 
over WiFi networks or other emerging technologies. The Commission notes 
that such service combinations may be particularly attractive to deaf 
and hard of hearing consumers, but that its current rules do not 
necessarily require that any such handsets be hearing aid-compatible if 
the manufacturer and service provider satisfy their hearing aid 
compatibility benchmarks using other models. Elsewhere in the NPRM, the 
Commission tentatively concludes to adopt ``product refresh'' and 
``tiering'' rules that are intended to ensure consumers who use hearing 
aids will have access to mobile handsets with a range of 
functionalities. The Commission seeks comment as to whether these 
proposed rules appropriately promote the availability of hearing aid-
compatible handsets that include data services provided over WiFi 
networks or other emerging technologies, or whether additional measures 
are needed. In this regard, the Commission notes that the requirements 
of Sec.  20.19 apply to handsets used with either voice or data 
services that fall within its terms. The Commission seeks comment as to 
the implications of imposing hearing aid compatibility requirements 
based on the provision of wireless data services, and whether this 
provision should be changed.
    50. Finally, the Commission invites broad comment on what 
additional regulatory obligations may be appropriate to address the 
issues raised by emerging wireless technologies, taking into account 
the statutory goal to promote equal access to communications equipment 
and services for consumers with hearing loss as well as economic, 
technological, and legal constraints. Regulation may be appropriate 
when new technology causes people with hearing disabilities to lose 
access, but the Commission is unsure what the extent of any access 
problem may be and what measures may best address any such problem, and 
the Commission therefore invites commenters to address this question. 
As emerging technologies progress, the deaf and hard of hearing 
community should be able to benefit to a similar degree as the 
mainstream population, as has been its goal under Sec.  20.19.
    51. Networks Using Open Platforms for Devices and Applications.
    52. The Commission required that licensees of the Upper 700 MHz 
Band C Block of spectrum provide ``open platforms'' for devices and 
applications to allow customers, device manufacturers, third-party 
application developers, and others to use the devices and applications 
of their choosing in C Block networks, subject to certain reasonable 
network management conditions that allow the licensee to protect the 
network from harm. An open platform network mandate, such as that for 
the Upper 700 MHz Band C Block of spectrum, may fundamentally alter the 
paradigm within which the hearing aid compatibility rules apply. As 
currently constituted, Sec.  20.19 of the Commission's rules imposes 
hearing aid compatibility obligations only on manufacturers and 
providers of services within its scope, including resellers and MVNOs. 
With the growth of open platform networks, however, entities other than 
the traditional equipment manufacturers and service providers may 
become increasingly significant. While the existing requirements on 
manufacturers, together with the open platform requirements themselves, 
may be adequate to ensure sufficient hearing aid-compatible handset 
choice for consumers, the Commission seeks comment on whether any 
additional hearing aid compatibility requirements should be imposed in 
the context of open platform networks.
    53. The Commission seeks comment both on whether to impose 
additional hearing aid compatibility requirements on manufacturers in 
the context of open platform networks, and on whether to extend any 
requirements to entities that are not currently covered. In addition, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether and how to extend its hearing 
aid compatibility requirements to the responsible manufacturing party 
in joint venture situations.
    54. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how to extend 
its hearing aid compatibility rules, including handset deployment, 
information, and outreach requirements, from service providers to other 
entities offering handsets to consumers within an open platform 
environment. Considering the development of open platform networks, 
there may be a greater need for in-store testing by independent 
retailers or other third parties. The Commission therefore seeks 
comment on whether to extend in-store testing rules to independent 
retailers or other third parties in the context of open

[[Page 65503]]

platform networks. The Commission seeks comment on the regulatory 
status under its current hearing aid compatibility rules of application 
developers and other potential new participants using open platform 
networks, and on whether any new hearing aid compatibility requirements 
should appropriately be imposed on such entities.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    55. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 
603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities of the policies and rules addressed in this NPRM. The IRFA is 
set forth in an Appendix to the NPRM. Written public comments are 
requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with 
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to the NPRM, 
and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as 
responses to the IRFA.

