[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77747-77757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31404]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 07-250; DA 11-1707]


Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-
Compatible Mobile Handsets

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Commission seeks comment on revisions to 
the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules. The 
Commission's rules define hearing aid compatibility by reference to a 
third party technical standard. Recently, a new version of that 
technical standard was developed to test the hearing aid compatibility 
of the newest generation of digital wireless handsets. The proposed 
rules would adopt the revised version of the technical standard into 
the Commission's rules.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before January 13, 
2012, and reply comments on or before January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 07-250, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1883, email [email protected], 
or Saurbh Chhabra, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2266, 
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM) in WT Docket No. 07-250, 
adopted November 1, 2010, and released on November 1, 2010. The full 
text of the SFNPRM is available for public inspection and copying 
during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also 
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at

[[Page 77748]]

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; 
the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com or by calling (800) 
378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or email [email protected]. Copies of 
the SFNPRM also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number WT Docket No. 07-
250. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal 
Communications Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, 47 
CFR 20.19, ensure that consumers with hearing loss are able to access 
wireless communications services through a wide selection of handsets 
without experiencing disabling radio frequency (RF) interference or 
other technical obstacles. In order to ensure that the hearing aid 
compatibility rules cover the greatest number of wireless handsets and 
reflect recent technological advances, the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau (WTB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) 
(collectively, ``the Bureaus'') propose in the SFNPRM, pursuant to 
authority delegated by the Commission, to adopt the most current 
hearing aid compatibility technical standard into the Commission's 
rules.

II. Background

    2. To define and measure hearing aid compatibility, the 
Commission's rules reference the 2007 revision of American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) technical standard C63.19 (the ``2007ANSI 
Standard''), formulated by the Accredited Standards Committee 
C63[supreg]--Electromagnetic Compatibility (ASC C63[supreg]). Grants of 
certification issued before January 1, 2010, under earlier versions of 
ANSI C63.19 remain valid. A handset is considered hearing aid-
compatible for acoustic coupling if it meets a rating of at least M3 
under the 2007 ANSI Standard. A handset is considered hearing aid-
compatible for inductive coupling if it meets a rating of at least T3. 
The 2007ANSI Standard specifies testing procedures for determining the 
M-rating and T-rating of digital wireless handsets that operate over 
air interfaces that, at the time it was promulgated, were commonly used 
for wireless services in the 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz bands.
    3. When service rules were established for the 700 MHz band, the 
Commission stated its expectation that hearing aid compatibility 
standards would be developed for that band. It encouraged ASC 
C63[supreg] and others to work together to develop such standards in a 
timely manner. ASC C63[supreg] recently adopted an updated version of 
the standard, the 2011 ANSI Standard, which includes the 700 MHz band 
as well as other new frequencies and technologies. The new standard was 
published on May 27, 2011. The standard may be purchased from the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) at the 
address indicated in Section 20.19(b)(5) of the Proposed Rules, and a 
copy is available for inspection at the Commission's Reference 
Information Center. ASC C63[supreg] has requested the Commission to 
adopt the newer version of the standard. Some of the features of the 
2011 ANSI Standard that are different from the 2007ANSI Standard 
include:
     The operating frequency range for wireless devices covered 
by the standard has been expanded to 698 MHz-6 GHz.
     The RF interference level of wireless devices to hearing 
aids is measured directly. Under the 2007 ANSI Standard, the RF field 
intensity of a wireless device was measured and then an adjustment was 
applied to estimate its potential for hearing aid interference. The new 
measurement method, along with the introduction of a Modulation 
Interference Factor (MIF), allows testing procedures to be applied to 
operations over any RF air interface or protocol. As a result of the 
change to a direct measurement methodology, the ANSI C63.19-2011 
revision is also able to eliminate certain conservative assumptions 
that were incorporated into the 2007 standard. Thus, for example it 
will be approximately 2.2 dB easier for a Global System for Mobile 
Communications (GSM) phone to receive an M3 rating under the 2011 
version.
     Certain low power transmitters that are unlikely to cause 
unacceptable RF interference to hearing aids are exempted from RF 
emissions testing and are deemed to meet an M4 rating.

