Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43481

18. The Commission determined that

the rule incorporating the terms

‘‘interLATA and intraLATA’’ as well as

‘‘interstate and intrastate’’ contained in

this Order on Reconsideration will not

impose any additional requirements on

IXCs. These terms were incorporated

only to remove possible confusion or

uncertainty as to the scope of our rules

as pertaining to all jurisdictions.

Likewise, the rule clarifying that IXCs

must employ only one verification

option will not impose any additional

requirements on IXCs. Therefore,

adoption of these rules should have

little or no economic impact on small

entities. Because the Commission

concludes that adoption of these rules

will cause little or no economic impact

on small entities, the Commission has

identified no significant alternatives,

nor were any offered by parties

commenting on the IRFA.

vi. Report to Congress

19. The Commission shall send a copy

of this FRFA, along with this

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration, in a report to Congress

pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of

this FRFA will also be published in the

Federal Register.

IV. Conclusion

20. The Commission reaffirms, with

minor modifications, its verification

procedures adopted in the 1995 Report

and Order. The Commission’s stay of its

1995 Report and Order, insofar as it

extends the PIC-change verification

requirements set forth in § 64.1100 of

the Commission rules to consumerinitiated or in-bound telemarketing

calls, remains in effect.

V. Ordering Clauses

21. It is ordered that, pursuant to

Sections 1, 4, 201–205, 215, 218, 220

and 258 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154,

201–205, 215, 218, 220, and 258, the

Petitions for Reconsideration of Allnet

Communication Services, Inc., AT&T

Corporation, Frontier Communications

International, Inc., MCI

Telecommunications Corporation,

National Association of Attorneys

General, and Sprint Communications

Company Are granted to the extent

described herein and Are denied in all

other respects.

22. It is further ordered that the

Petition for Clarification of the

Telecommunications Resellers

Association is granted to the extent

described herein and is denied in all

other respects.

23. It is further ordered that 47 CFR

Part 64 is amended as set forth below.

24. It is further ordered that the

policies, rules and requirements set

forth below in this memorandum

opinion and order on reconsideration

are effective January 12, 1998 except for

section 64.1150 which will become

effective upon approval by the Office of

Management and Budget. The

Commission will publish a document at

a later date announcing the effective

date.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Communications common carriers,

Consumer protection,

Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

47 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 64

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, unless otherwise

noted. Interpret or apply secs. 201, 218, 226,

228, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47

U.S.C. 201, 218, 226, 228, unless otherwise

noted.

2. Section 64.1100(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 64.1100 Verification of orders for long

distance service generated by

telemarketing.

* * * * *

(a) The IXC has obtained the

customer’s written authorization in a

form that meets the requirements of

§ 64.1150;

* * * * *

3. Section 64.1150(e)(4) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 64.1150 Letter of agency form and

content.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(4) That the subscriber understands

that only one interexchange carrier may

be designated as the subscriber’s

interstate or interLATA primary

interexchange carrier for any one

telephone number. To the extent that a

jurisdiction allows the selection of

additional primary interexchange

carriers (e.g., for intrastate, intraLATA

or international calling), the letter of

agency must contain separate statements

regarding those choices. Any carrier

designated as a primary interexchange

carrier must be the carrier directly

setting the rates for the subscriber. One

interexchange carrier can be both a

subscriber’s interstate or interLATA

primary interexchange carrier and a

subscriber’s intrastate or intraLATA

primary interexchange carrier; and

* * * * *

4. Section 64.1150(g) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 64.1150 Letter of agency form and

content.

* * * * *

(g) If any portion of a letter of agency

is translated into another language, then

all portions of the letter of agency must

be translated into that language. Every

letter of agency must be translated into

the same language as any promotional

materials, oral descriptions or

instructions provided with the letter of

agency.

