Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63TM, 33324-33326 [E8-13219]

Download as PDF 33324 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations Flooding source(s) * Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD) # Depth in feet above ground Modified Location of referenced elevation Communities affected # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Brookfield Maps are available for inspection City of Delafield Maps are available for inspection City of Muskego Maps are available for inspection City of New Berlin Maps are available for inspection City of Oconomowoc Maps are available for inspection City of Pewaukee Maps are available for inspection at 2000 N. Calhoun Road, Brookfield, WI 53005. at 500 Genesee Street, Delafield, WI 53018. at W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, Muskego, WI 53150–0749. at 3805 South Casper Drive, New Berlin, WI 53151. at 174 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Oconomowoc, WI 53066. at W240 N3065 Pewaukee Road, Pewaukee, WI 53072. Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 515 W. Moorland Blvd., Waukesha, WI 53188. Village of Dousman Maps are available for inspection at 118 S. Main Street, Dousman, WI 53118. Village of Elm Grove Maps are available for inspection at 13600 Juneau Blvd., Elm Grove, WI 53122. Village of Hartland Maps are available for inspection at 210 Cottonwood Avenue, Hartland, WI 53029. Village of Menomonee Falls Maps are available for inspection at W156 N8480 Pilgrim Road, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051–3140. Village of Merton Maps are available for inspection at 28343 Sussex Road, Merton, WI 53056. Village of Mukwonago Maps are available for inspection at 440 River Crest Court, Mukwonago, WI 53149. Village of Pewaukee Maps are available for inspection at 235 Hickory Street, Pewaukee, WI 53072. Village of Sussex Maps are available for inspection at N64 W23760 Main Street, Sussex, WI 53089. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) Dated: May 28, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8–13199 Filed 6–11–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–12–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [WT Docket No. 07–250; FCC 08–68] Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63TM Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Request for comments. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites additional submissions regarding the treatment under its hearing aid compatibility rules of multi-mode and multi-band handsets and regarding the application of the de minimis exception to those rules. 16:29 Jun 11, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 You may submit ex parte submissions, 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. ADDRESSES: 47 CFR Part 20 AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 The Commission requests comments on or before August 28, 2008. DATES: Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM 12JNR1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations • 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 submissions received will be posted without change to https://www.fcc.gov/ cgb/ecfs including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Trachtenberg, Spectrum & Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6119, Washington, DC 20554. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of open issues in the Commission’s First Report & Order (R&O) in WT Docket No. 07–250 released February 28, 2008. The complete text of the Commission’s R&O is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 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 R&O 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 08–68. The R&O 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.] This is a summary of the two new issues raised in the R&O that the public can comment on through the ex parte process in WT Docket No. 07–250: Multi-mode and multi-band handsets. In the R&O, the Commission clarifies that, to be counted as hearing aidcompatible, a handset model must meet compatibility standards for each air interface and frequency band it uses so long as standards exist for each of those bands and air interfaces. Except for an interim ruling with respect to handsets that incorporate Wi-Fi capabilities, the Commission does not resolve whether, or to what extent, multi-band and multimode handsets should be counted as VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 Jun 11, 2008 Jkt 214001 hearing aid-compatible if they operate in part over frequency bands or air interfaces for which technical standards have not yet been established. The record contains arguments both in favor of and against treating such handsets as hearing aid-compatible. Moreover, according to industry representatives, no such handsets currently exist, with the exception of devices incorporating Wi-Fi capability. The Commission accepts the proposal endorsed by both industry and consumer representatives to leave the record open so that they may develop a consensus plan on this issue in the near term. The Commission looks forward to receiving from the parties to the consensus discussions general principles within three months of the release of the R&O and a detailed proposal within six months, and the Commission also invites the views of other parties. The Commission anticipates acting on a final order shortly after receiving the detailed consensus proposal. The Commission’s decision to take additional time to resolve this issue turns in part on the current unavailability of such handsets. The Commission therefore expects handset manufacturers to keep it informed regarding the status of developments of such handsets, and asks the parties to the consensus discussions to include that information as part of their filings in three and six months. If such handsets are made available in the interim, the Commission will act expeditiously to address the hearing aid compatibility status of those handsets. When the Commission subsequently addresses the application of hearing aid compatibility requirements to Wi-Fi operations, it will consider an appropriate transition regime to bring any requirements into effect. In view of the fact that Wi-Fi-capable handsets are currently available, the Commission invites comments on whether a period of time should be given before any requirements to meet hearing aid compatibility standards for handsets that incorporate Wi-Fi capability become effective, and if so what that time period should be. It has been argued by some commenters that due to the lower power of the Wi-Fi operations, these operations are unlikely to cause interference to hearing aids. However, there has been no specific showing towards this. The Commission invites comments in this area in order to help it consider the application of hearing aid compatibility requirements to Wi-Fi operations and consider a transition regime to bring such requirements into effect. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 33325 De minimis rule. Section 20.19 provides a de minimis exception to hearing aid compatibility obligations for those manufacturers and mobile service providers that only offer a small number of handset models. In the R&O, the Commission retains the existing de minimis rule and clarifies that it applies on a per-air interface basis rather than across a manufacturer’s or service provider’s entire product line. Two commenters proposed that the exception be modified so that it does not apply on a permanent basis to large businesses that produce only one or two handsets with mass appeal, such as Apple’s iPhone. The Commission does not adopt this limitation at this time, but leaves the record open for further comments. The Commission recognizes the concern of Hearing Loss Association of America and Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (HLAA/TDI) and Gallaudet University Technology Access program and Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access (Gallaudet/RERC) that if a manufacturer produces only one or two models of a popular handset that is not hearing aidcompatible, consumers with hearing loss may be denied access to attractive features of that handset indefinitely. At the same time, as the Commission has stated previously, the exception was not adopted solely for the benefit of small businesses, but for businesses of any size that sell only a small number of digital wireless handsets in the United States. The primary concern of the Commission is that the rule not be limited in a manner that would compromise its effectiveness in promoting innovation and competition. The Commission also takes note of the fact that large manufacturers with highly successful initial devices may not continue indefinitely to produce only two or fewer handset models, but instead may expand their product offerings in response to consumer demand for new and different features, thereby bringing themselves under the hearing aid compatibility rules and benefiting consumers both with and without hearing loss. It is also unclear exactly how the changes proposed by Gallaudet/RERC and HLAA/TDI would operate in practice. The Commission invites comments on how ‘‘large business,’’ ‘‘handsome profits,’’ or ‘‘mass appeal’’ would be defined. To the extent the rule’s application would depend on the volume and profitability of sales during the first year, the Commission asks whether manufacturers have sufficient ability to anticipate the obligations to which they E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM 12JNR1 33326 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 114 / Thursday, June 12, 2008 / Rules and Regulations would be subject and plan accordingly. The commenting parties to these questions are requested to address the details and effects of any limitation on the de minimis exception that they may propose, and the need for the limitation to protect consumers’ access to phones with advanced or desirable technologies and features. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8–13219 Filed 6–11–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Parts 201, 204, 205, 211, 212, 213, 217, 241, 243, 291, 298, 325, 330, 331, and 382 49 CFR Parts 1, 7, 10, 24, 26, 31, 37, and 40 [Docket DOT–OST–2008–0173] RIN 2105–AD74 OST Technical Corrections 2. Pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and the Norman Mineta Research and Innovative Technology Act, certain elements of DOT were reorganized. 3. DOT moved its Headquarters in Washington, DC to a new site. 4. A minor reorganization in the Office of the DOT General Counsel transferred oversight responsibility for FOIA to a new division. 5. The Chief Information Officer has replaced the Assistant Secretary for Administration as the DOT Chief Privacy Officer. This publication makes corrections to the OST regulations to reflect these organizational and functional changes. In addition, it corrects the DOT headquarters address throughout OST’s regulations. Since this amendment relates to departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, since the amendment merely makes technical corrections and updates, I find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register. Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. Regulatory Analyses and Notices SUMMARY: DOT is amending a number of its regulations to reflect reorganization of some elements of DOT and the move of DOT’s Headquarters site in Washington, DC. This action is taken on DOT’s initiative. DATES: Effective Date June 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert I. Ross, Office of the General Counsel, C–60, Room W96–314, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone 202.366.9156; telecopier 202.366.9170; e-mail: bob.ross@dot.gov, or Joanne Petrie, Office of the General Counsel, C–50, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone 202.366.9315; telecopier 202.366.9313; e-mail: joanne.petrie@dot.gov. The final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034). It was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. There are no costs associated with this rule. AGENCY: Since its organizational, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and Privacy Act regulations were last revised, DOT has undergone a number of changes that make some parts of those regulations incorrect: 1. Establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moved the United States Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration from DOT to DHS. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 Jun 11, 2008 Jkt 214001 A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Executive Order 13132 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. C. Executive Order 13175 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. We also do not believe this rule would impose any costs on small entities because it simply delegates authority from one official to another and makes other nonsubstantive corrections. Therefore, I certify this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department of Transportation has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking. List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 201 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 204 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 205 Air carriers, Freight, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 211 Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 212 Charter flights, Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 14 CFR Part 213 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 217 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 241 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts. E:\FR\FM\12JNR1.SGM 12JNR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 114 (Thursday, June 12, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33324-33326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13219]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 08-68]


Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American 
National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 (EMC) 
ANSI ASC C63TM

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites 
additional submissions regarding the treatment under its hearing aid 
compatibility rules of multi-mode and multi-band handsets and regarding 
the application of the de minimis exception to those rules.

DATES: The Commission requests comments on or before August 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit ex parte submissions, 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.

[[Page 33325]]

     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 submissions received will be 
posted without change to https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs including any 
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Trachtenberg, Spectrum & 
Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, 
Room 6119, Washington, DC 20554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of open issues in the 
Commission's First Report & Order (R&O) in WT Docket No. 07-250 
released February 28, 2008. The complete text of the Commission's R&O 
is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 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 R&O 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 08-68. The R&O 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.]
    This is a summary of the two new issues raised in the R&O that the 
public can comment on through the ex parte process in WT Docket No. 07-
250:
    Multi-mode and multi-band handsets. In the R&O, the Commission 
clarifies that, to be counted as hearing aid-compatible, a handset 
model must meet compatibility standards for each air interface and 
frequency band it uses so long as standards exist for each of those 
bands and air interfaces. Except for an interim ruling with respect to 
handsets that incorporate Wi-Fi capabilities, the Commission does not 
resolve whether, or to what extent, multi-band and multi-mode handsets 
should be counted as hearing aid-compatible if they operate in part 
over frequency bands or air interfaces for which technical standards 
have not yet been established. The record contains arguments both in 
favor of and against treating such handsets as hearing aid-compatible. 
Moreover, according to industry representatives, no such handsets 
currently exist, with the exception of devices incorporating Wi-Fi 
capability. The Commission accepts the proposal endorsed by both 
industry and consumer representatives to leave the record open so that 
they may develop a consensus plan on this issue in the near term. The 
Commission looks forward to receiving from the parties to the consensus 
discussions general principles within three months of the release of 
the R&O and a detailed proposal within six months, and the Commission 
also invites the views of other parties. The Commission anticipates 
acting on a final order shortly after receiving the detailed consensus 
proposal. The Commission's decision to take additional time to resolve 
this issue turns in part on the current unavailability of such 
handsets. The Commission therefore expects handset manufacturers to 
keep it informed regarding the status of developments of such handsets, 
and asks the parties to the consensus discussions to include that 
information as part of their filings in three and six months. If such 
handsets are made available in the interim, the Commission will act 
expeditiously to address the hearing aid compatibility status of those 
handsets.
    When the Commission subsequently addresses the application of 
hearing aid compatibility requirements to Wi-Fi operations, it will 
consider an appropriate transition regime to bring any requirements 
into effect. In view of the fact that Wi-Fi-capable handsets are 
currently available, the Commission invites comments on whether a 
period of time should be given before any requirements to meet hearing 
aid compatibility standards for handsets that incorporate Wi-Fi 
capability become effective, and if so what that time period should be. 
It has been argued by some commenters that due to the lower power of 
the Wi-Fi operations, these operations are unlikely to cause 
interference to hearing aids. However, there has been no specific 
showing towards this. The Commission invites comments in this area in 
order to help it consider the application of hearing aid compatibility 
requirements to Wi-Fi operations and consider a transition regime to 
bring such requirements into effect.
    De minimis rule. Section 20.19 provides a de minimis exception to 
hearing aid compatibility obligations for those manufacturers and 
mobile service providers that only offer a small number of handset 
models. In the R&O, the Commission retains the existing de minimis rule 
and clarifies that it applies on a per-air interface basis rather than 
across a manufacturer's or service provider's entire product line.
    Two commenters proposed that the exception be modified so that it 
does not apply on a permanent basis to large businesses that produce 
only one or two handsets with mass appeal, such as Apple's iPhone. The 
Commission does not adopt this limitation at this time, but leaves the 
record open for further comments. The Commission recognizes the concern 
of Hearing Loss Association of America and Telecommunications for the 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (HLAA/TDI) and Gallaudet University 
Technology Access program and Rehabilitation Engineering Research 
Center on Telecommunications Access (Gallaudet/RERC) that if a 
manufacturer produces only one or two models of a popular handset that 
is not hearing aid-compatible, consumers with hearing loss may be 
denied access to attractive features of that handset indefinitely. At 
the same time, as the Commission has stated previously, the exception 
was not adopted solely for the benefit of small businesses, but for 
businesses of any size that sell only a small number of digital 
wireless handsets in the United States. The primary concern of the 
Commission is that the rule not be limited in a manner that would 
compromise its effectiveness in promoting innovation and competition. 
The Commission also takes note of the fact that large manufacturers 
with highly successful initial devices may not continue indefinitely to 
produce only two or fewer handset models, but instead may expand their 
product offerings in response to consumer demand for new and different 
features, thereby bringing themselves under the hearing aid 
compatibility rules and benefiting consumers both with and without 
hearing loss. It is also unclear exactly how the changes proposed by 
Gallaudet/RERC and HLAA/TDI would operate in practice. The Commission 
invites comments on how ``large business,'' ``handsome profits,'' or 
``mass appeal'' would be defined. To the extent the rule's application 
would depend on the volume and profitability of sales during the first 
year, the Commission asks whether manufacturers have sufficient ability 
to anticipate the obligations to which they

[[Page 33326]]

would be subject and plan accordingly. The commenting parties to these 
questions are requested to address the details and effects of any 
limitation on the de minimis exception that they may propose, and the 
need for the limitation to protect consumers' access to phones with 
advanced or desirable technologies and features.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-13219 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.