Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2625 

12. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Because this rule proposes 

authorization of pre-existing State rules 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law and 

there are no anticipated significant 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects, the rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

13. Congressional Review Act 

EPA will submit a report containing 

this rule and other information required 

by the Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–749 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[WT Docket No. 10–254; DA 10–2388] 

Comment Sought on 2010 Review of 

Hearing Aid Compatibility Regulations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) 

seeks comments on the operation and 

effectiveness of the Commission’s rules 

relating to hearing aid compatibility of 

wireless handsets. On the basis of the 

evaluation, the Bureau will consider 

whether to recommend to the 

Commission both rule revisions and 

non-regulatory measures to ensure that 

persons with hearing loss will continue 

to have broad access to evolving modes 

of wireless communication. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before February 14, 

2011, and reply comments on or before 

March 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: All filings should refer to 

WT Docket No. 10–254. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), or (2) by filing paper copies. See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/. Filers should follow the 

instructions provided on the Web site 

for submitting comments. If multiple 

dockets or rulemaking numbers appear 

in the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, Postal Service mailing address, 

and the applicable docket number. 

Parties may also submit an electronic 

comment by Internet e-mail. To get 

filing instructions for e-mail comments, 

filers should send an e-mail to 

ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form 〈your e-mail 

address〉.’’ A sample form and directions 

will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, 

Express Mail, and Priority Mail should 

be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

One copy of each pleading must be 

delivered electronically, by e-mail or 

facsimile, or if delivered as paper copy, 

by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail (according to the 

procedures set forth above for paper 

filings), to the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM or (202) 488– 

5563 (facsimile). 

Copies of the public notice and any 

subsequently-filed documents in this 

matter may be obtained from Best Copy 

and Printing, Inc. in person at 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at 

(202) 488–5300, via facsimile at (202) 

488–5563, or via e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The public notice 

and any associated documents are also 

available for public inspection and 

copying during normal reference room 

hours at the following Commission 

office: FCC Reference Information 

Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

public notice is also available 

electronically through the Commission’s 

ECFS, which may be accessed on the 

Commission’s Internet Web site at 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

To request information in accessible 

formats (computer diskettes, large print, 

audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Rowan, Spectrum and 

Competition Policy Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 

418–1883 or by e-mail: 

Michael.Rowan@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Public 

Notice in WT Docket No. 10–254 and 

DA 10–2388, released on December 28, 

2010. In the Hearing Aid Compatibility 

Second Report and Order and Further 

NPRM released on August 5, 2010, in 

WT Docket No. 07–250, 75 FR 54508 

and 75 FR 54546 (Sept. 8, 2010), the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

2626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Commission reiterated its intention, first 

stated in 2008, to initiate a review of the 

hearing aid compatibility rules for 

digital wireless services and handsets in 

2010. In this review, the Bureau will 

comprehensively evaluate the operation 

of the current hearing aid compatibility 

rules, 47 CFR 20.19, and their success 

in making a broad selection of wireless 

phones accessible to people who use 

hearing aids and cochlear implants, as 

well as in making information about 

those phones available to the public. On 

the basis of this evaluation, the Bureau 

will consider whether to recommend to 

the Commission both rule revisions and 

non-regulatory measures to ensure that 

persons with hearing loss will continue 

to have broad access to evolving modes 

of wireless communication, consistent 

with the three principles the 

Commission set forth in the Hearing Aid 

Compatibility Second Report and Order 

and Further NPRM to guide its hearing 

aid compatibility policies: 

• Ensuring that developers of new 

technologies consider and plan for 

hearing aid compatibility at the earliest 

stages of the product design process; 

• Accounting for technological 

feasibility and marketability in the 

Commission’s rules pertaining to 

hearing aid compatibility, thereby 

maximizing conditions for innovation 

and investment; and 

• Providing industry with the ability 

to harness innovation to promote 

inclusion by allowing the necessary 

flexibility for developing a range of 

solutions to meet consumers’ needs 

while keeping up with the rapid pace of 

technological advancement. 

The Commission is required by law to 

ensure that persons with hearing loss 

have access to telephone service. The 

Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, 

47 U.S.C. 610, required all telephones 

manufactured or imported for use in the 

United States to meet established 

technical standards for hearing aid 

compatibility, with certain exceptions, 

among them an exception for telephones 

used with mobile wireless services. To 

ensure that the Act kept pace with the 

evolution of telecommunications 

technology, Congress granted the 

Commission authority to ‘‘revoke or 

otherwise limit’’ the wireless telephone 

exception, based on considerations of 

public interest, adverse effect on 

individuals with hearing loss, 

technological feasibility, and 

marketability of compliant wireless 

telephones. 