[FR Doc. 97–21527 Filed 8–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 68

[CC Docket No. 87–124; FCC 97–242]

Access to Telecommunications

Equipment and Services by Persons

With Disabilities (Hearing Aid

Compatibility)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends

Commission rules regarding HAC,

which would have required all

telephones manufactured or imported

for use in the United States after

November 1, 1998 to contain a volume

control feature. Under the amended

rules, this compliance date is extended

to January 1, 2000. Furthermore, the

Commission has made conforming

amendments to its hearing aid

compatibility rules so that workplaces,

hotels and motels, and confined settings

(e.g, hospitals and nursing homes) will

not be required to ensure that new or

replacement telephones contain a

volume control feature until January 1,

2000, parallel with the manufacturing

requirements. This action was taken in

response to a petition for

reconsideration filed by the Consumer

Electronics Manufacturers Association

(CEMA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andy Firth, Attorney, 202/418–1898,

Fax 202/418–2345, TTY 202/418–2224,

afirth@fcc.gov, Network Services

Division, Common Carrier Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

summarizes the Commission’s Order on
43482 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Reconsideration in the matter of Access

to Telecommunications Equipment and

Services by Persons With Disabilities,

(CC Docket 87–124, adopted July 3,

1997, and released July 11, 1997.) The

file is available for inspection and

copying during the weekday hours of 9

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Commission’s

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M

Street, N.W., or copies may be

purchased from the Commission’s

duplicating contractor, ITS, Inc., 2100 M

Street, N.W., Suite 240, Washington

D.C. 20037, phone 202/857–3800.

Paperwork Reduction Act

No impact.

Analysis of Proceeding

On June 27, 1996, the Commission

adopted a Report and Order (R&O) (FCC

96–285), 61 FR 42181 (August 14, 1996),

which was released on July 3, 1996. The

R&O, among other things, required that

as of November 1, 1998, all telephones

manufactured or imported for use in the

United States have a volume control

feature. See 47 CFR 68.6. The R&O also

required that, as of November 1, 1998,

all replacement telephones and all

newly purchased telephones in

workplaces, confined settings, and

hotels and motels must be equipped

with volume control, in addition to

having electro-magnetic coil hearing

aid-compatibility. See 47 CFR 68.112

(b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(6). The R&O

included a technical specification for

volume control. See 47 CFR 68.317.

On September 13, 1996, the Consumer

Electronics Manufacturers Association

(CEMA) filed a Petition for

Reconsideration of the R&O, specifically

for reconsideration of the rule adopted

under 47 CFR 68.6, which would have

required all telephones manufactured or

imported for use in the United States

after November 1, 1998, to contain

volume control. CEMA asserted that the

rule as adopted would cause undue

financial burdens upon telephone

equipment manufacturers, and also

asserted that the rule exceeded the

Commission’s authority under the

Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988,

47 U.S.C. 610 (HAC Act). In the

alternative, CEMA urged the

Commission to find that 47 CFR 68.6

should only apply to new telephone

models registered under part 68 after

November 1, 1998, as opposed to all

telephone products manufactured after

that date. CEMA asserted that this

‘‘grandfathering’’ of existing telephone

models would, among other things,

lessen burdens upon the manufacturing

industry by avoiding the need to re-tool

existing production lines.

In its Order on Reconsideration, the

Commission denied CEMA the specific

relief requested in its Petition. The

Commission concluded that CEMA’s

proposal would fall short of the HAC

Act’s requirement that persons with

hearing disabilities have reasonable

access to the telephone network,

because there would be no assurance

that manufacturers will phase out the

production of existing models without

volume control. By requiring volume

control as a standard feature in the

manufacture of all telephones, the intent

of the HAC Act is furthered by

minimizing the risk that persons with

hearing disabilities would be unable to

access the telephone network in the

event of an emergency. The Commission

also concluded that CEMA’s argument

that it failed to consider the costs and

benefits of the volume control rule to be

without merit, because in the R&O the

Commission specifically considered the

costs and benefits of the rule, and

concluded that the costs of the volume

control rule were not such a major

obstacle as to negate the benefits of the

rule. The Commission concluded that

CEMA presented no further facts that

would compel it to depart from this

finding made in the R&O.

In the interest of minimizing potential

burdens on the manufacturing industry,

however, the Commission concluded

that the volume control compliance date

at 47 CFR 68.6 should be extended by

fourteen (14) months, to January 1,

2000. The Commission noted that upon

this date, manufacturers would have

had three and one-half (31⁄2) years to

adjust their production cycles to comply

with new volume control manufacturing

requirements, a generous compliance

timetable. Finally, the Commission

adjusted existing rules at 47 CFR 68.112

that would have required workplaces,

hotels and motels, and confined settings

to provide telephones with volume

control as of November 1, 1998, so that

such establishments would not be

required to comply until January 1,

2000, parallel with the manufacturing

requirements.

Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, the

Commission’s Supplemental Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in this

proceeding is as follows:

1. Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis: As required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5

U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was

incorporated in the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission

sought written public comments in the

NPRM, including on the IRFA. In

addition, pursuant to the RFA, 5 U.S.C.

603, a Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in

the Report and Order. Those analyses

conformed to the RFA. This

Supplemental Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) in this

Order on Reconsideration also conforms

to the SBREFA. The Commission’s

SFRFA in this Order on Reconsideration

is as follows:

a. Need for, and Objectives of this

Order on Reconsideration: The need for

and objectives of the rules adopted in

this Order on Reconsideration are the

same as those discussed in the FRFA in

the Report and Order. In general, the

rules adopted herein amend the

Commission’s rules at 47 CFR 68.6 to

require that as of January 1, 2000, all

wireline telephones manufactured or

imported for use in the United States

must have volume control. This

represents an amendment of the original

final rule in the Report and Order

requiring all telephones manufactured

or imported for use in the U.S. after

November 1, 1998, to have volume

control. For reasons explained in this

Order and Reconsideration, the

Commission has decided to extend its

original November 1, 1998 compliance

timeline for this rule by fourteen (14)

months, to January 1, 2000. The

Commission has also made conforming

amendments to portions of 47 CFR

68.112, which require establishments

such as workplaces, hospitals and hotels

to provide volume control telephones in

their facilities. These establishments

will not be required to ensure that

newly replaced or installed telephones

must have volume control until after

January 1, 2000. This likewise reflects a

14-month extension of the original

November 1, 1998 timelines for such

establishments adopted in the Report

and Order.

b. Summary of Significant Issues

Raised by the Public Comments In

Response to the FRFA: No comments

were submitted specifically in response

to the FRFA. In its petition for

reconsideration, which was the

initiating document for this Order on

Reconsideration, the Consumer

Electronics Manufacturers Association

(CEMA) asserted, inter alia, that if 47

CFR 68.6 was to be applicable to all

telephone models on the compliance

date, and not only to new models which

are registered under part 68 of the

Commission’s rules after that date,

manufacturers would incur significant

expenses caused by the ‘‘retooling’’ of

existing production cycles prior to

November 1, 1998. Several telephone
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43483

equipment manufacturers also

submitted comments in support of

CEMA’s petition for reconsideration,

stating that the rule as adopted in the

Report and Order would impose undue

burdens on their manufacturing

processes and resources.

c. Description and Estimate of

Number of Small Entities to Which

Rules Will Apply:

(1) Under the RFA, small entities may

include small organizations, small

businesses, and small governmental

organizations. The RFA generally

defines the term ‘‘small business’’ as

having the same meaning as the term

‘‘small business concern’’ under the

Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. 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

Small Business Administration (SBA).

Id.

(2) The description and estimate of

the number of small businesses to

which the rules will apply set forth in

the FRFA in the Report and Order also

applies to the rules adopted in this

Order on Reconsideration. The same

four industry categories identified in the

FRFA are also subject to the rules

adopted in this Order on

Reconsideration: (a) Workplaces; (b)

confined settings, such as hospitals and

nursing homes; (c) hotels and motels;

and (d) importers and manufacturers of

telephones for use in the United States.

The determination of whether or not an

entity within these industry groups is

small is made by the Small Business

Administration (SBA). These standards

also apply in determining whether an

entity is a small business for purposes

of the RFA. The detailed analysis and

estimate of the number of small entities

within each of these above four industry

categories in the FRFA to the Report

and Order is also applicable to the rules

adopted in this Order on

Reconsideration.

d. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements:

(1) Reporting and Recordkeeping: No

additional reporting requirements

beyond those identified in the FRFA to

the Report and Order are imposed by

this Order on Reconsideration.

(2) Other Compliance Requirements:

(a) The rules adopted in this Report

and Order require that on or after

January 1, 2000, owners of workplaces,

confined settings, and hotels and motels

must ensure that newly installed or

replacement telephones have volume

control. These requirements will affect

owners of workplaces, confined settings,

and hotels and motels.