ASC C63[supreg] states that the improved tests in the 2011 ANSI 
Standard ``are more correlated to the desired result.'' Thus, ``[t]he 
new test methods are improved at measuring the potential for hearing 
aid interference.''
    4. The Commission has recognized that revisions to the ANSI 
Standard may be necessary over time to improve hearing aid 
compatibility technical standards and accommodate technological 
advances and that the Commission's rules should evolve to reflect such 
revisions. In particular, to ensure that the hearing aid compatibility 
standard codified in the rules would remain current, the Commission in 
Section 20.19(k)(2) of the rules delegated to the Chief of WTB and the 
Chief of OET the authority, by notice-and-comment rulemaking, to 
approve the use of future versions of the standard that do not raise 
major compliance issues. In addition, the Commission in Section 
20.19(k)(1) of the rules delegated authority to the Chief of WTB and 
the Chief of OET to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to adopt future 
versions of the ANSI Standard that add additional frequency bands or 
air interfaces not covered by previous versions, if the new version 
does not impose materially greater obligations than those imposed on 
services already subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules. Under 
Section 20.19(k)(1), new obligations imposed on manufacturers and 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers as a result of WTB's 
and OET's adoption of technical standards for additional frequency 
bands and air interfaces shall become effective no less than one year 
after release of the order for manufacturers and Tier I (nationwide) 
carriers and no less than 15 months after release for other service 
providers.
    5. The SFNPRM is limited in scope and does not address all pending 
issues regarding hearing aid compatibility. Specifically, on August 5, 
2010, the Commission released the 2010 SFNPRM, 75 FR 54546 September 8, 
2010, which sought comment on extending the scope of the hearing aid 
compatibility rules beyond the current category of CMRS, extending the 
in-store testing requirement beyond retail stores owned or operated by 
service providers, and permitting a user-controlled reduction of power 
as a means to meet the hearing aid compatibility standard for all 
operations over the GSM air interface in the 1900 MHz band. In 
addition, on December 28, 2010, WTB sought comment on the operation and 
effectiveness of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules, 76 
FR 2625 January 14, 2011. The issues raised in these notices will be 
addressed separately from the SFNPRM.

III. Discussion

    6. The Bureaus propose to adopt the 2011 ANSI Standard into the 
Commission's rules as an applicable technical standard for evaluating 
the hearing aid compatibility of wireless phones. The Bureaus believe 
doing so would serve the public interest by aligning the Commission's 
rules with advances in technology and by bringing additional frequency 
bands and air interfaces under the hearing aid

[[Page 77749]]