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    56. This NPRM contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Public and agency comments are 
due on or before January 22, 2008. Comments should address: (a) Whether 
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198 (see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' The Commission notes, 
however, that Sec.  213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000 
provides that rules governing frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band 
become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register 
without regard to certain sections of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 
2502, Appendix E, Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B); see 145 Cong. Rec. 
H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47 U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) 
through (B). The Commission is therefore not inviting comment on any 
information collections that concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz 
Band.

C. Other Procedural Matters

1. Ex Parte Presentations
    57. The rulemaking this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded 
that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of 
the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the 
subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the 
views and arguments presented generally is required. Other requirements 
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in 47 CFR 
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
2. Comment Filing Procedures
    58. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
interested parties may file comments on or before December 21, 2007 and 
reply comments on or before January 7, 2008. All filings related to 
this NPRM should refer to WT Docket No. 07-250. Comments may be filed 
using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), 
(2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper 
copies.
    59. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should 
follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments. ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments 
for WT Docket No. 07-250. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and WT Docket No. 07-250. Parties may also submit an electronic comment 
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an 
e-mail to [email protected] and include the following words in the body of 
the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in 
response.
    60. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. 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, Marlene H. 
Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. The 
Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail 
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal 
Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
3. Accessible Formats
    61. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    62. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
considered in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will 
send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, this 
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    63. Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000 
provides

[[Page 65504]]

that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive bidding 
procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band. In particular, this 
exemption extends to the requirements imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, 
United States Code, Sec.  3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) 
and Sec. Sec.  3507 and 3512 of Title 44, United States Code. 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 
2502, Appendix E, Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B); see 145 Cong. Rec. 
H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47 U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) 
through (B). The Commission nevertheless believes that it would serve 
the public interest to analyze the possible significant economic impact 
of the proposed policy and rule changes in this band on small entities. 
Accordingly, this IRFA contains an analysis of this impact in 
connection with all spectrum that falls within the scope of this NPRM, 
including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    64. In the NPRM, the Commission reexamines existing hearing aid 
compatibility requirements to ensure that they will continue to be 
effective in an evolving marketplace of new technologies and services. 
Although the NPRM tentatively concludes substantially to adopt new M3- 
and T3-rated handset deployment benchmarks through 2011, and a related 
requirement to offer handsets with different levels of functionality, 
for Tier I carriers only, it also seeks comment on the appropriate 
regime for smaller service providers. In addition, the NPRM tentatively 
concludes to adopt new deployment benchmarks for all manufacturers, 
subject to a de minimis exception for certain manufacturers with small 
product lines. Moreover, the Commission also tentatively concludes that 
the following steps that might affect small businesses are needed to 
meet its objectives: (1) Implement a ``product refresh'' rule for 
manufacturers; (2) adopt, after a suitable phase-in period, the use of 
a single version of the ANSI C63.19 standard, ANSI C63.19-2007; and (3) 
adopt new content and timelines for hearing aid compatibility reporting 
requirements. In the context of several of these tentative conclusions, 
the Commission requests comment on possible compliance requirements not 
included within the Joint Consensus Plan's framework. For example, the 
Commission seeks comment on the possibility of staggered handset 
deployment deadlines for different classes of service providers and 
manufacturers, additional reporting/outreach obligations, and other 
measures that may impact small entities. In addition, following upon 
the recommendations in the Staff Report, the NPRM invites comments on 
new hearing aid compatibility issues implicated by recent developments 
relating to provision of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) over 
wireless platforms, as well as ``open platform'' networks. The 
Commission is open to comment on what, if any, requirements it should, 
or should not, impose for small entities if it adopts new rules based 
on the proposals in the NPRM.
    65. To promote compatibility between digital wireless telephones 
and hearing aids, this NPRM could result in rule changes that, if 
adopted, would create new opportunities and obligations for several 
categories of wireless service providers, as well as manufacturers of 
wireless handsets. The rule changes in the NPRM may affect service 
providers and equipment manufacturers in services for which technical 
standards both have and have not been established. In addition, the 
NPRM requests comment on potential rule changes that may affect 
providers of VoIP applications over wireless technologies, as well as 
independent retailers and other third parties in the context of ``open 
platform'' networks.
    66. The Commission states that ensuring the availability of hearing 
aid-compatible handsets to hard of hearing consumers, as well as 
information about such handsets, remains a high priority. To the extent 
people who use hearing aids have difficulty finding a wireless mobile 
telephone that functions effectively with those devices because of 
interference or compatibility problems, the Commission states that a 
continued expansion in the number and availability of hearing aid-
compatible wireless telephones is warranted. It explains that its 
objective is to take account of changing market and technological 
conditions with appropriate new steps to ensure that hearing aid users 
will continue to benefit from the convenience and features offered by 
the newest wireless communications systems being provided to American 
consumers.