In 2003, the Commission determined 

that continuation of a complete 

exemption for wireless telephones 

would have an adverse effect on 

individuals with hearing loss, and that 

limiting the exemption was 

technologically and economically 

feasible and in the public interest. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

promulgated rules to ensure that all 

manufacturers and service providers 

offer consumers a selection of wireless 

handsets that are compatible with 

hearing aids. These rules were later 

modified and strengthened in 2008 and 

in August 2010. 

In the Hearing Aid Compatibility 

Second Report and Order and Further 

NPRM, the Commission sought 

comment on proposed changes to the 

wireless hearing aid compatibility rules 

in three specific areas: (1) Whether to 

extend the hearing aid compatibility 

requirements beyond the currently 

covered class of commercial mobile 

radio services to include handsets used 

to provide wireless voice 

communications over any type of 

network among members of the public 

or a substantial portion of the public; (2) 

whether to extend the in-store testing 

requirement to include retail outlets 

other than those owned or operated by 

service providers; and (3) whether to 

generally permit a user-controlled 

reduction of power as a means to meet 

the hearing aid compatibility standard 

for operations over the Global System 

for Mobile (GSM) air interface in the 

1900 MHz band. The Commission will 

address these matters in a Report and 

Order in WT Docket No. 07–250, and 

the Bureau urges commenters not to 

repeat their comments on these matters 

in response to this document. To the 

extent any comments made in the 

rulemaking docket are relevant to the 

questions asked in this document, 

commenters should restate those points 

in response to the questions below. 

On October 8, 2010, President Obama 

signed into law the Twenty-first Century 

Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010 

(Communications Accessibility Act), 

Public Law 111–260, ensuring that 

individuals with disabilities have access 

to emerging Internet Protocol-based 

communications and video 

programming technologies in the 21st 

Century. Among other provisions, the 

Communications Accessibility Act 

extends hearing aid compatibility 

requirements to customer premises 

equipment ‘‘used with advanced 

communications services that is 

designed to provide 2-way voice 

communications via a built-in speaker 

intended to be held to the ear in a 

manner functionally equivalent to a 

telephone.’’ The Communications 

Accessibility Act preserves the 

exemption of mobile handsets from the 

requirement that all telephones be 

hearing aid-compatible, while 

maintaining the Commission’s authority 

to revoke or limit such exemption. The 

Commission will address in WT Docket 

No. 07–250 whether changes to its rules 

are necessary to effectuate the hearing 

aid compatibility provisions of the 

Communications Accessibility Act. 

Commenters should consider the 

context of the new legislation in framing 

their responses to this document. 

All parties with knowledge and 

interest are encouraged to file. In 

addition to written responses, the 

Bureau encourages submission of any 

data, charts or proposed plans that can 

be entered into the public record for 

purposes of building a record on this 

subject. 

In order to assist the Commission in 

evaluating the wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules, the Bureau ask 

commenters specifically to address the 

questions set forth below. To the extent 

feasible, commenters may want to 

organize their responses alphabetically/ 

numerically as set forth below in order 

to facilitate Commission review. 

Availability of Hearing Aid-Compatible 

Handsets 

On July 15, 2010, manufacturers of 

handsets were required to file reports 

detailing the hearing aid compatibility 

status of their handset offerings from 

July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. 

Twenty-one manufacturers have filed 

reports pursuant to this provision 

identifying a total of 302 handset 

models that they offered as of June 2010. 

The hearing aid compatibility status of 

these handsets, sorted according to the 

air interface(s) incorporated in the 

handset, is summarized in the table 

below. 

June 2010 

Total offered by 

handset 

manufacturers 

M3/M4 handsets T3/T4 handsets 

CDMA-Only ................................................................................................................ 134 133 105 

CDMA/WCDMA ......................................................................................................... 1 1 1 

GSM-Only .................................................................................................................. 60 33 26 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2627 

June 2010 

Total offered by 

handset 

manufacturers 

M3/M4 handsets T3/T4 handsets 

GSM/CDMA ............................................................................................................... 3 3 3 

GSM/WCDMA ............................................................................................................ 88 44 31 

iDEN ........................................................................................................................... 16 14 8 

Total .................................................................................................................... 302 228 174 

In this section, the Bureau seeks 

comment on whether hearing aidcompatible handsets are sufficiently 

available to consumers in the current 

marketplace, including phones with a 

full range of different feature sets. In 

this regard, the Bureau seeks comment 

on the impact that the Commission’s 

deployment benchmarks and technical 

standards have had on increasing 

compatibility between hearing aids and 

wireless handsets. The Bureau also 

seeks comment on the impact of the 

rules on smaller service providers. 

