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, 65494-65508 [E7-22657]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 21, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65494-65508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, 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: 
FCC504@fcc.gov 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 https://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: https://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): https://
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 https://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 Nicholas--A.--Fraser@omb.eop.gov 
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 Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
    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