B. Legal Basis

    67. The potential actions about which comment is sought in this 
NPRM would be authorized pursuant to the authority contained in 
Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 610.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    68. 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 
Small Business Administration (SBA). To assist the Commission in 
analyzing the total number of potentially affected small entities, the 
Commission requests commenters to estimate the number of small entities 
that may be affected by any rule changes that might result from this 
NPRM.
    69. 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.
    70. 700 MHz Guard Bands Licenses. 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

[[Page 65505]]

more than $15 million for the preceding three years. SBA approval of 
these definitions is not required. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area 
(MEA) licenses for each of two spectrum blocks commenced on September 
6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. 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 remaining 700 MHz Guard Bands licenses commenced on February 13, 
2001, and closed on February 21, 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. Subsequently, the Commission 
reorganized the licenses pursuant to an agreement among most of the 
licensees, resulting in a spectral relocation of the first set of 
paired spectrum block licenses, and an elimination of the second set of 
paired spectrum block licenses (many of which were already vacant, 
reclaimed by the Commission from Nextel). A single licensee that did 
not participate in the agreement was grandfathered in the initial 
spectral location for its two licenses in the second set of paired 
spectrum blocks. Accordingly, at this time there are 54 licenses in the 
700 MHz Guard Bands.
    71. 700 MHz Band Commercial Licenses. There is 80 megahertz of non-
Guard Band spectrum in the 700 MHz Band that is designated for 
commercial use: 698-757, 758-763, 776-787, and 788-793 MHz Bands. With 
one exception, the Commission adopted criteria for defining two groups 
of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for 
bidding credits at auction. These two categories are: (1) ``Small 
business,'' which is defined as an entity that has attributed average 
annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million during the 
preceding three years; and (2) ``very small business,'' which is 
defined as an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that 
do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years. In Block C of 
the Lower 700 MHz Band (710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz), which was 
licensed on the basis of 734 Cellular Market Areas, the Commission 
adopted a third criterion for determining eligibility for bidding 
credits: An ``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 has approved these small size standards.
    72. An auction of 740 licenses for Blocks C (710-716 MHz and 740-
746 MHz) and D (716-722 MHz) of the Lower 700 MHz Band commenced on 
August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, 
and included 256 licenses: five EAG licenses and 251 CMA licenses. 
Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status 
and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur 
status and won 154 licenses.
    73. The remaining 62 megahertz of commercial spectrum is currently 
scheduled for auction on January 24, 2008. Bidding credits for all of 
these licenses will be available to ``small businesses'' and ``very 
small businesses.''
    74. 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
    75. Advanced Wireless Services. The Commission adopted rules that 
affect applicants who wish to provide service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 
2110-2155 MHz bands. The Commission did not know precisely the type of 
service that a licensee in these bands might seek to provide. 
Nonetheless, the Commission anticipated that the services that will be 
deployed in these bands may have capital requirements comparable to 
those in the broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS), and that 
the licensees in these bands will be presented with issues and costs 
similar to those presented to broadband PCS licensees. Further, at the 
time the broadband PCS service was established, it was similarly 
anticipated that it would facilitate the introduction of a new 
generation of service. Therefore, the Commission adopts the same small 
business size definition that it adopted for the broadband PCS service 
and that the SBA approved. In particular, it defines 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. It also provides small 
businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very small 
businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent.
    76. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service (``BRS''), formerly known as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (``MDS''), and Educational Broadband Service 
(``EBS''), formerly known as Instructional Television Fixed Service 
(``ITFS''), use frequencies at 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz to transmit 
video programming and provide broadband services to residential 
subscribers. These services, collectively referred to as ``wireless 
cable,'' were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel 
video programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but 
over the past several years licensees have focused their operations 
instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. The 
Commission estimates that the number of wireless cable subscribers is 
approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. The SBA small business size 
standard for the broad census category