1. Do the Commission’s deployment 

benchmarks appropriately ensure that 

hearing aid-compatible handsets are 

available to all consumers? 

a. The Commission’s rules currently 

require handset manufacturers, other 

than those subject to the de minimis 

exception, to meet at least an M3 rating 

for radio frequency (RF) interference 

reduction for at least one-third of their 

models (rounded down) over each air 

interface, with a minimum of two 

models, and to meet a T3 rating for 

inductive coupling capability for at least 

25 percent of their models (rounded 

down) over each air interface, with a 

minimum of two models. The 

percentage benchmark for inductive 

coupling capability will increase to onethird on February 15, 2011. Service 

providers must meet an M3 rating for at 

least 50 percent of their models or 10 

models over each air interface, and must 

meet a T3 rating for at least one-third of 

their models or seven models over each 

air interface. The numerical benchmark 

for inductive coupling capability will 

increase to 10 models in 2011. Under 

these benchmarks, has a selection of 

hearing aid-compatible handsets 

become readily available to all 

consumers across the various air 

interfaces, including third-generation 

(3G) air interfaces? Should the 

benchmarks be increased in future years 

or restructured in any way? In 

particular, should the T3 benchmark be 

increased to equal the M3 benchmark, 

given the growing number of consumers 

using hearing aids with telecoils? 

Commenters should consider the cost to 

manufacturers and service providers of 

complying with any changed 

benchmarks and any effects on 

innovation as well as the benefits to 

consumers with hearing loss. 

b. In enacting the Hearing Aid 

Compatibility Act, Congress found that 

people with hearing loss should have 

access to the telecommunications 

network ‘‘to the fullest extent made 

possible by technology and medical 

science.’’ In light of this policy, should 

the Commission be moving toward a 

goal of ensuring that all wireless 

handsets meet hearing aid compatibility 

standards? If the Commission were to 

institute a 100% compatibility 

requirement, what would be the effects 

on investment and innovation? 

c. Should the Commission consider 

applying different benchmarks to 

different technologies in light of the 

circumstances surrounding each 

technology? For example, should higher 

benchmarks apply to future 

technologies in order to encourage 

consideration of hearing aid 

compatibility in the early stages of 

product development? Should lower 

benchmarks be kept in place for the 

legacy GSM air interface in recognition 

of the technical challenges to achieving 

hearing aid compatibility using that 

technology, as well as the likelihood 

that it will be phased out over the next 

several years? The Bureau notes that the 

ANSI C63.19 standard revision that is 

under consideration, by measuring RF 

interference potential directly, would 

eliminate the need for certain 

conservative assumptions and make it 

approximately 2.2dB easier for GSM 

phone to achieve an M3 rating. Should 

different benchmarks be adopted for 

CDMA than for GSM? 

d. Are hearing aid-compatible 

handsets widely available across all 

market segments, including the prepaid 

phone market? The Bureau notes that 

under the current rules, service 

providers must meet the hearing aid 

compatibility benchmarks across their 

entire product line, and are not required 

separately to account for the phones 

offered to different market segments, 

such as prepaid versus postpaid. Is there 

a need for rules specifically addressing 

the prepaid market or any other 

segment, and what would be the effects 

of any such rules on manufacturers or 

service providers? 

2. Are hearing aid-compatible phones 

available to consumers with a full range 

of different feature sets? 

a. The Commission’s rules require 

manufacturers to ‘‘refresh’’ their hearing 

aid-compatible products by ensuring, in 

most instances, that at least half their 

required minimum number of M3-rated 

phones is met by models introduced 

within a given calendar year. Service 

providers must offer hearing aidcompatible models with different levels 

of functionality. The Bureau seeks 

comment on whether these rules have 

succeeded in making hearing aidcompatible handsets available to 

consumers with different feature sets? 

For example, do consumers with 

hearing loss have access comparable to 

the general population both to handsets 

with the most advanced features, 

including smartphones, and to basic 

models? Is there a concentration of 

hearing aid-compatible handsets in a 

particular feature set? Commenters 

should note any differences in variety 

specific to particular air interfaces or 

market segments. Are any additional 

rules needed to ensure availability of a 

full range of hearing aid-compatible 

models? 

b. At the same time, are the refresh 

and level of functionality rules 

necessary? Given the usual product 

cycles for wireless handsets, would 

manufacturers produce and service 

providers offer hearing aid compatibility 

in many of the newest models in the 

absence of these rules simply to meet 

the benchmarks? What paperwork or 

other burdens do these rules impose, 

and are these burdens outweighed by 

the benefits to consumers? Do these 

rules remain necessary in the CDMA air 

interface, given that nearly all CDMA 

phones produced today meet hearing 

aid compatibility standards? Should the 

rules be modified or eliminated for 

some or all handset lines? 