compatibility regime. The Bureaus further tentatively conclude that 
adoption of the new technical standard would not raise any major 
compliance issues or impose materially greater obligations with respect 
to newly covered frequency bands and air interfaces than those already 
imposed under Commission rules. The Bureaus seek comment on these 
tentative conclusions and whether adoption of the 2011 ANSI Standard 
would impose new or additional costs on handset manufacturers.
    7. Under the rules the Bureaus propose, a manufacturer would be 
permitted to submit handsets for certification using either the 2007 or 
2011 version of the ANSI Standard. Consistent with the Commission's 
direction in the 2010 Second Report and Order, FR 54546 (2010), and the 
Multi-Band Principles agreed by representatives of industry and 
consumer groups, a multi-band and/or multi-mode handset model would be 
considered hearing aid-compatible for operations covered under the 2007 
ANSI Standard if it obtains certification as meeting at least an M3 or 
T3 rating for those operations and is launched within 12 months of the 
Federal Register publication of rules adopting the 2011 ANSI Standard. 
The will apply even if the handset model has not obtained certification 
as hearing aid-compatible for operations not covered under the 2007ANSI 
Standard. As under the existing rules, the Bureaus propose to continue 
requiring that a handset model meet ANSI technical standards over all 
frequency bands and air interfaces over which it operates in order to 
be considered hearing aid-compatible over any air interference for (1) 
multi-band and/or multi-mode handset models launched later than 12 
months after Federal Register publication of rules adopting the 2011 
ANSI Standard and (2) handset models that only include operations 
covered under the 2007 ANSI Standard. The Bureaus further note that the 
Commission's procedures do not permit a handset model to be tested and 
certified partly under one revision and partly under another. 
Therefore, if the proposed rule is adopted, during the 12-month 
transition period, a manufacturers that chooses to test the hearing aid 
compatibility of those operations within a handset that are only 
covered by the 2011 ANSI Standard and not covered under the 2007 ANSI 
Standard would have to test all of the operations in the handset using 
the 2011 ANSI Standard. Similarly, after the end of the transition 
period, any new handset containing operations that are not covered 
under the 2007 ANSI Standard would effectively have to be tested using 
the 2011 ANSI Standard. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.
    8. Under the existing rules, the Commission's benchmarks for 
manufacturers and service providers to deploy hearing aid-compatible 
handsets apply to operations over those frequency bands that are 
covered under the 2007 ANSI Standard. Upon adoption of the proposed 
rules, a transition period would commence to apply these benchmarks to 
operations covered under the 2011 ANSI Standard. In the 2010 SFNPRM, 
the Commission sought comment on a two-year transition period for 
applying hearing aid compatibility benchmarks and other requirements to 
wireless handsets that fall outside the subset of CMRS that is 
currently covered by Section 20.19(a). The Bureaus seek comment on 
whether a similar transition period would appropriately balance the 
design, engineering, and marketing requirements of manufacturers and 
service providers with the needs of consumers with hearing loss in the 
context of the rulemaking Would a shorter transition period, but no 
less than the minimum periods of 12 months for manufacturers and Tier I 
carriers and 15 months for other service providers, better serve the 
public interest in expediting the availability of hearing aid-
compatible phones while affording manufacturers sufficient time to 
test, produce, and ship such handsets? Alternatively is a period longer 
than two years necessary? Consistent with the Commission's current 
rules and the minimum periods permitted under the Bureau's delegated 
authority, should non-Tier I service providers be given an additional 
three months to meet deployment benchmarks in order to account for the 
difficulties they face in timely obtaining new handset models? Or, 
based on experience under the existing rules, do these service 
providers need more than three months additional time?
    9. Finally, the Commission's rules provide that whenever a 
manufacturers or service provider discloses the hearing aid 
compatibility rating of a handset that has not been tested for hearing 
aid compatibility over a newly covered air interface, the disclosure 
shall include language stated in Section 20.19(f)(2). Handsets that 
have been tested and received certification as hearing aid-compatible, 
including those deemed to meet an M4 rating without testing under ANSI 
C63.19-2011, shall be labeled as such. Handsets launched within 12 
months of Federal Register publication of rules adopting the 2011 ANSI 
Standard that meet hearing aid compatibility criteria under previously 
covered air interfaces, but that have been tested and found not to meet 
such criteria under one or more newly covered air interfaces, shall 
include adequate disclosure of the fact under rules to be promulgated 
by WTB and OET. In the absence of any suggestions as to specific 
language to be used for handsets that have been tested under newly 
covered air interfaces and found not to meet hearing aid compatibility 
criteria, the Bureaus propose not to prescribe disclosure language in 
this situation but to rely on a general disclosure requirement backed 
by case-by-case resolution in the event of disputes. The Bureaus 
understand that most handsets are expected to have little difficulty 
meeting the hearing aid compatibility rating criteria over Wi-Fi 
(Wireless Fidelity) and other currently existing or imminently expected 
air interfaces that are outside the 2007 ANSI Standard. The Bureaus 
seek comment on this proposal and invite alternative proposals, 
including any proposed disclosure language.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
(WTB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) have prepared 
the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (SFNPRM). Written public comments are 
requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the SFNPRM 
provided in the Dates section of this document. The Commission will 
send a copy of the SFNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
SFNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    11. Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2000 provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive 
bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band, the Bureaus 
believe that it would serve the public interest to analyze the possible

[[Page 77750]]