(b) The rules also require that on or

after January 1, 2000, all telephones

manufactured or imported for use in the

United States must have volume

control. These rules would affect small

as well as large domestic manufacturers

and importers of telephones.

e. Steps Taken to Minimize

Significant Economic Burdens on Small

Entities, and Significant Alternatives

Considered:

(1) The Commission’s efforts to learn

of and respond to small business

concerns detailed in the FRFA to the

Report and Order are likewise

applicable to this SFRFA. In applying

the rules adopted in this Order on

Reconsideration, the Commission has

sought to minimize any

disproportionate burden on small

entities. The Commission’s efforts

described in the FRFA to the Report and

Order are also applicable to the rules

adopted in this Order on

Reconsideration. In particular, the

Commission’s decision in this Order on

Reconsideration to extend the date by

which all telephones manufactured or

imported for use in the United States

must have volume control is a direct

result of the Commission’s

consideration of the impact of the rule

on small entities and manufacturers.

Furthermore, the Commission’s decision

to also extend compliance dates for

workplaces, confined settings, and

hotels is a result of consideration of the

potential impact of the rule on small

business establishments.

(2) Under Section 610(e) of the

Hearing Aid Compatibility Act, the

Commission must consider the costs, as

well as the benefits, of the proposed

rules to all telephone users, including

persons with and without hearing

disabilities. In the NPRM, the

Commission solicited comment on the

costs to establishments of providing

volume control and hearing aid

compatible telephones. After reviewing

the comments, the Commission

concluded in the Report and Order that

the new rules will not impose

significant additional costs on telephone

users, manufacturers or establishments,

and that any costs are significantly

outweighed by the benefits to be

achieved. Likewise, in this Order on

Reconsideration the Commission

specifically considered the costs and

benefits of the rules to all telephone

users in its decision to extend the

original compliance date for volume

control by fourteen (14) months.

(3) Small entities will be among the

beneficiaries of the Commission’s new

rules. Under the new rules, telephones

in workplaces, confined settings and

hotels and motels will be more

accessible to persons with hearing

disabilities. These changes may lead to

new business for hotels and motels and

confined settings, and workplaces may

be able to hire better employees, since

the pool of potential employees will be

widened to include persons with

hearing disabilities. In addition, the

level of public safety will increase in all

three settings, thereby benefitting both

the business setting and the public at

large. The volume control

manufacturing requirement probably

will increase the consumer demand for

volume control telephones, benefitting

large and small manufacturers alike, due

to the fact that volume control is a

feature useful not only to people with

hearing disabilities, but to non-disabled

telephone users as well. Furthermore, to

the extent that the rule amendments

may allow smaller manufacturers and

suppliers more time to recoup costs

sunk in any remaining equipment

inventory and allow them to expand

their marketing options, they are

consistent with section 257 of the

Communications Act, as amended, 47

U.S.C. 257. That section requires, among

other things, that the Commission

eliminate marker entry barriers for small

businesses who may provide parts or

services to providers of

telecommunications services and

information services. Id. at section

257(a).

(4) The Commission rejected the

proposal of the Consumer Electronics

Manufacturers Association in its

petition for reconsideration that the

volume control rules apply only to new

telephone models registered under part

68 of the Commission’s rules after the

compliance date. The Commission

concluded that this approach would

mean that upon the compliance date,

some telephone models would be

without volume control, which would

not further Congressional intent in the

HAC Act that persons with hearing

disabilities have reasonable access to

the telephone network. Rather, the

Commission concluded that by

extending the compliance timeline by

an additional fourteen (14) months,

potential burdens on small entities

could be reduced, while at the same

time furthering the goals of the HAC Act

to provide access to the telephone

network for people with hearing

disabilities.

f. Summary of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements:

On or after January 1, 2000, all

telephones manufactured or imported

for use in the United States must have
43484 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

volume control; and newly purchased

and replacement telephones in

workplaces, confined settings and hotels

and motels must have volume control

on or after January 1, 2000. There are no

other recordkeeping or other

compliance requirements.

g. Report to Congress: The

Commission will include a copy of this

Supplementary Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, along with this

Order on Reconsideration, in a report to

Congress pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, 5 U.S.C. Section 801(a)(1)(A). A

copy of this SFRFA (or summary

thereof) is also published herein.

Ordering Clauses

Accordingly, It Is Orderd that

pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 405, and 710

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 405 and

610, part 68 of the Commission’s rules

Is Amended as set forth below.

2. It Is Further Ordered that, pursuant

to Sections 1, 4, 405, and 710 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 405 and

610, the Petition for Reconsideration

filed by the Consumer Electronics

Manufacturers Association is granted to

the extent indicated herein, and

otherwise Denied.

3. It Is Further Ordered that the rule

amendments set forth below shall be

effective September 15, 1997.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 68

Administrative practice and

procedure, Communications common

carriers, Communications equipment,

Hearing aid compatibility, Labeling,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telephone, Volume

control.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

Part 68 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 68—CONNECTION OF

TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE

TELEPHONE NETWORK

1. The authority citation for Part 68 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303.

2. Section 68.6 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 68.6 Telephones with volume control.

As of January 1, 2000, all telephones,

including cordless telephones, as

defined in § 15.3(j) of this chapter,

manufactured in the United States

(other than for export) or imported for

use in the United States, must have

volume control in accordance with

§ 68.317. Secure telephones, as defined

by § 68.3 are exempt from this section,

as are telephones used with public

mobile services or private radio

services.

3. Section 68.112 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iii),

(b)(3)(iv), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(6)(i), to read

as follows:

§ 68.112 Hearing aid-compatibility.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) As of January 1, 2000 or January

1, 2005, whichever date is applicable,

there shall be a rebuttable presumption

that all telephones located in the

workplace are hearing aid compatible,

as defined in § 68.316. Any person who

identifies a telephone as non-hearing

aid-compatible, as defined in § 68.316,

may rebut this presumption. Such

telephone must be replaced within

fifteen working days with a hearing aid

compatible telephone, as defined in

§ 68.316, including, on or after January

1, 2000, with volume control, as defined

in § 68.317.

(iii) Telephones, not including

headsets, except those headsets

furnished under paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of

this section, that are purchased, or

replaced with newly acquired

telephones, must be:

(A) Hearing aid compatible, as

defined in § 68.316, after October 23,

1996; and

(B) Include volume control, as defined

in § 68.317, on or after January 1, 2000.

(iv) When a telephone under

paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is

replaced with a telephone from

inventory existing before October 23,

1996, any person may make a bona fide

request that such telephone be hearing

aid compatible, as defined in § 68.316.

If the replacement occurs on or after

January 1, 2000, the telephone must

have volume control, as defined in

§ 68.317. The telephone shall be

provided within fifteen working days.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) Telephones that are purchased, or

replaced with newly acquired

telephones, must be:

(A) Hearing aid compatible, as

defined in § 68.116, after October 23,

1996; and

(B) Include volume control, as defined

in § 68.317, on or after January 1, 2000.

* * * * *

(6) * * *

(i) Anytime after October 23, 1996, if

a hotel or motel room is renovated or

newly constructed, or the telephone in

a hotel or motel room is replaced or

substantially, internally repaired, the

telephone in that room must be:

(A) Hearing aid compatible, as

defined in § 68.316, after October 23,

1996; and

(B) Include volume control, as defined

in § 68.317, on or after January 1, 2000.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–20899 Filed 8–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 970429101–7101–01; I.D.

070297B]

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific States; West Coast

Salmon Fisheries; Inseason

Adjustment From the Queets River to

Leadbetter Point, WA

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Inseason adjustment; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

daily bag limit for the recreational

salmon fishery in the area from the

Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA, is

two fish, only one of which may be a

chinook, beginning the season opening

date of July 21, 1997. This action is

intended to help meet the recreational

season duration objectives for this

subarea.

DATES: Effective July 21, 1997, through

September 25, 1997. Comments will be

accepted through August 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

William Stelle, Jr., Regional

Administrator, Northwest Region,

NMFS (Regional Administrator), 7600

Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA

98115–0070. Information relevant to

this action is available for public review

during business hours at the office of

the Regional Administrator.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Robinson, 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

annual management measures for ocean

salmon fisheries (62 FR 24355, May 5,

1997), NMFS announced that the

recreational fishery in the subarea

between the Queets River and