3. Do the rules appropriately account for 

the challenges facing smaller service 

providers? 

a. When the Commission adopted the 

current handset deployment 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

2628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

benchmarks, it provided service 

providers other than commercial mobile 

radio service providers with nationwide 

footprints (Tier I carriers) with an 

additional three months to meet each 

benchmark. In addition, businesses that 

are small entities as defined by the U.S. 

Small Business Administration, unlike 

larger manufacturers and service 

providers, are exempt from offering 

hearing aid-compatible phones over an 

air interface indefinitely so long as they 

offer no more than two models. The 

Bureau requests comment on whether 

these provisions appropriately 

accommodate the difficulties faced by 

smaller service providers in offering 

hearing aid-compatible handsets. 

b. The Bureau seeks information on 

the burden that hearing aid 

compatibility requirements impose on 

smaller service providers. Is there a 

significant difference in the cost of rule 

compliance between Tier I carriers and 

non-Tier I carriers? To what extent are 

smaller service providers delayed in 

their ability to obtain new and desirable 

handsets, or are they able to obtain these 

handsets at all? Does the extent of any 

additional costs or delays depend on the 

size of the service provider, for example, 

as between a small local company and 

a sizable regional carrier? Are resellers 

differently situated than small facilitiesbased providers? 

c. In light of these burdens, is it 

appropriate to modify the Commission’s 

rules with respect to smaller service 

providers? For example, would smaller 

providers need more than three months 

additional time to meet any future 

benchmarks the Commission may adopt, 

or is no additional time warranted? Are 

the current benchmarks appropriate for 

non-Tier I carriers, or should they be 

reduced? Should different rules apply to 

different tiers of non-Tier I service 

providers, and if so, on what criteria 

should these tiers be based? 

Commenters should address the effect of 

any such potential rule changes on the 

customers of smaller service providers, 

and how their access to hearing aidcompatible handsets can be protected. 

d. Similarly, should the Commission 

consider amending the de minimis rule 

to exempt some small entities from 

requirements to offer hearing aidcompatible handset models, even if they 

offer more than two models per air 

interface? For example, an exception 

could be based on a service provider’s 

monthly sales. Would such a rule better 

reflect market realities, under which 

small service providers may have access 

only to small lots of multiple different 

handset models? Would customers of 

small carriers, particularly in the most 

rural areas, still have access to a 

selection of hearing aid-compatible 

handsets? 

e. Are smaller service providers and 

manufacturers, particularly new 

entrants, adequately informed about 

their obligations under the hearing aid 

compatibility rules? Is there anything 

the Commission can and should do to 

improve communications with these 

entities? 

4. Do the M3 and T3 technical 

standards appropriately ensure 

compatibility with hearing aids? 

a. The Commission’s rules consider a 

handset to be hearing aid-compatible for 

RF interference reduction if it meets at 

least an M3 rating under ANSI Standard 

C63.19–2007, and for inductive 

coupling capability if it meets at least a 

T3 rating. Are these requirements 

appropriate to ensure that users of 

hearing aids and cochlear implants will 

be able to access wireless 

communications? Would any other 

standards be more appropriate? Should 

there be any requirements to offer 

handsets that meet M4 and/or T4 

ratings? On the other hand, do handsets 

that are rated less than M3 or T3 

provide effective compatibility for some 

users of hearing aids and cochlear 

implants, and if so should the 

Commission’s rules recognize their 

performance? 

b. Under the 2007 revision of ANSI 

Standard C63.19, a handset must meet 

an acceptable rating for RF interference 

reduction—i.e., an M3 or M4 rating 

under the Commission’s rules—in order 

to be rated T3 or T4 for inductive 

coupling capability. Would there be 

benefits to wearers of hearing aids with 

telecoils if the minimum RF noise 

threshold requirement to achieve a T3 

rating were relaxed? Is there evidence to 

support such a change that ANSI 

Accredited Standards Committee C63®

(ANSI ASC C63®) should consider? 

Sufficiency of Information 

The hearing aid compatibility rules 

include several provisions to ensure that 

device manufacturers and service 

providers share information on their 

hearing aid-compatible handset 

offerings with the Commission and with 

the public. In this section, the Bureau 

seeks comment on the value and any 

negative effects of the information 

disclosures required in reports to the 

Commission, on manufacturers’ and 

service providers’ Web sites, at the point 

of sale, and in packaging materials. The 

Bureau also seeks comment on the instore testing requirement and on 

measures that could be taken to improve 

the availability of information to 

consumers who purchase their phones 

from sources other than their service 

provider. 

