Revisions to Reporting Requirements Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, 47663-47669 [2017-22189]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
47663
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
41 CFR Appendix C to Chapter 301 and
Parts 304–2, 304–3, and 304–6
47 CFR Part 20
[FTR Case 2016–301; Docket No. 2016–
0008, Sequence 1]
Revisions to Reporting Requirements
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
Mobile Handsets
RIN 3090–AJ69
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ACTION:
Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr.
Febres can be reached via telephone at
(404) 562–8966 or via electronic mail
febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov.
In the
Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the SIP
revision as a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period
on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this
document should do so at this time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: September 29, 2017.
Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017–22116 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am]
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
Clarification of Payment in Kind for
Speakers at Meetings and Similar
Functions; Withdrawal
Office of Government-wide
Policy, U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA).
AGENCY:
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The General Services
Administration (GSA) is withdrawing
FTR Case 2016–301; Clarification of
Payment in Kind for Speakers at
Meetings and Similar Functions. This
proposed rule is being withdrawn so
that GSA can develop a comprehensive
revision to the Federal Travel
Regulation.
SUMMARY:
The proposed rule published on
August 15, 2016 (81 FR 53979) is
withdrawn as of October 13, 2017.
DATES:
Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20405, 202–501–4755.
ADDRESSES:
For
clarification of content, contact Ms. Jill
Denning, Program Analyst, Office of
Government-wide Policy, at 202–208–
7642. Contact the Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20405, 202–501–4755,
for information pertaining to status or
publication schedules. Please cite FTR
case 2016–301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Appendix C
to Chapter 301 and Parts 304–2, 304–3,
and 304–6
Government employees, Travel and
transportation expenses.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707, and 5 U.S.C.
5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353.
Dated: October 5, 2017.
Allison Fahrenkopf Brigati,
Associate Administrator, Office of
Government-wide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017–22016 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Oct 12, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[WT Docket No. 17–228; FCC 17–123]
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on
proposals to provide relief to nonnationwide service providers by
revising the Commission’s wireless
hearing aid compatibility reporting
requirements.
DATES: Interested parties may file
comments on or before November 13,
2017, and reply comments on or before
November 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
and reply comments on or before the
dates indicated in the DATES section
above. Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All
filings related to this document shall
refer to WT Docket No. 17–228.
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction,
Annapolis, MD 20701.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM
13OCP1
47664
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
For additional information on the
rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
In addition to filing comments with
the Secretary, a copy of any comments
on the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection modifications
proposed herein should be submitted to
the Commission via email to PRA@
fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office
of Management and Budget, via email to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via
fax at 202–395–5167.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on this proceeding,
contact Michael Rowan, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–
1883, email Michael.Rowan@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Federal
Communications Commission’s Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, in WT Docket
No. 17–228; FCC 17–123, adopted
September 26, 2017, and released on
September 27, 2017. This document is
available for download at https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The
complete text of this document is also
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (Braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to FCC504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY).
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Discussion
1. The Commission seeks comment on
whether to exempt a service provider
that is not a Tier I carrier (Non-Tier I
Service Provider) from the annual FCC
Form 655 reporting requirements or
otherwise to modify these requirements,
while maintaining the reporting
requirements for Tier I carriers and all
handset manufacturers.
2. The Commission seeks comment on
whether the annual reporting
requirements for Non-Tier I Service
Providers are still necessary to achieve
the Commission’s objectives for
adopting the reporting requirements and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Oct 12, 2017
Jkt 244001
whether the burden of complying with
these reporting requirements for NonTier I Service Providers outweighs the
associated benefits. The Commission, in
adopting these reporting requirements,
stated that its reporting requirements
serve several purposes: Providing
information to the public, assisting
efforts to verify compliance, and
monitoring the general state of hearing
aid-compatible handset deployment.
The Commission asks commenters to
address the contribution of Non-Tier I
Service Provider reports to these
objectives and whether these reports are
still necessary to achieve these
objectives.
3. For example, the Commission seeks
comment on the extent to which
consumers rely on Non-Tier I Service
Providers’ annual reports for
information about handset models. The
Commission notes that the
Commission’s in-store testing and Web
site posting requirements will continue
to apply if the Commission adopts an
exemption from the Form 655 reporting
requirements. The Commission seeks
comment on whether consumers will
have sufficient information from service
providers’ ongoing compliance with
these requirements. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether the
continued availability of Tier I carrier
reports suggests that, in the aggregate,
the informational benefit to consumers
of Non-Tier I Service Provider reports
will be minimal or otherwise supports
exempting them from reporting
requirements. Similarly, are consumers
informed to a greater degree about the
availability of handset models in the
marketplace from the reports of device
manufacturers?
4. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether consumers can
obtain information from other thirdparty resources and whether they may
be better or more accessible sources of
information to the public about handset
offerings than the status reports filed
with the Commission. For instance, the
Global Accessibility Reporting Initiative
(GARI) is a project run by the Mobile &
Wireless Forum that is designed to help
consumers learn more about the
accessibility features of mobile devices
and to help them identify devices with
the features that may assist them with
their particular needs. Are these
information sources sufficient? If not,
commenters should provide specific
examples of the information these
sources are missing.
5. With regard to monitoring the
compliance of Non-Tier I Service
Providers with the Commission’s rules,
the Commission seeks comment on
whether the Commission should rely on
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
its informal complaint process to help
ensure Non-Tier I Service Providers
continue to meet deployment
benchmarks and other requirements.
Given that these annual reports in
recent years have reflected near
universal compliance with the
requirements, is detailed reporting from
every small and regional service
provider still justified to address any
isolated instances of non-compliance by
such providers? Would eliminating or
modifying the reporting requirements
help these service providers save costs
without an appreciable negative impact
on the Commission’s enforcement
objectives? For example, the
Commission notes that the Commission
already relies on the informal complaint
process rather than reporting to monitor
compliance with other hearing aid
compatibility obligations, such as instore testing requirements. The
Commission solicits comment on
whether our enforcement objectives can
be met by continuing to monitor the
reports from device manufacturers and
Tier I carriers.