significant economic impact of the proposed policy and rule changes in 
the band on small entities. Accordingly, the IRFA contains an analysis 
of this impact in connection with all spectrum that falls within the 
scope of the SFNPRM, including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    12. The SFNPRM proposes to amend Section 20.19 of the Commission's 
rules by adopting the new ANSI C63.19-2011 standard (the ``2011 ANSI 
Standard'') as an applicable hearing aid compatibility technical 
standard. The standard establishes testing procedures to establish the 
M-rating (acoustic coupling) and T-rating (inductive coupling) to gauge 
the hearing aid compatibility of handsets. Specifically, the SFNPRM 
seeks comment on tentative conclusions that adopting the new 2011 ANSI 
Standard would raise no major compliance issues and would not impose 
materially greater obligations with respect to proposed newly covered 
frequency bands and air interfaces than those already imposed under the 
Commission's rules. By bringing additional frequency bands and air 
interfaces under the hearing aid compatibility regime, and by aligning 
the Commission's rules with the most current measurement practices, the 
proposed rule change would help ensure that consumers with hearing loss 
are able to access wireless communications services through a wide 
selection of handsets without experiencing disabling interference or 
other technical obstacles.
    13. Under the rules the Bureaus propose, beginning on the date that 
final rules become effective, a manufacturer would be permitted to 
submit handsets for certification using either ANSI C63.19 2007 (``the 
2007 ANSI Standard'') or the 2011 ANSI Standard. A multi-band and/or 
multi-mode handset model launched earlier than 12 months after Federal 
Register publication of new rules codifying the 2011 ANSI Standard 
would be considered hearing aid-compatible for operations covered under 
the current the 2007 ANSI Standard. For multi-band and/or multi-mode 
handset models launched after this period, as well as for handset 
models that only include operations covered under the 2007 ANSI 
Standard, the Bureaus propose to continue applying the current 
principle that a handset model must meet ANSI C63.19 technical 
standards over all frequency bands and air interfaces over which it 
operates in order to be considered hearing aid-compatible over any air 
interface. The SFNPRM seeks comment on the proposal. The purpose of 
this proposed rule change is to limit the compliance burdens on 
businesses, both large and small, with respect to handset models that 
are already deployed or in development at the time new rules are 
adopted.
    14. The SFNPRM also seeks comment on how to phase in the 2011 ANSI 
Standard over a defined period of time. The Bureaus seeks comment on 
whether a two-year period for applying the hearing aid-compatible 
handset deployment benchmarks to newly covered air interfaces would 
appropriately balance the design, engineering, and marketing 
requirements of manufacturers and service providers with the needs of 
consumers with hearing loss for compatible handsets over the newest 
network technologies. The Bureaus also seek comment on whether non-Tier 
I service providers should be given additional time to meet deployment 
benchmarks in order to account for the difficulties they face in timely 
obtaining new handset models. The purpose of this proposed rule change 
is to create a time frame for implementation that would be the most 
efficient and least burdensome for businesses, both large and small, 
while ensuring that consumers with hearing loss have timely access to 
wireless communications.
    15. Finally, the SFNPRM seeks comment on a proposal not to 
prescribe specific disclosure language to be used for handsets that 
meet hearing aid compatibility criteria over previously covered air 
interfaces but have been tested and found not to meet such criteria 
over Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) or other air interfaces that are outside 
the 2007 ANSI Standard. Rather, the Bureaus would rely on a general 
requirement to disclose the hearing aid compatibility status of such 
handsets. The Bureaus seek comment on this tentative conclusion and 
invite alternative proposals. This proposed rule change would be a 
minimally intrusive means of ensuring that consumers with hearing loss 
have the information they need to choose a handset that will operate 
correctly with their hearing aid or cochlear implant.
2. Legal Basis
    16. The potential actions about which comment is sought in the 
SFNPRM would be authorized pursuant to the authority contained in 
Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 610.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
    17. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. To assist the 
Commission in analyzing the total number of potentially affected small 
entities, the Commission requests commenters to estimate the number of 
small entities that may be affected by any rule changes that might 
result from the SFNPRM.
    18. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Bureaus action may, over time, affect small entities 
that are not easily categorized at present. The Bureaus therefore 
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small 
entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In 
addition, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census 
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental 
jurisdictions in the United States. The Bureaus estimate that, of this 
total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Bureaus estimate that most governmental 
jurisdictions are small.
    19. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for small businesses in the category ``Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).'' Under that SBA 
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The 
census category of ``Cellular and Other

[[Page 77751]]

Wireless Telecommunications'' is no longer used and has been superseded 
by the larger category ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
satellite).'' The Census Bureau defines this larger category to include 
``* * * establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching 
and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. 
Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging 
services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.''
    20. In this category, the SBA has deemed a wireless 
telecommunications carrier to be small if it has fewer than 1,500 
employees. For this category of carriers, Census data for 2007, which 
supersede similar data from the 2002 Census, shows 1,383 firms in this 
category. Of these 1,383 firms, only 15 (approximately 1%) had 1,000 or 
more employees. While there is no precise Census data on the number of 
firms in the group with fewer than 1,500 employees, it is clear that at 
least the 1,368 firms with fewer than 1,000 employees would be found in 
that group. Thus, at least 1,368 of these 1,383 firms (approximately 
99%) had fewer than 1,500 employees. Accordingly, the Commission 
estimates that at least 1,368 (approximately 99%) had fewer than 1,500 
employees and, thus, would be considered small under the applicable SBA 
size standard.
    21. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small 
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average 
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard 
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more 
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small 
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have 
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved 
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A 
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status 
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed 
small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 
licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 
1999, the Commission completed the re-auction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-
Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that 
auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
    22. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. 
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency 
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being 
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an 
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of 
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business 
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed 
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. 
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business 
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission 
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS 
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband 
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 
14 licenses.
    23. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards ``small 
entity'' bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that 
had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous 
calendar years. The Commission awards ``very small entity'' bidding 
credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each 
of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small 
business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The Commission has 
held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 
bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders 
claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million 
size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. 
The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels was conducted in 
1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses 
under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for 
the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for 
the 800 MHz band was conducted in 2002 and included 23 Basic Economic 
Area licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five 
licenses.
    24. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses 
for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders 
that won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels 
in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 
million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 
2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz 
SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed ``small 
business'' status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three 
auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic area licenses in the 800 
MHz SMR band claimed status as small businesses.
    25. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR 
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in 
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Bureaus do not know how many firms 
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to 
extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers 
have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 
million in revenues. In addition, the Bureaus do not know how many of 
these firms have 1500 or fewer employees. The Bureaus assume, for 
purposes of the analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended 
implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small 
business size standard is approved by the SBA.
    26. Advanced Wireless Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz 
bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-
2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3). For the AWS-1 
bands, the Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity 
with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $15 million. In 2006, the Commission conducted its first 
auction of AWS-1 licenses. In that initial AWS-1 auction, 31 winning 
bidders identified themselves as very small businesses. Twenty-six of 
the winning bidders identified themselves as small businesses. In a 
subsequent 2008 auction, the Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses. Four 
winning bidders identified themselves as very small businesses, and 
three of the winning bidders identified themselves as small