5. Is the reporting system collecting 

appropriate information in an efficient 

way, and is the Commission making this 

information available to the public in an 

accessible and easily manipulable 

manner? 

a. The wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules require handset 

manufacturers and service providers to 

submit annual reports to the 

Commission on the status of their 

compliance. In June 2009, the Bureau 

introduced the electronic FCC Form 655 

as the mandatory form for filing these 

reports, and since that time both service 

providers and manufacturers have filed 

reports using the electronic system. The 

Bureau seeks comment on the 

functioning of this system. 

b. Does Form 655 collect the 

necessary information on hearing aidcompatible handset offerings? Is any 

unnecessary information being 

collected? Do third-party sources 

provide information about hearing aidcompatible handsets that may diminish 

the need for reporting to the 

Commission? Even if information about 

hearing aid-compatible handsets is 

available from other sources, is 

reporting to the Commission still 

necessary to ensure compliance with the 

rules? 

c. Is the electronic Form 655 an 

efficient means of collecting 

information? What burdens does the 

reporting impose on device 

manufacturers and service providers? 

What changes to the system might 

improve its operation? 

d. Does the reporting requirement 

impose special burdens on small device 

manufacturers and service providers? In 

light of any such burdens, should 

smaller entities be exempt from some or 

all reporting requirements? If so, what 

should be the threshold for such an 

exemption? What effects would an 

exemption of smaller entities have on 

the availability of information to 

consumers? 

e. Is the information collected by the 

Commission on Form 655 made 

accessible to the public in an easily 

usable manner at http://wireless.fcc.gov/ 

hac? What changes might the 

Commission make to its Web site to 

improve the accessibility of this 

information? Are there measures the 

Commission could take that would 

facilitate use of this information by 

application developers to provide richer 

information products? Would it be 

helpful to collect and post the 

information in XML or any other 

format? Should the Commission 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2629 

incorporate the information it receives 

on Form 655 into the clearinghouse of 

information on the availability of 

accessible products and services and 

accessibility solutions that it is 

establishing pursuant to new Section 

717(d) of the Communications Act, 47 

U.S.C. 618(d)? 

6. Are manufacturers’ and service 

providers’ Web sites providing useful 

information in an accessible manner? 

a. The rules require that each handset 

manufacturer and service provider make 

available on its Web site a list of its 

hearing aid-compatible handset models, 

the hearing aid compatibility ratings of 

those models, and an explanation of the 

rating system. Service providers also 

must include the levels of functionality 

of their hearing aid-compatible phones 

and an explanation of their 

methodology for determining levels of 

functionality. Do these Web sites 

contain the required information? Is it 

posted in a manner that is easily 

accessible to and understandable by 

consumers? Would it be helpful to 

develop best practices or other guidance 

to promote the most user-friendly 

approaches? If so, should this guidance 

be promulgated by the Commission or 

developed through collaboration among 

industry and consumer representatives? 

b. Is there any additional information 

that consumers or other stakeholders 

would find helpful to have posted on 

manufacturers’ or service providers’ 

Web sites? Should the posting of any 

such information be required by the 

Commission or should it be voluntary? 

7. Are the point-of-sale and packaging 

disclosures appropriately informing 

consumers? 

a. The rules require that 

manufacturers and service providers 

clearly display the hearing aid 

compatibility ratings on the packaging 

material of a hearing aid-compatible 

handset, and that they include an 

explanation of the rating system in the 

device’s user manual or as a packaging 

insert. Are manufacturers and service 

providers supplying this information, 

and are they doing so in a manner that 

is clear and helpful to consumers? Are 

consumers able to understand the 

hearing aid compatibility rating system? 

If not, are there any measures the 

Commission can and should take to 

improve the disclosures? Should such 

measures take the form of a rule or 

voluntary guidance? 

b. The rules further require that, for 

handsets that include operations over an 

air interface or frequency band for 

which hearing aid compatibility 

technical standards do not currently 

exist, each manufacturer and service 

provider must disclose to consumers by 

clear and effective means that such 

handset has not been rated for hearing 

aid compatibility with respect to that 

operation. Effective March 8, 2011, 

manufacturers and service providers 

will be required to use specific 

prescribed language in making this 

disclosure. The Bureau notes that ANSI 

ASC C63® is developing a revision of 

the C63.19 technical standard that 

would be independent of air interface 

and cover a broad range of frequency 

bands. Until such time as the 

promulgation and adoption of a revised 

technical standard renders this 

disclosure unnecessary, is the 

disclosure effective and should any 

changes be made? 

c. Are consumers adequately 

informed of the need to activate the 

hearing aid compatibility functions in 

their phones, particularly when used 

with hearing aids containing a telecoil? 