6. The Commission seeks comment on
whether Non-Tier I Service Provider
reporting is necessary to meet the
Commission’s objective of gauging the
overall state of access to wireless
hearing aid-compatible handset models.
Is it sufficient if the Commission only
receives reports from manufacturers and
Tier I carriers? For instance, the
Commission has previously recognized
that Non-Tier I Service Providers have
difficulty obtaining the newest hearing
aid-compatible handsets in comparison
to the Tier I carriers, and the
Commission seeks comment on whether
the majority of newer compatible
handset models on the market is
reflected in Tier I carriers’ status
reports. Do Tier I carrier reports better
reflect the feasibility of achieving
hearing aid compatibility in handsets
than the reports of Non-Tier I Service
Providers? Additionally, the
Commission in 2010 noted the ‘‘growing
distribution of wireless handsets
through channels other than service
providers.’’ To what extent has this
development reduced the importance of
service provider reports in assessing
access to compatible models? To
monitor the state of hearing aidcompatible handset availability and
technologies, the Commission also seeks
comment on whether the Commission
can rely on supplemental submissions
for this type of information from
stakeholders in open docket WT Docket
No. 15–285.
7. The Commission also seeks
comment on the burdens on Non-Tier I
Service Providers of complying with the
E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM
13OCP1
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Form 655 reporting requirements. Do
special circumstances make annual
status reporting particularly
burdensome for small, rural, and
regional carriers? If so, what are these
circumstances and what is the burden or
cost that results from them? 1 The
Commission asks commenters to
explain all such burdens in detail,
including the costs in labor and wages
of complying with the reporting
requirements.
8. The Commission seeks comment on
all potential cost savings and other
potential benefits of our proposed
reporting exemption. The FCC Form 655
Instructions state ‘‘each response to this
collection of information will take, on
average, two and a half (2.5) hours.’’ Is
this estimate accurate? Are there
resources or measures not accounted for
in this estimate that are needed for
small providers specifically to meet the
reporting requirements? Please explain
all such burdens in detail. Because all
non-reporting requirements under
section 20.19 will continue to apply to
Non-Tier I Service Providers in the
event the Commission adopts an
exemption from the reporting
requirements, including the obligation
to offer a sufficient number of hearing
aid-compatible handset models to meet
the applicable benchmarks, parties
should be careful to distinguish burdens
that will continue to be incurred in
complying with our section 20.19 rules,
even in the absence of reporting
requirements, such as burdens related to
ascertaining the hearing aid
compatibility ratings of various handset
models offered to meet deployment
benchmarks.
9. Alternative Size Standard. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
the scope of any exemption should be
based on an alternative definition of
carrier or size standard. Section 20.19
defines a Tier I carrier as ‘‘a CMRS
provider that offers such service
nationwide.’’ Accordingly, a Non-Tier I
Service Provider exemption would
cover all non-nationwide providers,
including small and regional providers.
Instead of exempting all non-nationwide
service providers, the scope of the
exemption could be based on the
number of subscribers and apply if a
service provider offers service to no
more than, for example, 500,000
subscribers, the number of subscribers
used to define small (i.e., ‘‘Tier III’’)
status in other proceedings. The
Commission seeks comment on the
1 To the extent parties support an alternative
definition or size standard for a reporting
exemption, we seek comment on the burdens
applicable to providers meeting that definition or
standard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Oct 12, 2017
Jkt 244001
feasibility of such an alternative
approach, and whether it offers any
advantages over using the Tier I
standard that is already incorporated
generally throughout the section 20.19
hearing aid compatibility rules. Would
a subscriber-based reporting threshold
rely on 2001 subscriber counts, which
are used in the Tier III definition used
elsewhere in the Commission’s rules, or
instead be based on a provider’s
subscriber count in a given reporting
year? Are there any other alternatives
that the Commission should consider,
such as expanding the exemption to all
service providers or limiting the
exemption to providers meeting the
small size standard that is incorporated
in the de minimis exception rule, i.e.,
providers with 1,500 or fewer
employees?
10. Alternative Reporting Period or
Certification. If the Commission
determines that it would not serve the
public interest to eliminate reporting
requirements completely for Non-Tier I
Service Providers, the Commission
seeks comment on whether there are
other ways to reduce the burdens
associated with these requirements.
Would it serve the public interest to
require reporting less frequently? For
instance, would requiring Non-Tier I
Service Providers to file only once every
three years instead of annually better
balance the benefits of having such a
reporting requirement against the
burdens that it imposes? If so, what are
the costs and benefits of revising the
reporting requirements along these
lines? Alternatively, rather than
eliminating the reporting requirements
or lengthening the interval between
reports, would a better balance between
the costs and benefits of the reporting
requirements be achieved by requiring
these service providers to submit a
certification to the Commission,
annually or otherwise, that they have
met section 20.19 deployment
benchmarks and other requirements,
such as those on in-store testing and
Web site postings? If so, should the
certification form simply contain a box
to check that the requirements have
been met, or should the certification
form request additional information,
such as the web address of the hearing
aid compatibility information published
on the service provider’s Web site, if
applicable, and whether the service
provider has received inquiries or
complaints about the availability of
hearing aid compatible handsets? What
are the costs and benefits of using a
certification approach instead of the
existing reporting approach? Which
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47665
approach better serves the public
interest?
11. Timing. Assuming that the
Commission adopts a reporting
exemption or modified reporting
requirement, the Commission seeks
comment on when such a change
should become effective (e.g., as soon as
is possible, after some period of time, or
after some triggering event). Would it be
in the public interest to have the change
become effective as soon as possible,
such that the Commission affords relief
to Non-Tier I Service Providers at the
soonest applicable filing deadline?
Alternatively, would a better approach
be to have the change become effective
at some alternative point in time or after
a certain trigger is met, (e.g., only after
a Non-Tier I Service Provider meets
either the 66 or 85 percent enhanced
deployment benchmarks that the
Commission adopted last year)? The
Commission seeks commenters to
explain how their proposed approach
would best serve the public interest.