[[Page 77752]]

businesses. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although the Bureaus do not know for 
certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, the 
Bureaus note that these bands are comparable to those used for cellular 
service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet 
adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but has proposed to 
treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 
service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, 
such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing 
markets, technologies, and services.
    27. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a 
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is 
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (``BETRS''). In the present 
context, the Bureaus will use the SBA's small business size standard 
applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), 
i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are 
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and 
the Bureaus estimate that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity 
licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by 
the rules and policies adopted herein.
    28. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The Commission 
defined ``small business'' for the wireless communications services 
(WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million 
for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' as 
an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the 
three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The 
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In 
the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 
1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as 
very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that 
qualified as a small business entity.
    29. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, 
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and 
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility 
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment 
payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three 
years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. In 2000, the 
Commission conducted an auction of 52 Major Economic Area (``MEA'') 
licenses. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine 
bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total 
of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses 
commenced and closed in 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were 
sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that 
won a total of two licenses.
    30. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and 
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz 
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in 
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for 
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, 
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on 
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five 
licenses.
    31. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) was conducted in 
2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won 
by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed 
small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won 
licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 
13, 2003, and included 256 licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed 
small or very small business status, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5 
licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band. All three winning bidders claimed 
small business status.
    32. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of A, B and 
E block 700 MHz licenses was held in 2008. Twenty winning bidders 
claimed small business status (those with attributable average annual 
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million 
for the preceding three years). Thirty three winning bidders claimed 
very small business status (those with attributable average annual 
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three 
years).
    33. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. These services operate on 
several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for 
television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the 
Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in the 
service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number 
of Offshore Radiotelephone Service licensees that would qualify as 
small under the SBA's small business size standard for the category of 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under that SBA 
small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained 
in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms in this category 
that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 1000 
employees, and 15 firms had more than 1000 employees. Thus under this 
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority 
of firms can be considered small.
    34. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (``MDS'') and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service (``MMDS'') systems, and

[[Page 77753]]

``wireless cable,'' transmit video programming to subscribers and 
provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave 
frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (``BRS'') and Educational 
Broadband Service (``EBS'') (previously referred to as the 
Instructional Television Fixed Service (``ITFS'')). In connection with 
the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size 
standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more 
than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions 
resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 
493 Basic Trading Areas (``BTAs''). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met 
the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of 
stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, the Bureaus 
estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain 
small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that 
hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS 
licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number 
of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent 
licensees not already counted, the Bureaus find that there are 
currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small 
businesses under either the SBA standard or the Commission's rules. In 
2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in 
the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: 
(i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed 
$15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years 
(small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; 
(ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed 
$3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years 
(very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning 
bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues 
that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years 
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. 
Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten 
winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 
four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won 
three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won 
six licenses.
    35. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services 
small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 
2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by 
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in the 
analysis as small entities. Thus, the Bureaus estimate that at least 
1,932 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television 
Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic 
census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is 
defined as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities 
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies.'' For these services, the Commission 
uses the SBA small business size standard for the category ``Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),'' which is 1,500 or 
fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable 
services the Bureaus must, however, use the most current census data. 
Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 
Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year. Of 
those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more 
than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small 
business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    36. Government Transfer Bands. The Commission adopted small 
business size standards for the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, 
and the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands. Specifically, 
with respect to these bands, the Commission defined an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not 
exceeding $40 million as a ``small business,'' and an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not 
exceeding $15 million as a ``very small business.'' SBA has approved 
these small business size standards for the aforementioned bands. 
Correspondingly, the Commission adopted a bidding credit of 15 percent 
for ``small businesses'' and a bidding credit of 25 percent for ``very 
small businesses.'' This bidding credit structure was found to have 
been consistent with the Commission's schedule of bidding credits, 
which may be found at Section 1.2110(f)(2) of the Commission's rules. 
The Commission found that these two definitions will provide a variety 
of businesses seeking to provide a variety of services with 
opportunities to participate in the auction of licenses for this 
spectrum and will afford such licensees, who may have varying capital 
costs, substantial flexibility for the provision of services. The 
Commission noted that it had long recognized that bidding preferences 
for qualifying bidders provide such bidders with an opportunity to 
compete successfully against large, well-financed entities. The 
Commission also noted that it had found that the use of tiered or 
graduated small business definitions is useful in furthering its 
mandate under Section 47 U.S.C. 309(j) to promote opportunities for and 
disseminate licenses to a wide variety of applicants. An auction for 
one license in the 1670-1674 MHz band commenced on April 30, 2003 and 
closed the same day. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was 
not a small entity.
    37. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there 
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for 
part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 784 had less than 500 
employees and 155 had more than 100 employees. Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
    38. The proposed rules will not impose any new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or information collection requirements on small 
entities.
5. Steps Proposed To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically

[[Page 77754]]

small business alternatives that it has considered in reaching its 
proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives 
(among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting 
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of 
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    40. The Bureaus seek comment generally on the effect the rule 
changes considered in the SFNPRM would have on small entities, on 
whether alternative rules should be adopted for small entities in 
particular, and on what effect such alternative rules would have on 
those entities. The Bureaus invite comment on ways in which the 
Commission can achieve its goals while minimizing the burden on small 
wireless service providers, equipment manufacturers, and other 
entities.
    41. More specifically, the Bureaus seek comment on possible 
alternatives to their tentative conclusion to adopt the new 2011 ANSI 
Standard into the Commission's rules as a permissible technical 
standard for evaluating the hearing aid compatibility of wireless 
phones. The Bureaus note that adopting the new technical standard as 
permissible rather than mandatory may ease burdens on manufacturers, 
including small entities, and the Bureaus invite commenters to suggest 
alternatives that may further reduce possible burdens on small 
entities. The Bureaus also tentatively conclude that adoption of this 
new technical standard would not raise any major compliance issues or 
impose materially greater obligations with respect to newly covered 
frequency bands and air interfaces than those already imposed under 
Commission rules. The Bureaus seek comment on whether alternatives to 
adopting this new technical standard would impose lesser obligations on 
small entities.
    42. Under the rules the Bureaus propose in the SFNPRM, a multi-band 
and/or multi-mode handset model launched earlier than 12 months after 
Federal Register publication of new rules codifying the 2011 ANSI 
Standard would be considered hearing aid-compatible for operations 
covered under the 2007 ANSI Standard even if it has not obtained 
certification as being hearing aid-compatible for its other operations. 
This proposal is intended to reduce burdens on small entities and 
others with respect to handset models that are currently deployed or in 
development. For multi-band and/or multi-mode handset models launched 
after this period, as well as for handset models that only include 
operations covered under the 2007 ANSI Standard, the Bureaus propose to 
retain the current principle that a handset model must meet ANSI C63.19 
technical standards over all frequency bands and air interfaces over 
which it operates in order to be considered hearing aid-compatible over 
any air interface. The Bureaus invite commenters to suggest similar 
alternatives that may ease compliance burdens on small entities.
    43. As a result of the proposed adoption of the 2011 ANSI Standard, 
after an appropriate transition period the deployment benchmarks set 
forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 20.19 would become 
applicable to manufacturers and service providers offering handsets 
that operate over newly covered frequency bands and air interfaces. The 
Bureaus seek comment on alternatives to the two-year transition period 
that would appropriately balance the design, engineering, and marketing 
requirements of manufacturers and service providers with the needs of 
consumers with hearing loss for compatible handsets over the newest 
network technologies. In recognition that smaller service providers may 
encounter greater difficulties transitioning to the 2011 ANSI Standard, 
the Bureaus propose in the SFNPRM that smaller service providers should 
have three months longer to transition than Tier I carriers. The 
Bureaus invite comment on whether alternative transition periods, 
particularly for small entities, would further lessen the burden on 
small entities while protecting the interest of hard-of-hearing 
consumers in having access to a wide variety of wireless handsets.
    44. Finally, handsets launched up to 12 months after Federal 
Register publication of rules the 2011 ANSI Standard that meet hearing 
aid compatibility criteria under previously covered air interfaces, but 
that have been tested and found not to meet such criteria under one or 
more newly covered air interfaces, shall include adequate disclosure of 
this fact under rules to be promulgated by WTB and OET. In the absence 
of any suggestions as to specific language to be used for handsets that 
have been tested under newly covered air interfaces and found not to 
meet hearing aid compatibility criteria, the Bureaus propose not to 
prescribe disclosure language in this situation but to rely on a 
general disclosure requirement backed by case-by-case resolution in the 
event of disputes. The Bureaus seek comment on whether any alternative 
proposals may further reduce the impact on small entities.
    45. For the duration of the docketed proceeding, the Commission 
will continue to examine alternatives with the objectives of 
eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing any significant 
economic impact on small entities.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules
    46. None.

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    47. The SFNPRM does not contain proposed information collection(s) 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

C. Other Procedural Matters

1. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
    48. The proceeding the SFNPRM initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents

[[Page 77755]]

shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed 
to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 
rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which 
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, 
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in the proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Comment Filing Procedures
    49. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [dec222] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [dec222] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of the proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     [dec222] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
     [dec222] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     [dec222] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    50. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 
418-0432 (tty).
    51. For further information regarding the SFNPRM, contact Michael 
Rowan, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1883, email 
[email protected], or Saurbh Chhabra, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, (202) 418-2266, email [email protected].

Ordering Clauses

    52. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 
and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 
610, that the second further notice of proposed rulemaking is hereby 
adopted.
    53. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the second 
further notice of proposed rulemaking on or before 30 days after 
publication of the second further notice of proposed rulemaking in the 
Federal Register and reply comments on or before 45 days after 
publication in the Federal Register.
    54. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the second further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    55. The action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to 
Sections 0.241(a)(1), 0.331(d), and 20.19(k) of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 0.241(a)(1), 0.331(d), and 20.19(k).

List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, 
Incorporated by reference, and Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Rick Kaplan,
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
Julius P. Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.

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

PART 20--COMMERICIAL MOBILE SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 301, 303, 316, and 
332 unless otherwise noted. Section 20.12 is also issued under 47 
U.S.C. 1302. Section 20.19 is also issued under 47 U.S.C. 610.

    2. Section 20.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1) 
and (2), adding paragraph (b)(3), revising paragraphs (b)(5), (c) 
introductory text, (d) introductory text, revising (f)(2), (f)(2)(i), 
and (f)(2)(ii) and adding paragraph (f)(2)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.19  Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The hearing aid compatibility requirements of this section 
apply to providers of digital CMRS in the United States to the extent 
that they offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that 
is interconnected with the public switched network and utilizes an in-
network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse 
frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls, and 
such service is provided over frequencies in the 698 MHz to 6 GHz 
bands.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For radio frequency interference. A wireless handset submitted 
for equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to 
hearing aid compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the M3 rating 
associated with the technical standard set forth in either the standard 
document ``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of 
Compatibility Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing 
Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) or ANSI C63.19-2011 (May 27, 
2011). Any grants of certification issued before January 1, 2010, under 
previous versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid 
compatibility purposes.
    (2) For inductive coupling. A wireless handset submitted for 
equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing 
aid compatibility must meet, at a minimum, the T3 rating associated 
with the technical standard set forth in either the standard document 
``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility 
Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-
2007 (June 8, 2007) or ANSI C63.19-2011 (May 27, 2011). Any grants of 
certification issued before January 1, 2010, under previous

[[Page 77756]]

versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility 
purposes.
    (3) Handsets operating over multiple frequency bands or air 
interfaces.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a 
wireless handset used for digital CMRS only over the 698 MHz to 6 GHz 
frequency bands is hearing aid-compatible with regard to radio 
frequency interference or inductive coupling if it meets the applicable 
technical standard(s) set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 
section for all frequency bands and air interfaces over which it 
operates, and the handset has been certified as compliant with the test 
requirements for the applicable standard pursuant to Sec.  2.1033(d) of 
the chapter. A wireless handset that incorporates operations outside 
the 698 MHz to 6 GHz frequency bands is hearing aid-compatible if the 
handset otherwise satisfies the requirements of this paragraph.
    (ii) A handset that is introduced by the manufacturer prior to [12 
months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register], 
and that does not meet the requirements for hearing aid compatibility 
under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, is hearing aid-compatible 
for radio frequency interference or inductive coupling only with 
respect to those frequency bands and air interfaces for which technical 
standards are stated in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) if it meets the 
applicable technical standard(s) set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2) of this section for all such frequency bands and air interfaces 
over which it operates, and the handset has been certified as compliant 
with the test requirements for the applicable standard pursuant to 
Sec.  2.1033(d) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (5) The following standards are incorporated by reference in this 
section: Accredited Standards Committee C63\TM\--Electromagnetic 
Compatibility, ``American National Standard Methods of Measurement of 
Compatibility Between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing 
Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007), Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, Inc., publisher; and Accredited Standards 
Committee C63\TM\--Electromagnetic Compatibility, ``American National 
Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility Between Wireless 
Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,'' ANSI C63.19-2011 (May 27, 
2011), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 
publisher. These incorporations by reference were approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the 
date of the approval, and notice of any change in these materials will 
be published in the Federal Register. The materials are available for 
inspection at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th St. 
SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 
and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of these materials at NARA, call (202) 
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    The materials are also available for purchase from IEEE Operations 
Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141, by calling (732) 981-
0060, or going to http://www.ieee.org/portal/site.
    (c) Phase-in of requirements relating to radio frequency 
interference. The following applies to each manufacturer and service 
provider that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the 
services specified in paragraph (a) of this section and that does not 
fall within the de minimis exception set forth in paragraph (e) of this 
section. However, prior to [24 months after date of publication of the 
Final Rule in the Federal Register] for manufacturers and Tier I 
carriers and [27 months after date of publication of the Final Rule in 
the Federal Register] for service providers other than Tier I carriers, 
the requirements of this section do not apply to handset operations 
over frequency bands and air interfaces for which technical standards 
are not stated in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007).
* * * * *
    (d) Phase-in of requirements relating to inductive coupling 
capability. The following applies to each manufacturer and service 
provider that offers wireless handsets used in the delivery of the 
services specified in paragraph (a) of this section and that does not 
fall within the de minimis exception set forth in paragraph (e) of this 
section. However, prior to [24 months after date of publication of the 
Final Rule in the Federal Register] for manufacturers and Tier I 
carriers and [27 month after date of publication of the Final Rules in 
the Federal Register] for service providers other than Tier I carriers, 
the requirements of this section do not apply to handset operations 
over frequency bands and air interfaces for which technical standards 
are not stated in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Disclosure requirements relating to handsets treated as hearing 
aid-compatible over fewer than all their operations.
    (i) Each manufacturer and service provider shall ensure that, 
wherever it provides hearing aid compatibility ratings for a handset 
that is considered hearing aid-compatible for some of its operations 
under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section and that has not been tested 
for hearing aid compatibility under ANSI C63.19-2011 (May 27, 2011), or 
any handset that operates over frequencies outside of the 698 MHz to 6 
GHz bands, it discloses to consumers, by clear and effective means 
(e.g., inclusion of call-out cards or other media, revisions to 
packaging materials, supplying of information on Web sites), that the 
handset has not been rated for hearing aid compatibility with respect 
to some of its operation(s). The disclosure shall include the following 
language:
    This phone has been tested and rated for use with hearing aids for 
some of the wireless technologies that it uses. However, there may be 
some newer wireless technologies used in this phone that have not been 
tested yet for use with hearing aids. It is important to try the 
different features of this phone thoroughly and in different locations, 
using your hearing aid or cochlear implant, to determine if you hear 
any interfering noise. Consult your service provider or the 
manufacturer of this phone for information on hearing aid 
compatibility. If you have questions about return or exchange policies, 
consult your service provider or phone retailer.
    (ii) However, service providers are not required to include this 
language in the packaging material for handsets that incorporate a Wi-
Fi air interface and that were obtained by the service provider before 
March 8, 2011, provided that the service provider otherwise discloses 
by clear and effective means that the handset has not been rated for 
hearing aid compatibility with respect to Wi-Fi operation.
    (iii) Each manufacturer and service provider shall ensure that, 
wherever it provides hearing aid compatibility ratings for a handset 
that is considered hearing aid-compatible for some of its operations 
under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section and that has been tested and 
found not to meet hearing aid compatibility requirements under ANSI 
C63.19-2011 (May 27, 2011) for operations over one or more air 
interfaces or frequency bands for which technical standards are not 
stated in ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007), it discloses to consumers, 
by clear and

[[Page 77757]]

effective means (e.g., inclusion of call-out cards or other media, 
revisions to packaging materials, supplying of information on Web 
sites), that the handset does not meet the relevant rating or ratings 
with respect to such operation(s).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-31404 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P