If not, what actions might the 

Commission take to promote more 

effective dissemination of this 

information? 

d. Is there any additional information 

that should be made available to users 

of hearing aids or cochlear implants at 

the point of sale or in product manuals? 

How should any such additional 

disclosure be achieved? 

8. Is the rule that requires phones to be 

made available for in-store testing 

effective? 

The current rules require that service 

providers offer in-store testing of 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

in each retail store they own or operate. 

Is the testing offered under this rule 

effective in helping consumers choose a 

hearing aid-compatible phone? What 

challenges have service providers 

encountered in offering effective instore testing? Are there any rule changes 

or other Commission action that would 

make the testing more effective or 

efficient? 

9. What actions might the Commission 

take to provide better information to 

consumers with hearing loss who obtain 

phones from sources other than their 

service provider? 

In the Hearing Aid Compatibility 

Second Report and Order and Further 

NPRM, the Commission asked whether 

the in-store testing requirement should 

be extended to independent retailer 

outlets not owned or operated by service 

providers, and whether independent 

retailers should be required to offer a 

customer with hearing loss a flexible 

return policy to ensure that a handset is 

compatible with the customer’s hearing 

aid. Are there any other measures the 

Commission might take to assist 

consumers who purchase their phones 

from independent retailers in obtaining 

hearing aid-compatible phones? For 

example, is there a need for disclosure 

of hearing aid compatibility information 

by third-party online vendors? 

Commenters should address the 

Commission’s authority to adopt these 

measures and the burdens imposed on 

retailers as well as the benefits for 

consumers. 

Technical Issues 

In this section, the Bureau seeks 

comment on questions relating to 

technical issues affecting hearing aid 

compatibility. In particular, the Bureau 

asks about the need for additional 

measures to facilitate acoustic coupling 

compatibility, as well as the effects of 

display screens, wireless headsets, and 

simultaneous transmission capabilities 

in handsets. The Bureau also seeks 

comment on what the Commission can 

do to facilitate better operation of 

hearing aids and cochlear implants with 

wireless handsets. 

10. Are measures needed to facilitate 

acoustic coupling between wireless 

handsets and hearing aids? 

a. ANSI Standard C63.19 and the 

Commission’s existing wireless hearing 

aid compatibility rules address the 

compatibility of wireless handsets with 

hearing aids in two respects: (1) RF 

interference with hearing aids operating 

in acoustic mode and (2) inductive 

coupling capability with hearing aids 

containing a telecoil. However, other 

obstacles to acoustic coupling 

compatibility may exist. In particular, a 

Working Group of the Alliance for 

Telecommunications Industry Solutions 

(ATIS), WG–11, is studying issues 

involving volume control and acoustic 

coupling. The Bureau seeks comment on 

any measures the Commission should 

take, in addition to the rules regarding 

RF interference reduction, to promote 

acoustic coupling capability between 

wireless handsets and hearing aids or 

cochlear implants. 

b. Wireline and cordless phones are 

subject to technical standards and rules 

regarding volume levels and controls, 47 

CFR 68.4. Are similar rules feasible and 

necessary to ensure that wireless phones 

will operate at appropriate volumes to 

achieve acoustic coupling 

compatibility? If so, what should these 

rules require? What burdens would 

these requirements impose on 

manufacturers and service providers? 

c. Is adequate information currently 

available to consumers and hearing aid 

manufacturers regarding wireless 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

2630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

phones’ volume settings and sound 

quality? What challenges exist to 

providing such information? For 

example, to what extent are volume and 

sound quality affected by the network 

rather than the consumer device? Is 

information about volume and sound 

quality proprietary to the handset 

manufacturer or service provider? What 

actions can and should the Commission 

take to promote greater availability of 

this information? 

d. Are there any other measures the 

Commission should take to facilitate 

acoustic coupling compatibility? For 

example, wireline phones typically emit 

a magnetic field that may be sensed by 

some hearing aids to trigger an acoustic 

coupling telephone mode. Wireless 

phones, however, may not emit a 

magnetic field of similar strength. Do 

differences between wireline and 

wireless technology mean that certain 

hearing aids are not receiving effective 

signals to activate special acoustic 

coupling modes for telephone use? If so, 

are there actions the Commission might 

take to enable such signaling? What 

would be the costs of such measures? 