The Commission also seeks comment on
the costs and benefits of the various
approaches.
12. Related Changes. The Commission
seeks comment on whether any changes
to other aspects of the section 20.19
hearing aid compatibility requirements
would be necessary or appropriate to
accommodate or reflect a reporting
exemption or modified reporting
requirement for Non-Tier I Service
Providers. For example, the de minimis
exception rule, while otherwise
exempting certain service providers
from the requirements of the hearing aid
compatibility rules, requires these
providers to continue to submit annual
FCC Form 655 reports. The Commission
seeks comment on whether it makes
sense to retain this requirement for
service providers if only, e.g., Tier I
carriers are required to submit annual
FCC Form 655 reports. The Commission
also seeks comment on any other
changes to section 20.19 of the rules if
the scope of the reporting requirement
exemption depends on factors such as
the number of subscribers. If the
Commission adopts a reporting
exemption or modified reporting
requirement in this proceeding, what
changes to the online FCC Form 655 or
related instructions, if any, would be
necessary or appropriate to implement
the exemption?
13. Other Updates. Finally, in light of
various changes in the marketplace
since these reporting requirements were
adopted, the Commission seeks
comment on additional ways to
streamline or update hearing aid
compatibility reporting for all service
providers, including Tier I carriers.
E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM
13OCP1
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47666
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Commenters should provide
quantitative and qualitative cost and
benefit analyses to support their
proposals and to evaluate whether any
aspects of the reporting requirements
are unnecessary and outdated or could
be streamlined or simplified to reduce
burdens. Commenters should address,
for example, whether reporting of
handset offerings on a month-to-month
basis and the level of details reported
under our rules and the current FCC
Form 655 continue to remain
appropriate to protect consumers, or
whether they can be modified to reduce
burdens while preserving benefits to
consumers. For example, should the
Commission continue to require 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? Should the reports
continue to include the air interface(s)
and frequency band(s) over which each
reported handset model operates? Do
such reports need to track compliance
on a month-to-month basis in order to
protect consumers? Commenters should
consider all additional ways to
streamline and improve the quality and
usefulness of the Form 655 and whether
there are alternative, less costly ways to
ensure that current and future
deployment benchmarks are being met.
For instance, does or could the
Commission obtain hearing aid
compatibility information as part of
other data collections, such as from the
manufacturer applications for
equipment certifications of handsets? If
commenters find that the currently
collected information is insufficient,
they should explain why and how it can
be improved, or whether this
information can be combined with other
sources to streamline the hearing aid
compatibility reporting requirements.
Further, can third party sources, such as
GARI, replace some of the information
the Commission requires? Commenters
should provide specific information
about what information collected in the
Form 655 is duplicative to other
available Commission or third party
data. Any proposed changes should
include an analysis of costs and benefits
of current and proposed collections, and
how the proposed changes will continue
to preserve the benefits to consumers
from our policy objectives.
II. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
14. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 603,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Oct 12, 2017
Jkt 244001
the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
concerning the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the
policies and rules proposed in this
NPRM. Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments provided above. The
Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
15. For some time now, the
Commission has required all covered
device manufacturers and wireless
service providers regardless of size to
file annual reports on their offering of
handsets that are compatible with
hearing aids. Beginning in 2003, the
Commission established a schedule
requiring covered device manufacturers
and wireless service providers to submit
hearing aid compatibility reports every
six months from 2004 through 2006, and
then annually in 2007 and 2008. In
2008, the Commission extended annual
reporting requirements on an openended basis for covered device
manufacturers and wireless service
providers in order to verify compliance
with the hearing aid compatibility rules.
The Commission required the same
reporting content from all covered
entities, regardless of size, including
those that come under the de minimis
exception in the hearing aid
compatibility rules. These reporting
requirements have helped the
Commission fulfill its responsibilities in
monitoring the status of access to
hearing aid-compatible handsets,
verifying compliance with the rules, and
ensuring that the public has useful
information on compatible handsets.
16. In 2008, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB),
pursuant to delegated authority, made
electronic FCC Form 655 available for
service providers and device
manufacturers to use in submitting
hearing aid compatibility status reports,
and made its use mandatory beginning
with the filing deadline for device
manufacturers on July 15, 2009.
17. In this document, the Commission
seeks comment on whether and to what
extent to exempt wireless service
providers that are not Tier I carriers
(Non-Tier I Service Providers) from
annual FCC Form 655 reporting
requirements, while maintaining these
requirements for Tier I carriers and all
handset manufacturers. The
Commission states that numerous
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
parties, especially rural and small
wireless service providers, have asserted
for some time that preparing these
annual reports is burdensome. The
Commission seeks comment on the
burdens of compliance with the Form
655 reporting requirements for Non-Tier
I Service Providers, and whether the
benefits of the reporting requirement as
applied to these providers continues to
outweigh the costs or burdens the
reporting requirement places on them.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on whether Non-Tier I Service
Provider reporting is necessary to meet
the Commission’s objectives of
providing information to the public,
assisting efforts to verify compliance,
and monitoring the general state of
hearing aid-compatible handset
deployment. With regard to monitoring
the compliance of Non-Tier I Service
Providers with the hearing aid
compatibility rules, the Commission
seeks comment on whether it should
rely on the informal complaint process
to help ensure Non-Tier I Service
Providers continue to meet deployment
benchmarks and other hearing aid
compatibility requirements. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether eliminating or modifying the
reporting requirement would permit
Non-Tier 1 Service Providers to save
costs without an appreciable negative
impact on the Commission’s
enforcement objectives.
18. In this document, the Commission
asks detailed questions to help it
evaluate these issues, and asks parties to
submit specific data in response to the
Notice. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on the scope of the
exemption, when the exemption should
begin to apply, and whether other
changes to the hearing aid compatibility
rules or the FCC Form 655 may be
necessary or appropriate to implement
or reflect the new exemption.
2. Legal Basis
19. The proposed actions for which
comments have been sought in this
document is authorized under sections
4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and
610.
3. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
20. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM
13OCP1
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small
business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA. Below, the
Commission provides a description of
such small entities, as well as an
estimate of the number of such small
entities, where feasible.
21. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time,
may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We
therefore describe here, at the outset,
three broad groups of small entities that
could be directly affected herein. First,
while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are
used in the regulatory flexibility
analysis, according to data from the
SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a
small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500
employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States which
translates to 28.8 million businesses.
22. Next, the type of small entity
described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of August 2016,
there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and
tax data filed by nonprofits with
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
23. Finally, the small entity described
as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’
is defined generally as ‘‘governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than
fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau
data from the 2012 Census of
Governments indicates that there were
90,056 local governmental jurisdictions
consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose
governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 37, 132 general
purpose governments (county,
municipal and town or township) with
populations of less than 50,000 and
12,184 special purpose governments
(independent school districts and
special districts) with populations of
less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census
Bureau data for most types of
governments in the local government
category shows that the majority of
these governments have populations of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Oct 12, 2017
Jkt 244001
less than 50,000. Based on this data we
estimate that at least 49,316 local
government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’
24. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications
equipment, including unlicensed
devices. Examples of products made by
these establishments are: transmitting
and receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, radio and
television studio and broadcasting
equipment. The Small Business
Administration has established a size
standard for this industry of 750
employees or less. U.S. Census data for
2012, shows that 841 establishments
operated in this industry in that year. Of
that number, 828 establishments
operated with fewer than 1,000
employees, 7 establishments operated
with between 1,000 and 2,499
employees and 6 establishments
operated with 2,500 or more employees.
Based on this data, the Commission
concludes that a majority of
manufacturers in this industry is small.
25. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers.
The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities applicable to
unlicensed communications handset
manufacturers. The SBA category of
Radio and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing is the closest NAICS
code category for Part 15 Handset
Manufacturers. The Radio and
Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications
equipment. Examples of products made
by these establishments are:
Transmitting and receiving antennas,
cable television equipment, GPS
equipment, pagers, cellular phones,
mobile communications equipment, and
radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.’’ The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing, as firms having 750 or
fewer employees. U.S. Census data for
2012, shows that 841 establishments
operated in this industry in that year. Of
that number, 828 establishments
operated with fewer than 1,000
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47667
employees, 7 establishments operated
with between 1,000 and 2,499
employees and 6 establishments
operated with 2,500 or more employees.
Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms can be considered
small.
26. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (Except Satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
phone services, paging services,
wireless Internet access, and wireless
video services.’’ The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite) is that a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 shows that there
were 967 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees
and 12 had employment of 1000
employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities.
27. The Commission’s own data—
available in its Universal Licensing
System—indicate that, as of October 25,
2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees
that will be affected by our actions
today. The Commission does not know
how many of these licensees are small,
as the Commission does not collect that
information for these types of entities.
Similarly, according to Commission
data, 413 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of
wireless telephony, including cellular
service, Personal Communications
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees. Thus, using
available data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
28. Also included in this
classification is Personal Radio Services,
which provide short-range, low power
radio for personal communications,
radio signaling, and business
communications not provided for in
other services. The Personal Radio
Services include spectrum licensed
under part 95 of the Commission’s rules.
These services include Citizen Band
Radio Service (‘‘CB’’), General Mobile
Radio Service (‘‘GMRS’’), Radio Control
E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM
13OCP1
47668
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Radio Service (‘‘R/C’’), Family Radio
Service (‘‘FRS’’), Wireless Medical
Telemetry Service (‘‘WMTS’’), Medical
Implant Communications Service
(‘‘MICS’’), Low Power Radio Service
(‘‘LPRS’’), and Multi-Use Radio Service
(‘‘MURS’’). The Commission notes that
many of the licensees in these services
are individuals, and thus are not small
entities. In addition, due to the mostly
unlicensed and shared nature of the
spectrum utilized in many of these
services, the Commission lacks direct
information upon which to base a more
specific estimation of the number of
small entities under an SBA definition
that might be directly affected by our
action.
29. Wireless Resellers. The SBA has
not developed a small business size
standard specifically for Wireless
Resellers. The SBA category of
Telecommunications Resellers is the
closest NAICS code category for
wireless resellers. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in
purchasing access and network capacity
from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) are included in this
industry. Under the SBA’s size
standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census data for 2012 shows that 1,341
firms provided resale services during
that year. Of that number, all operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the
majority of these resellers can be
considered small entities.
4. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
30. The Commission is not proposing
to impose any additional reporting or
record keeping requirements. Rather, as
discussed in the next section, the
Commission is seeking comment on
whether and to what extent it can
reduce burdens on small wireless
service providers by exempting them
from hearing aid compatibility reporting
requirements. Presently, these
requirements include filing electronic
FCC Form 655 on an annual basis.
However, the Commission also asks
whether it should require those wireless
service providers who qualify for the
new exemption to file a certification,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:19 Oct 12, 2017
Jkt 244001
either annually or otherwise, that states
that they meet the hearing aid
compatibility deployment benchmarks
and other requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
31. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in developing its
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
32. To assist the Commission’s
evaluation of the economic impact on
small entities, as a result of actions that
have been proposed in this Notice, and
to better explore options and
alternatives, the Commission has sought
comment from the parties. In this
Notice, the Commission has requested
that commenters estimate the number of
small entities that may be affected by
any rule changes that might result from
this Notice, to assist the Commission in
analyzing the total number of
potentially affected small entities. The
Notice also seeks comment on whether
and to what extent it should exempt
wireless service providers that are not
Tier I carriers from annual reporting
requirements, while maintaining these
requirements for Tier I carriers and all
handset manufacturers. Under the
Commission’s current hearing aid
compatibility rules, all covered wireless
service providers regardless of size must
electronically file FCC Form 655 with
the Commission in January of each year.
While these reports have helped the
Commission meet several of its
objectives, the Commission is seeking
comment on whether the burden of
filing this form for small wireless
service providers outweighs the benefits
that the form provides the Commission
and the public. The Commission is
seeking comment, in part, on whether
and how this change would benefit
small entities.