[[Page 65506]]

of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such 
entities generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts, appears 
applicable to MDS and ITFS. Other standards also apply, as described.
    77. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) entities in the 
context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction, the 
Commission defined a small business as an entity that had annual 
average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three 
calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS 
auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders 
won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a 
small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 
small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. 
In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, 
there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross 
revenues that are not more than $40 million and are thus considered 
small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not 
receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the 
SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program 
Distribution. Information available to us indicates that there are 
approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate 
revenue in excess of $13.5 million annually. Therefore, the Commission 
estimates that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) 
providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
    78. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small 
entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small 
business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). The Commission estimates 
that there are currently 2,032 EBS licensees, and all but 100 of the 
licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, it estimates that 
at least 1,932 EBS licensees are small entities.
    79. 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. For 
the census category of ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications,'' Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 
1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
category and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.
    80. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business 
size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross 
revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. 
For Block F, 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 qualified as small entities in 
the Block C auctions. A total of 93 ``small'' and ``very small'' 
business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for 
Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 
C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning 
bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 
422 C and F PCS licenses in Auction 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in 
this auction, 29 qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. 
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.
    81. 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 began on December 5, 1995, and closed on 
April 15, 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 began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 
8, 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 held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 
2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business 
status won five licenses.
    82. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses 
for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was 
completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders 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 on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic 
Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were 
sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed ``small business'' status 
and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning 
bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status 
as small business.
    83. 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 Commission does not know how many firms 
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended 
implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have 
annual revenues of no more than $15 million, or have no more than 1,500 
employees. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission 
assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining 
existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small 
entities, as that small business size standard is established by the 
SBA.
    84. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission uses the SBA 
definition 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 Commission estimates 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.
    85. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission uses the SBA

[[Page 65507]]

definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There 
are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone 
Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify 
as small entities under the SBA definition.
    86. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on 
several ultra high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast channels that are not 
used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering 
the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in 
this service. The Commission uses the SBA definition applicable to 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite), i.e., an 
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission is unable 
at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as 
small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission assumes, for 
purposes of this analysis, that all of the 55 licensees are small 
entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
    87. Mobile Satellite Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 
the U.S. Small Business Administration has developed a small business 
size standard specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The 
appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite 
Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they 
have $13.5 million or less in annual revenues. Currently, the 
Commission's records show that there are 31 entities authorized to 
provide voice and data MSS in the United States. The Commission does 
not have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of these 
parties are small entities. The Commission notes that small businesses 
are not likely to have the financial ability to become MSS system 
operators because of high implementation costs, including construction 
of satellite space stations and rocket launch, associated with 
satellite systems and services. Still, the Commission requests comment 
on the number and identity of small entities that would be 
significantly impacted by the proposed rule changes.
    88. Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA has 
established a small business size standard for wireless communications 
equipment manufacturers. Under the standard, firms are considered small 
if they have 750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 1997 
indicates that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215 
establishments in this category. Of those, there were 1,150 that had 
employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 
to 999. The Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
communications equipment manufacturers are small businesses.
    89. Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores. This U.S. 
industry comprises: (1) establishments known as consumer electronics 
stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of new consumer-
type electronic products; (2) establishments specializing in retailing 
a single line of consumer-type electronic products (except computers); 
or (3) establishments primarily engaged in retailing these new 
electronic products in combination with repair services. The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category of retail 
store; that size standard is $7.5 million or less in annual revenues. 
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 8,328 firms in 
this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 8,088 firms 
had annual sales of under $5 million, and an additional 132 had annual 
sales of $5 million to $9,999,999. Therefore, the majority of these 
businesses may be considered to be small.
    90. Internet Service Providers. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether to extend hearing aid compatibility requirements to 
entities offering access to VoIP applications over WiFi and other 
wireless technologies that may fall outside the definition of CMRS and/
or the criteria in Sec.  20.19(a), such as those operating on networks 
that do not employ ``an in-network switching facility that enables the 
provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs.'' Such 
applications may be provided, for example, by Internet Service 
Providers (ISPs). ISPs are Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web 
Search Portals that provide clients access to the Internet and 
generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page 
designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet 
connectivity. To gauge small business prevalence for these Internet 
Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals, the Commission 
must, however, use current census data that are based on the previous 
category of Internet Service Providers and its associated size 
standard. That standard was: all such firms having $23.5 million or 
less in annual receipts. Accordingly, to use data available to it under 
the old standard and Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 
2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 
47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms 
are small entities that may be affected by this action.
    91. All Other Information Services. This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing other information 
services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives). 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 $6.5 million or less in average annual 
receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 195 
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 172 
had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional nine firms 
had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small 
entities that may be affected by this action.
    92. Part 15 Device Manufacturers. Manufacturers of unlicensed 
wireless devices may also become subject to requirements in this 
proceeding for their devices used to provide VoIP applications. The 
Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable 
to unlicensed communications devices 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 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment 
of under

[[Page 65508]]

500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999.\1\ Thus, under 
this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Id. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 
or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    93. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will adopt several 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements which could 
affect small entities. For example, manufacturers and service providers 
have filed regular reports with the Commission since 2003 detailing 
their hearing aid compatibility efforts. In order to address 
shortcomings that have been observed in the existing reports and to 
render future reports as transparent and useful as possible for 
consumers, industry, and Commission staff responsible for helping to 
ensure that the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements are 
fully implemented, the Commission tentatively concludes to adopt new 
content requirements, as recommended in the Staff Report and proposed 
in the Joint Consensus Plan.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    94. 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) and exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    95. The Commission seeks comment generally on the effect the rule 
changes considered in this NPRM 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 Commission invites comment on ways in which it can 
achieve its goals while minimizing the burden on small wireless service 
providers, equipment manufacturers, and other entities.
    96. For example, the Commission specifically considers handset 
deployment benchmark alternatives for small businesses. In this regard, 
the Commission requests comment regarding the appropriate benchmarks 
and deadlines for Tier II and Tier III carriers, resellers, mobile 
virtual network operators (MVNOs), and other categories of smaller 
service providers. The Commission notes that in the past numerous Tier 
II and Tier III carriers have requested, and many have been granted, 
extension of compatible handset deployment deadlines because they were 
unable timely to obtain compliant handsets in sufficient quantities 
from manufacturers. The Commission states that Tier II and Tier III 
carriers may have more difficulty than Tier I carriers in obtaining 
handsets due to market realities. Accordingly, the Commission seeks 
comment on the alternative of whether the handset deployment benchmarks 
proposed for Tier I carriers are appropriate for smaller carriers, and 
on whether the deadlines for those entities in particular should be 
later than those applicable to manufacturers. To consider the economic 
impact on small entities, the Commission asks commenters to address 
whether there is anything inherent in the characteristics of smaller 
service providers that would prevent them from meeting either the RF 
interference or inductive coupling-capable handset numbers and 
percentages set out for Tier I carriers. The Commission asks commenters 
to discuss with specificity any alternative requirements or schedules 
that they propose for these types of service providers, and the reasons 
for those alternatives.
    97. The NPRM also considers the alternative of delayed reporting 
obligations for non-Tier I carriers, which includes small entities. The 
NPRM seeks comment on the appropriate reporting timelines for Tier II 
and III carriers, including the alternative of delaying their next 
reports for a period of 18 months to two years from their reports that 
will be submitted in November 2007, versus the alternative of whether 
they should instead be held to the same schedule as Tier I carriers in 
order to provide a steady source of information to consumers and to the 
Commission. In this context, the Commission considers the extent of the 
burdens to Tier II and III carriers that would be avoided by postponing 
their first reports as proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan. For 
example, given that Tier II and III carriers have already been filing 
reports regularly, the Commission seeks comment on the extent of any 
inconvenience or costs that would be avoided by postponing their first 
reports as proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan, balanced against 
the extent of information that would be lost by introducing a gap of 18 
months or more in their reporting. Finally, the NPRM asks commenters to 
address whether the delayed reporting deadline alternative for Tier II 
and III carriers should depend on what deployment deadlines are 
adopted.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    98. None.

V. Ordering Clauses

    99. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority of 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 NPRM is hereby adopted.
    100. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the NPRM on 
or before December 21, 2007 and reply comments on or before January 7, 
2008.
    101. It is further ordered that the petition of American National 
Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC 
C63TM is granted to the extent set forth herein.
    102. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer 
Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of 
the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Ruth A. Dancey,
Associate Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22657 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P