11. Are measures needed to address the 

effect of display screens on hearing aid 

compatibility? 

In earlier proceedings, concerns have 

been expressed that the display screens 

on smart phones emit electromagnetic 

energy that may interfere with the 

operation of hearing aids. In light of 

ongoing experience, are measures 

needed to address the effects of display 

screens on hearing aid compatibility? 

Do the measurement procedures 

specified in ANSI Standard C63.19 

appropriately account for these effects? 

Might these effects be ameliorated by, 

for example, programming a handset so 

that the backlighting fades when it is 

held close to an object such as the 

human ear? The Bureau seeks comment 

on the benefits and costs of regulatory 

or non-regulatory measures that might 

be appropriate to promote this and other 

potential technical solutions. 

12. Do wireless headsets create special 

issues for hearing aid compatibility? 

Consumers are increasingly using 

Bluetooth and other headset or earpiece 

technologies to communicate over their 

wireless phones. Does the use of these 

technologies pose special challenges for 

users of hearing aids and cochlear 

implants? For example, might the 

headset or earpiece create RF 

interference with the hearing assistance 

device? Are there physical difficulties 

using a headset or earpiece with certain 

types of hearing aids? What regulatory 

or non-regulatory measures might be 

appropriate to address these concerns? 

13. Are measures needed to address 

handsets that can transmit 

simultaneously over multiple air 

interfaces or frequency bands? 

The 2007 revision of ANSI Standard 

C63.19 does not include a detailed 

method for testing RF interference when 

a handset is simultaneously transmitting 

over more than one air interface or 

frequency band. Current Commission 

guidance requires handsets with such 

capability to be tested over each air 

interface or frequency band separately. 

Until a protocol for testing in these 

situations has been developed, are there 

other actions the Commission should 

take? 

14. What actions might the Commission 

take to facilitate better interoperability 

of hearing aids and cochlear implants 

with handsets? 

a. Interoperability between wireless 

handsets, on the one hand, and hearing 

aids and cochlear implants on the other 

involves the functioning of two different 

devices in a single operating system. In 

order to help the Bureau best to 

understand this system, the Bureau 

encourages commenters to provide 

information regarding the technical 

operation of hearing aids and cochlear 

implants. In particular, the Bureau seeks 

information on new and emerging 

technical advances that may affect how 

hearing aids and cochlear implants 

interoperate with wireless phones. 

b. The Bureau invites public comment 

on how effectively different types of 

hearing assistance devices operate with 

wireless handsets. Do they generally 

function as anticipated, or is there a 

substantial amount of uncertainty? Is 

the functioning different for different 

types of hearing aids? Are cochlear 

implants different from hearing aids in 

this regard? 

c. Are there actions that the 

Commission, in coordination with the 

Food and Drug Administration, could 

take to facilitate the dissemination of 

information about hearing aids and 

cochlear implants to wireless handset 

manufacturers, service providers, and 

consumers of wireless service? 

Innovation, Investment, and 

Competition 

15. What is the state of innovation in 

solutions to enable people with hearing 

loss to access wireless technology, and 

do the Commission’s rules appropriately 

facilitate and encourage such 

innovation? 

a. As the number and types of features 

embedded in smartphones and other 

wireless handsets continue to evolve, 

new challenges may be posed for 

hearing aid compatibility. For example, 

as noted above, simultaneous 

transmission capabilities pose 

challenges for measuring RF 

interference. Are there other emerging 

or anticipated technological 

developments that may create similar 

issues? Do the Commission’s rules 

create appropriate incentives to 

consider hearing aid compatibility early 

in the product development cycle, when 

any concerns can be most efficiently 

addressed? Are there measures the 

Commission could take that would 

better ensure the early consideration of 

such issues? 

b. The Commission’s rules assume 

that wireless handsets will achieve 

hearing aid compatibility by meeting an 

M3 and/or T3 rating through features 

that are built into the handset. Are there 

other means of achieving hearing aid 

compatibility, either existing or under 

development, that may be more efficient 

or effective? For example, could hearing 

aid compatibility be achieved through a 

downloaded application? Do the 

Commission’s rules in any way inhibit 

development of such innovative 

solutions? If so, how might the rules be 

modified to address this without 

compromising their effectiveness? 

c. Are there other technologies, either 

in existence or on the horizon, that may 

assist people with hearing loss in using 

wireless technology? Are there technical 

developments that may create new 

obstacles for people with hearing loss? 