33. The Commission expects to more
fully consider the economic impact on
small entities, following the review of
comments filed in response to this
document. In seeking comment on
whether to exempt non-nationwide
wireless service providers from annual
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reporting requirements, the Commission
considers several alternatives and steps
it could take to implement its proposal.
For example, the Commission invites
comment on whether the hearing aid
compatibility rules should incorporate
an alternative definition or size standard
on which a reporting exemption for
small, rural, or regional service
providers could be based. Specifically,
the Commission asks whether the
exemption could be based on a
threshold number of subscribers. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether to limit the new exemption to
wireless service providers who meet the
small size standard that is incorporated
in the de minimis rule, i.e., wireless
service providers with 1500 or fewer
employees. The Commission further
seeks comment on the timing of when
such an exemption should go into effect.
Finally, the Commission asks whether
to require those wireless service
providers who qualify for the new
exemption to file a certification, either
annually or otherwise, that states that
they meet the hearing aid compatibility
deployment benchmarks and other
requirements. The Commission invites
comment on ways in which the
Commission can achieve its goals, but at
the same time further reduce the
burdens on small entities.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
34. None.
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis
35. This document contains proposed
modified 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 of
1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
the Commission seeks specific comment
on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.
C. Other Procedural Matters
1. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-but-Disclose
36. The proceeding that the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking initiates shall be
treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM
13OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
III. Ordering Clauses
37. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and
610, that this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
38. It is further ordered that pursuant
to applicable procedures set forth in
sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments on this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on or before [thirty days
after the date of publication in the
Federal Register], and reply comments
on or before [forty-five days after the
date of publication in the Federal
Register].
39. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:18 Oct 12, 2017
Jkt 244001
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers,
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend part 20
of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 20
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a) 154(i),
157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303,
303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316,
316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 20.19 is amended by
revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile
handsets.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Reporting requirements—(1)
Reporting dates. Manufacturers shall
submit reports on efforts toward
compliance with the requirements of
this section on an annual basis on July
15. Tier I carriers shall submit reports
on an annual basis on January 15.
Service providers that are not Tier I
carriers are not required to submit
reports. Information in the reports must
be up-to-date as of the last day of the
calendar month preceding the due date
of the report.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–22189 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[WC Docket No. 17–192, CC Docket No. 95–
155; FCC 17–124]
Toll Free Assignment Modernization;
Toll Free Service Access Codes
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
47669
Proposed rule.
In this document, a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks
comment on allowing the Commission
to assign numbers by auction, on a firstcome, first-served basis, by an
alternative assignment methodology, or
by a combination of methodologies. The
NPRM seeks comment on allowing a
secondary market for toll free numbers
and on setting aside toll free numbers
necessary to promote health and safety
for use, without cost, by government
agencies and non-profit health and
safety organizations. The NPRM also
seeks comment on whether to consider
changes to overall toll free number
administration. The intended effect of
this NPRM is to make toll free numbers
available on a more equitable and
efficient basis by assigning mutually
exclusive toll free numbers to the
parties that value them most.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
November 13, 2017, and reply
comments are due on or before
December 12, 2017. Written comments
on the Paperwork Reduction Act
proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the
public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested
parties on or before December 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by both WC Docket No. 17–
192, and CC Docket No. 95–155 by any
of the following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Mail: Parties who choose to file by
paper must file an original and one copy
of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
submit two additional copies for each
additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission. All hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP1.SGM
13OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47663-47669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22189]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 17-228; FCC 17-123]
Revisions to Reporting Requirements Governing Hearing Aid-
Compatible Mobile Handsets
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on proposals to provide relief to non-
nationwide service providers by revising the Commission's wireless
hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before November 13,
2017, and reply comments on or before November 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and reply comments on or before the
dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be filed using
the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998). All filings related to this document shall refer to WT Docket
No. 17-228.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, Annapolis, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be
[[Page 47664]]
addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
For additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
modifications proposed herein should be submitted to the Commission via
email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management
and Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at
202-395-5167.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
proceeding, contact Michael Rowan, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
(202) 418-1883, email Michael.Rowan@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal
Communications Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in WT Docket
No. 17-228; FCC 17-123, adopted September 26, 2017, and released on
September 27, 2017. This document is available for download at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. The complete text of this document is
also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours
in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
I. Discussion
1. The Commission seeks comment on whether to exempt a service
provider that is not a Tier I carrier (Non-Tier I Service Provider)
from the annual FCC Form 655 reporting requirements or otherwise to
modify these requirements, while maintaining the reporting requirements
for Tier I carriers and all handset manufacturers.
2. The Commission seeks comment on whether the annual reporting
requirements for Non-Tier I Service Providers are still necessary to
achieve the Commission's objectives for adopting the reporting
requirements and whether the burden of complying with these reporting
requirements for Non-Tier I Service Providers outweighs the associated
benefits. The Commission, in adopting these reporting requirements,
stated that its reporting requirements serve several purposes:
Providing information to the public, assisting efforts to verify
compliance, and monitoring the general state of hearing aid-compatible
handset deployment. The Commission asks commenters to address the
contribution of Non-Tier I Service Provider reports to these objectives
and whether these reports are still necessary to achieve these
objectives.
3. For example, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which
consumers rely on Non-Tier I Service Providers' annual reports for
information about handset models. The Commission notes that the
Commission's in-store testing and Web site posting requirements will
continue to apply if the Commission adopts an exemption from the Form
655 reporting requirements. The Commission seeks comment on whether
consumers will have sufficient information from service providers'
ongoing compliance with these requirements. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the continued availability of Tier I carrier reports
suggests that, in the aggregate, the informational benefit to consumers
of Non-Tier I Service Provider reports will be minimal or otherwise
supports exempting them from reporting requirements. Similarly, are
consumers informed to a greater degree about the availability of
handset models in the marketplace from the reports of device
manufacturers?
4. The Commission also seeks comment on whether consumers can
obtain information from other third-party resources and whether they
may be better or more accessible sources of information to the public
about handset offerings than the status reports filed with the
Commission. For instance, the Global Accessibility Reporting Initiative
(GARI) is a project run by the Mobile & Wireless Forum that is designed
to help consumers learn more about the accessibility features of mobile
devices and to help them identify devices with the features that may
assist them with their particular needs. Are these information sources
sufficient? If not, commenters should provide specific examples of the
information these sources are missing.
5. With regard to monitoring the compliance of Non-Tier I Service
Providers with the Commission's rules, the Commission seeks comment on
whether the Commission should rely on its informal complaint process to
help ensure Non-Tier I Service Providers continue to meet deployment
benchmarks and other requirements. Given that these annual reports in
recent years have reflected near universal compliance with the
requirements, is detailed reporting from every small and regional
service provider still justified to address any isolated instances of
non-compliance by such providers? Would eliminating or modifying the
reporting requirements help these service providers save costs without
an appreciable negative impact on the Commission's enforcement
objectives? For example, the Commission notes that the Commission
already relies on the informal complaint process rather than reporting
to monitor compliance with other hearing aid compatibility obligations,
such as in-store testing requirements. The Commission solicits comment
on whether our enforcement objectives can be met by continuing to
monitor the reports from device manufacturers and Tier I carriers.
6. The Commission seeks comment on whether Non-Tier I Service
Provider reporting is necessary to meet the Commission's objective of
gauging the overall state of access to wireless hearing aid-compatible
handset models. Is it sufficient if the Commission only receives
reports from manufacturers and Tier I carriers? For instance, the
Commission has previously recognized that Non-Tier I Service Providers
have difficulty obtaining the newest hearing aid-compatible handsets in
comparison to the Tier I carriers, and the Commission seeks comment on
whether the majority of newer compatible handset models on the market
is reflected in Tier I carriers' status reports. Do Tier I carrier
reports better reflect the feasibility of achieving hearing aid
compatibility in handsets than the reports of Non-Tier I Service
Providers? Additionally, the Commission in 2010 noted the ``growing
distribution of wireless handsets through channels other than service
providers.'' To what extent has this development reduced the importance
of service provider reports in assessing access to compatible models?
To monitor the state of hearing aid-compatible handset availability and
technologies, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the
Commission can rely on supplemental submissions for this type of
information from stakeholders in open docket WT Docket No. 15-285.
7. The Commission also seeks comment on the burdens on Non-Tier I
Service Providers of complying with the
[[Page 47665]]
Form 655 reporting requirements. Do special circumstances make annual
status reporting particularly burdensome for small, rural, and regional
carriers? If so, what are these circumstances and what is the burden or
cost that results from them? \1\ The Commission asks commenters to
explain all such burdens in detail, including the costs in labor and
wages of complying with the reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent parties support an alternative definition or
size standard for a reporting exemption, we seek comment on the
burdens applicable to providers meeting that definition or standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Commission seeks comment on all potential cost savings and
other potential benefits of our proposed reporting exemption. The FCC
Form 655 Instructions state ``each response to this collection of
information will take, on average, two and a half (2.5) hours.'' Is
this estimate accurate? Are there resources or measures not accounted
for in this estimate that are needed for small providers specifically
to meet the reporting requirements? Please explain all such burdens in
detail. Because all non-reporting requirements under section 20.19 will
continue to apply to Non-Tier I Service Providers in the event the
Commission adopts an exemption from the reporting requirements,
including the obligation to offer a sufficient number of hearing aid-
compatible handset models to meet the applicable benchmarks, parties
should be careful to distinguish burdens that will continue to be
incurred in complying with our section 20.19 rules, even in the absence
of reporting requirements, such as burdens related to ascertaining the
hearing aid compatibility ratings of various handset models offered to
meet deployment benchmarks.
9. Alternative Size Standard. The Commission seeks comment on
whether the scope of any exemption should be based on an alternative
definition of carrier or size standard. Section 20.19 defines a Tier I
carrier as ``a CMRS provider that offers such service nationwide.''
Accordingly, a Non-Tier I Service Provider exemption would cover all
non-nationwide providers, including small and regional providers.
Instead of exempting all non-nationwide service providers, the scope of
the exemption could be based on the number of subscribers and apply if
a service provider offers service to no more than, for example, 500,000
subscribers, the number of subscribers used to define small (i.e.,
``Tier III'') status in other proceedings. The Commission seeks comment
on the feasibility of such an alternative approach, and whether it
offers any advantages over using the Tier I standard that is already
incorporated generally throughout the section 20.19 hearing aid
compatibility rules. Would a subscriber-based reporting threshold rely
on 2001 subscriber counts, which are used in the Tier III definition
used elsewhere in the Commission's rules, or instead be based on a
provider's subscriber count in a given reporting year? Are there any
other alternatives that the Commission should consider, such as
expanding the exemption to all service providers or limiting the
exemption to providers meeting the small size standard that is
incorporated in the de minimis exception rule, i.e., providers with
1,500 or fewer employees?
10. Alternative Reporting Period or Certification. If the
Commission determines that it would not serve the public interest to
eliminate reporting requirements completely for Non-Tier I Service
Providers, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are other ways
to reduce the burdens associated with these requirements. Would it
serve the public interest to require reporting less frequently? For
instance, would requiring Non-Tier I Service Providers to file only
once every three years instead of annually better balance the benefits
of having such a reporting requirement against the burdens that it
imposes? If so, what are the costs and benefits of revising the
reporting requirements along these lines? Alternatively, rather than
eliminating the reporting requirements or lengthening the interval
between reports, would a better balance between the costs and benefits
of the reporting requirements be achieved by requiring these service
providers to submit a certification to the Commission, annually or
otherwise, that they have met section 20.19 deployment benchmarks and
other requirements, such as those on in-store testing and Web site
postings? If so, should the certification form simply contain a box to
check that the requirements have been met, or should the certification
form request additional information, such as the web address of the
hearing aid compatibility information published on the service
provider's Web site, if applicable, and whether the service provider
has received inquiries or complaints about the availability of hearing
aid compatible handsets? What are the costs and benefits of using a
certification approach instead of the existing reporting approach?
Which approach better serves the public interest?
11. Timing. Assuming that the Commission adopts a reporting
exemption or modified reporting requirement, the Commission seeks
comment on when such a change should become effective (e.g., as soon as
is possible, after some period of time, or after some triggering
event). Would it be in the public interest to have the change become
effective as soon as possible, such that the Commission affords relief
to Non-Tier I Service Providers at the soonest applicable filing
deadline? Alternatively, would a better approach be to have the change
become effective at some alternative point in time or after a certain
trigger is met, (e.g., only after a Non-Tier I Service Provider meets
either the 66 or 85 percent enhanced deployment benchmarks that the
Commission adopted last year)? The Commission seeks commenters to
explain how their proposed approach would best serve the public
interest. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs and benefits
of the various approaches.
12. Related Changes. The Commission seeks comment on whether any
changes to other aspects of the section 20.19 hearing aid compatibility
requirements would be necessary or appropriate to accommodate or
reflect a reporting exemption or modified reporting requirement for
Non-Tier I Service Providers. For example, the de minimis exception
rule, while otherwise exempting certain service providers from the
requirements of the hearing aid compatibility rules, requires these
providers to continue to submit annual FCC Form 655 reports. The
Commission seeks comment on whether it makes sense to retain this
requirement for service providers if only, e.g., Tier I carriers are
required to submit annual FCC Form 655 reports. The Commission also
seeks comment on any other changes to section 20.19 of the rules if the
scope of the reporting requirement exemption depends on factors such as
the number of subscribers. If the Commission adopts a reporting
exemption or modified reporting requirement in this proceeding, what
changes to the online FCC Form 655 or related instructions, if any,
would be necessary or appropriate to implement the exemption?
13. Other Updates. Finally, in light of various changes in the
marketplace since these reporting requirements were adopted, the
Commission seeks comment on additional ways to streamline or update
hearing aid compatibility reporting for all service providers,
including Tier I carriers.
[[Page 47666]]
Commenters should provide quantitative and qualitative cost and benefit
analyses to support their proposals and to evaluate whether any aspects
of the reporting requirements are unnecessary and outdated or could be
streamlined or simplified to reduce burdens. Commenters should address,
for example, whether reporting of handset offerings on a month-to-month
basis and the level of details reported under our rules and the current
FCC Form 655 continue to remain appropriate to protect consumers, or
whether they can be modified to reduce burdens while preserving
benefits to consumers. For example, should the Commission continue to
require 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? Should the
reports continue to include the air interface(s) and frequency band(s)
over which each reported handset model operates? Do such reports need
to track compliance on a month-to-month basis in order to protect
consumers? Commenters should consider all additional ways to streamline
and improve the quality and usefulness of the Form 655 and whether
there are alternative, less costly ways to ensure that current and
future deployment benchmarks are being met. For instance, does or could
the Commission obtain hearing aid compatibility information as part of
other data collections, such as from the manufacturer applications for
equipment certifications of handsets? If commenters find that the
currently collected information is insufficient, they should explain
why and how it can be improved, or whether this information can be
combined with other sources to streamline the hearing aid compatibility
reporting requirements. Further, can third party sources, such as GARI,
replace some of the information the Commission requires? Commenters
should provide specific information about what information collected in
the Form 655 is duplicative to other available Commission or third
party data. Any proposed changes should include an analysis of costs
and benefits of current and proposed collections, and how the proposed
changes will continue to preserve the benefits to consumers from our
policy objectives.
II. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
14. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5
U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in
this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments provided above. The Commission will send a copy
of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration (SBA).
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
15. For some time now, the Commission has required all covered
device manufacturers and wireless service providers regardless of size
to file annual reports on their offering of handsets that are
compatible with hearing aids. Beginning in 2003, the Commission
established a schedule requiring covered device manufacturers and
wireless service providers to submit hearing aid compatibility reports
every six months from 2004 through 2006, and then annually in 2007 and
2008. In 2008, the Commission extended annual reporting requirements on
an open-ended basis for covered device manufacturers and wireless
service providers in order to verify compliance with the hearing aid
compatibility rules. The Commission required the same reporting content
from all covered entities, regardless of size, including those that
come under the de minimis exception in the hearing aid compatibility
rules. These reporting requirements have helped the Commission fulfill
its responsibilities in monitoring the status of access to hearing aid-
compatible handsets, verifying compliance with the rules, and ensuring
that the public has useful information on compatible handsets.
16. In 2008, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), pursuant
to delegated authority, made electronic FCC Form 655 available for
service providers and device manufacturers to use in submitting hearing
aid compatibility status reports, and made its use mandatory beginning
with the filing deadline for device manufacturers on July 15, 2009.
17. In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether and
to what extent to exempt wireless service providers that are not Tier I
carriers (Non-Tier I Service Providers) from annual FCC Form 655
reporting requirements, while maintaining these requirements for Tier I
carriers and all handset manufacturers. The Commission states that
numerous parties, especially rural and small wireless service
providers, have asserted for some time that preparing these annual
reports is burdensome. The Commission seeks comment on the burdens of
compliance with the Form 655 reporting requirements for Non-Tier I
Service Providers, and whether the benefits of the reporting
requirement as applied to these providers continues to outweigh the
costs or burdens the reporting requirement places on them.
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether Non-Tier I
Service Provider reporting is necessary to meet the Commission's
objectives of providing information to the public, assisting efforts to
verify compliance, and monitoring the general state of hearing aid-
compatible handset deployment. With regard to monitoring the compliance
of Non-Tier I Service Providers with the hearing aid compatibility
rules, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should rely on the
informal complaint process to help ensure Non-Tier I Service Providers
continue to meet deployment benchmarks and other hearing aid
compatibility requirements. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether eliminating or modifying the reporting requirement would permit
Non-Tier 1 Service Providers to save costs without an appreciable
negative impact on the Commission's enforcement objectives.
18. In this document, the Commission asks detailed questions to
help it evaluate these issues, and asks parties to submit specific data
in response to the Notice. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on
the scope of the exemption, when the exemption should begin to apply,
and whether other changes to the hearing aid compatibility rules or the
FCC Form 655 may be necessary or appropriate to implement or reflect
the new exemption.
2. Legal Basis
19. The proposed actions for which comments have been sought in
this document is authorized under sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and
610.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
20. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as
[[Page 47667]]
the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA. Below, the Commission provides a description of such small
entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities,
where feasible.
21. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8
million businesses.
22. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
23. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number, there were 37, 132 general purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,184 special purpose governments (independent school
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000.
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the
local government category shows that the majority of these governments
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
24. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment, including unlicensed devices.
Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, radio and television
studio and broadcasting equipment. The Small Business Administration
has established a size standard for this industry of 750 employees or
less. U.S. Census data for 2012, shows that 841 establishments operated
in this industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated
with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated
with 2,500 or more employees. Based on this data, the Commission
concludes that a majority of manufacturers in this industry is small.
25. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers. The Commission has not developed
a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed communications
handset manufacturers. The SBA category of Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing is the
closest NAICS code category for Part 15 Handset Manufacturers. The
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, as firms having 750 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census data for 2012, shows that 841 establishments
operated in this industry in that year. Of that number, 828
establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7
establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6
establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
26. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services,
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video
services.'' The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is
that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
27. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing
System--indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular
licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission
does not collect that information for these types of entities.
Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that
they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including
cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
28. Also included in this classification is Personal Radio
Services, which provide short-range, low power radio for personal
communications, radio signaling, and business communications not
provided for in other services. The Personal Radio Services include
spectrum licensed under part 95 of the Commission's rules. These
services include Citizen Band Radio Service (``CB''), General Mobile
Radio Service (``GMRS''), Radio Control
[[Page 47668]]
Radio Service (``R/C''), Family Radio Service (``FRS''), Wireless
Medical Telemetry Service (``WMTS''), Medical Implant Communications
Service (``MICS''), Low Power Radio Service (``LPRS''), and Multi-Use
Radio Service (``MURS''). The Commission notes that many of the
licensees in these services are individuals, and thus are not small
entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature
of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission
lacks direct information upon which to base a more specific estimation
of the number of small entities under an SBA definition that might be
directly affected by our action.
29. Wireless Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business
size standard specifically for Wireless Resellers. The SBA category of
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICS code category for
wireless resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012
shows that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of
that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under
this category and the associated small business size standard, the
majority of these resellers can be considered small entities.
4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
30. The Commission is not proposing to impose any additional
reporting or record keeping requirements. Rather, as discussed in the
next section, the Commission is seeking comment on whether and to what
extent it can reduce burdens on small wireless service providers by
exempting them from hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements.
Presently, these requirements include filing electronic FCC Form 655 on
an annual basis. However, the Commission also asks whether it should
require those wireless service providers who qualify for the new
exemption to file a certification, either annually or otherwise, that
states that they meet the hearing aid compatibility deployment
benchmarks and other requirements.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which
may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
32. To assist the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on
small entities, as a result of actions that have been proposed in this
Notice, and to better explore options and alternatives, the Commission
has sought comment from the parties. In this Notice, the Commission has
requested that commenters estimate the number of small entities that
may be affected by any rule changes that might result from this Notice,
to assist the Commission in analyzing the total number of potentially
affected small entities. The Notice also seeks comment on whether and
to what extent it should exempt wireless service providers that are not
Tier I carriers from annual reporting requirements, while maintaining
these requirements for Tier I carriers and all handset manufacturers.
Under the Commission's current hearing aid compatibility rules, all
covered wireless service providers regardless of size must
electronically file FCC Form 655 with the Commission in January of each
year. While these reports have helped the Commission meet several of
its objectives, the Commission is seeking comment on whether the burden
of filing this form for small wireless service providers outweighs the
benefits that the form provides the Commission and the public. The
Commission is seeking comment, in part, on whether and how this change
would benefit small entities.
33. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic
impact on small entities, following the review of comments filed in
response to this document. In seeking comment on whether to exempt non-
nationwide wireless service providers from annual reporting
requirements, the Commission considers several alternatives and steps
it could take to implement its proposal. For example, the Commission
invites comment on whether the hearing aid compatibility rules should
incorporate an alternative definition or size standard on which a
reporting exemption for small, rural, or regional service providers
could be based. Specifically, the Commission asks whether the exemption
could be based on a threshold number of subscribers. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether to limit the new exemption to wireless
service providers who meet the small size standard that is incorporated
in the de minimis rule, i.e., wireless service providers with 1500 or
fewer employees. The Commission further seeks comment on the timing of
when such an exemption should go into effect. Finally, the Commission
asks whether to require those wireless service providers who qualify
for the new exemption to file a certification, either annually or
otherwise, that states that they meet the hearing aid compatibility
deployment benchmarks and other requirements. The Commission invites
comment on ways in which the Commission can achieve its goals, but at
the same time further reduce the burdens on small entities.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
34. None.
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
35. This document contains proposed modified 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 of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks specific comment on
how the Commission might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
C. Other Procedural Matters
1. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-but-Disclose
36. The proceeding that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiates
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file
[[Page 47669]]
a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
III. Ordering Clauses
37. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r),
and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
303(r), and 610, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby
adopted.
38. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on or before [thirty days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register], and reply comments on or before
[forty-five days after the date of publication in the Federal
Register].
39. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend part 20 of title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a) 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214,
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309,
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 20.19 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.
* * * * *
(i) Reporting requirements--(1) Reporting dates. Manufacturers
shall submit reports on efforts toward compliance with the requirements
of this section on an annual basis on July 15. Tier I carriers shall
submit reports on an annual basis on January 15. Service providers that
are not Tier I carriers are not required to submit reports. Information
in the reports must be up-to-date as of the last day of the calendar
month preceding the due date of the report.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-22189 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P