16. Do the Commission’s rules 

successfully promote investment and 

competition with respect to hearing aidcompatible wireless handset offerings? 

a. What is the nature and extent of 

competition among device 

manufacturers and service providers 

with respect to hearing aid-compatible 

phones? Is it similar to competition in 

the handset and service markets 

generally? Is the incentive to invest in 

features for hearing aid-compatible 

phones comparable to that in the 

broader handset market? 

b. Do the Commission’s rules 

appropriately assign responsibility for 

hearing aid compatibility compliance in 

cases of joint ventures and other 

complex market arrangements? Is there 

any need for clarification in this regard? 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2631 

Ongoing Collaboration 

17. What actions should the 

Commission take to promote ongoing 

collaboration among consumers with 

hearing loss, the communications 

industry, and the hearing aid industry? 

a. In July 2003, the ATIS Incubator 

Solutions Program #4 (AISP.4) 

(Incubator), was created to investigate 

methods of enhancing interoperability 

and usability between hearing aids and 

wireless handsets. The Incubator has 

performed invaluable work in bringing 

together wireless device manufacturers, 

service providers, and consumers to 

discuss and develop solutions to 

hearing aid compatibility problems and 

in proposing to the Commission 

consensus plans to best meet the needs 

of both the industry and consumers 

with hearing loss. The Bureau 

understands that this body is now 

approaching the end of its institutional 

life. In the absence of the Incubator, 

how can the Commission best ensure 

that the industry and consumers will 

continue collaborating to address new 

technological and market developments 

in a timely manner. Could the 

Commission’s Accessibility and 

Innovation Initiative, described at 

http://www.broadband.gov/ 

accessibilityandinnovation/, provide 

support for such collaboration? 

b. The Bureau also seeks comment on 

how best to promote increased 

collaboration between the 

communications and hearing aid 

industries. Could the Accessibility and 

Innovation Initiative be an appropriate 

venue for these conversations as well? 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Ruth Milkman, 

Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2011–801 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 567, 591, 592, and 593 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2009–0143; Notice 1] 

RIN 2127–AK32 

Certification; Importation of Vehicles 

and Equipment Subject to Federal 

Safety, Bumper, and Theft Prevention 

Standards; Registered Importers of 

Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured 

To Conform to the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes 

several amendments to the regulations 

pertaining to registered importers (‘‘RIs’’) 

of motor vehicles not originally 

manufactured to comply with all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, 

bumper, and theft prevention standards. 

The agency proposes amending RI 

application and renewal requirements to 

enable the agency to deny or revoke 

registration to entities that have been 

convicted of a crime related to the 

importation, purchase, or sale of a motor 

vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. 

Also, the RI would be required to certify 

that it destroyed or exported 

nonconforming motor vehicle 

equipment removed from a vehicle 

during conformance modifications. The 

agency is also proposing new 

requirements for motor vehicles 

imported under import eligibility 

petitions, adopting a clearer definition 

of the term ‘‘model year’’ for import 

eligibility purposes, and requiring that 

import eligibility petitions include the 

type classification and gross vehicle 

weight rating (‘‘GVWR’’) of the subject 

vehicle. This notice also proposes 

several amendments to the RI 

regulations that would include adding 

citations to provisions that can be used 

as a basis for the non-automatic 

suspension of an RI registration, 

deleting redundant text from another 

provision, and revising several sections 

to include the agency’s current mailing 

address. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

early enough to ensure that Docket 

Management receives them by February 

28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket and notice numbers above 

and be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement published in the Federal 

Register (65 FR 19477–78 (Apr. 11, 

2000)) or you may visit http:// 

www.dot.gov/privacy/ 

privacyactnotices 

/. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues contact Clint Lindsay, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(202–366–5288). For legal issues contact 

Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(202–366–5263). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background of this rulemaking action 

A. The 1968 Importation Regulations (19 

CFR 12.80) and the Imported Vehicle 

Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 

100–562). 

B. Previous regulatory actions. 

1. The 2000 notice of proposed rulemaking 

(65 FR 69810 (Nov. 20, 2000)). 

2. The 2004 final rule (69 FR 52070 (Aug. 

24, 2004)). 

II. Proposed substantive amendments to the 

RI regulations 

A. The Agency may deny or revoke the RI 

status of entities convicted of certain 

crimes. 

B. Information submitted in annual RI 

registration renewals must be true and 

correct. 

C. RIs must certify destruction or 

exportation of nonconforming motor 

vehicle equipment removed from 

imported vehicles during conformance 

modifications. 

D. Establishing procedures for importation 

of motor vehicles for the purpose of 

preparing an import eligibility petition. 

E. Adopting a clearer definition of the term 

‘‘Model Year’’ for the purpose of import 

eligibility decisions. 

F. Requiring import eligibility petitions to 

identify the type classification and gross 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS