Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/10/05/2011-25756/definition-of-part-15-auditory-assistance-device
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 05:55:04
Document Index: 792403344

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 15', '§\u20091', 'art 15', '§\u20092', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 15', 'art 1', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', '§\u200915', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15']

:: Definition of Part 15 Auditory Assistance Device
A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 10/05/2011
61655-61660
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2011-25756
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 Start Printed Page 6165612th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 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.
4. The Commission concludes that a declaratory ruling is not the appropriate vehicle to grant the relief requested by Williams Sound. Pursuant to § 1.2 of the Commission's rules, it may issue a declaratory ruling for purposes of “terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty.” However, a declaratory ruling may not be used to substantively change a rule. An analysis of the Commission's auditory assistance device rules in part 15 leads the Commission to the conclusion that by accepting Williams Sound's proposed interpretation, the Commission would expand the scope of permitted uses so significantly as to constitute a change in the rule. Section 15.3(a) of the Commission's rules states that an auditory assistance device is “[a]n intentional radiator used to provide auditory assistance to a handicapped person or persons. Such a device may be used for auricular training in an education institution, for auditory assistance at places of public gatherings, such as a church, theater, or auditorium, and for auditory assistance to handicapped individuals, only, in other locations.”
6. In 2009, the Commission issued a citation to ProLingo, a provider of simultaneous interpretation equipment and services, for marketing, as a component of its simultaneous language interpretation systems, transmitters operating on frequencies in the 72-76 MHz bands. ProLingo was found to have violated Section 302(b) of the Communications Act and §§ 2.803(a)(1) and 15.237 of the Commission's rules. Williams Sound appears to seek approval by declaratory ruling to conduct substantially the same activity that the Commission found to violate its rules. Furthermore, the Commission rejects Williams Sound's assertion that the inability to understand a foreign language can be considered a handicap, which thereby justifies permitting auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands to be used for simultaneous language interpretation. Such an interpretation is not consistent with the meaning given to the term “handicap” historically in part 1, subpart N of the Commission's rules, which was based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The term was defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual. In 2003, the Commission replaced “handicap” with “disability” in part 1, subpart N, to be consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, but did not make any substantive changes to the definition. Williams Sound does not provide a basis for interpreting the term “handicap” in part 15 differently than the Commission has interpreted that term in part 1.
8. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes to amend the part 15 definition of an “auditory assistance device” to permit these devices to be Start Printed Page 61657used by anyone at any location for simultaneous language interpretation. As discussed by Williams Sound, the Commission believes that there are sound public policy reasons for allowing auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands to be used by persons who have language barriers but who may not be disabled. Expanding the scope of the rule would appear to be consistent with the Commission's goal of facilitating public access to telecommunications technologies. Many commenters, several of them providers of auditory assistance devices and/or simultaneous interpretation systems, support Williams Sound's Petition. Several of these commenters submit that allowing auditory assistance devices to be used in support of simultaneous language interpretation would also benefit individuals who have a hearing disability by promoting wider availability of auditory assistance devices in general. This, in turn, could facilitate communications with individuals that require both amplification and language interpretation. The Commission also finds merit in Williams Sound's observation that the use of auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands in support of simultaneous language interpretation would not only improve the aural experience and comprehension of those who need interpretation, but also would lower the noise level for those who do not care to listen to an interpreter, thereby enhancing the auditory experience of both groups.
13. With a maximum permissible ERP of 1.2 mW, the power of auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands is relatively low compared to that of authorized services in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands. Under the current rules which limit the location and types of use of part 15 auditory assistance devices, these devices have not been sources of interference to authorized services in these bands. The Commission seeks comment on whether increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous language interpretation would increase the potential for harmful interference to authorized services in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands. If so, by how much, and what would the specific effects of such harmful interference be? If commenters believe there are qualitative or quantitative costs associated with increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous language interpretation, the Commission asks that they discuss them. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether increased use of part 15 auditory assistance devices for simultaneous language interpretation would require additional safeguards or changes to the technical requirements to prevent harmful interference to authorized services in the 72-76 MHz (72-73 MHz, 74.6-74.8 MHz, and 75.2-76 MHz) and adjacent (66-72 MHz, 73-74.6 MHz, 74.8-75.2 MHz, and 76-82 MHz) bands, and if so, what rule changes are necessary. Are there any qualitative or quantitative costs associated with such rule changes? Start Printed Page 61658If so, the Commission asks commenters to discuss them.
15. The Commission notes that the allowed out-of-band emissions limit of 1,500 µV/m at 3 meters for auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands is 15 times higher (23.5 dB more power) than the § 15.209 emissions limit of 100 μV/m at 3 meters that applies to most other part 15 devices' emissions in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands. It is also 18 times higher (25 dB more power) than the out-of-band emissions limit that applies to part 15 personal/portable TV bands devices that operate in bands adjacent to occupied TV channels, which corresponds to 84 μV/m at 3 meters for a device operating at 40 mW. In light of the Commission's proposal to expand the permissible uses for part 15 auditory assistance devices to include simultaneous language interpretation and its goal of improving VHF TV reception, it seeks comment on whether there is a need to tighten the out-of-band emissions limits for part 15 auditory assistance devices. If so, what limit is appropriate—the § 15.209 limit, the unlicensed TV bands device limit, or some other limit? What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of each limit, and what specific qualitative or quantitative costs are associated with each limit? Are any other safeguards or technical requirements necessary to prevent harmful interference to authorized services in the adjacent 66-72 MHz, 73-74.6 MHz, 74.8-75.2 MHz, and 76-82 MHz bands? If so, what are the potential advantages and disadvantages and specific qualitative or quantitative costs associated with each? The Commission also notes that, based upon its review of the equipment authorization records for auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands, currently available equipment would not comply with the § 15.209 limits. If tighter limits are necessary, what would be the appropriate transition period for compliance with new limits? Should currently approved equipment be grandfathered, either for a limited time or permanently? If not, what specific qualitative or quantitative costs would be associated with acquiring equipment that complies with the § 15.209 limits?
20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),[1] the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by 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 specified on the first page of this NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).[2] In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[3] A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule
21. This NPRM proposes to modify § 15.3(a) definition of “auditory assistance device” to allow part 15 unlicensed auditory assistance devices to be used by anyone at any location for simultaneous language interpretation. The proposal is designed to expand the permitted uses of part 15 auditory assistance devices to include a use other than those for the disabled (i.e., amplification of sound for those with a hearing disability and audio description for the blind) to facilitate public access to telecommunications technology. Permitting part 15 audio assistance devices that operate in the 72.0-73.0 MHz, 74.6-74.8 MHz, and 75.2-76.0 MHz bands (72-76 MHz bands) to be Start Printed Page 61659used by anyone at any location for simultaneous language interpretation would benefit persons requiring simultaneous language interpretation whether or not they have a disability. The NPRM seeks comment on whether allowing auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands to also be used by anyone at any location for simultaneous language interpretation will increase the potential for harmful interference to authorized services in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands (i.e., 66-72 MHz, 73-74.6 MHz, 74.8-75.2 MHz, and 76-82 MHz), and if so, whether additional safeguards or technical requirements are necessary to prevent harmful interference to these authorized services.
23. 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.[4] The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as 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.[5] 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.[6] 24. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million small businesses, according to the SBA.[7] A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” [8] Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations.[9] The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” [10] Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.[11] The Commission estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” [12] Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
26. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed 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.[13] 27. If the part 15 definition of auditory assistance device is expanded to include simultaneous language interpretation for anyone as an allowed use at any location, it may be necessary to modify the administrative and/or technical requirements for auditory assistance devices that operate in the 72-76 MHz bands to prevent harmful interference to authorized services in the 72-76 MHz and adjacent bands (i.e., 66-72 MHz, 73-74.6 MHz, 74.8-75.2 MHz, and 76-82 MHz).
(1) Persons with disabilities. In the context of the part 15 rules, the term “disability,” with respect to the individual, has the meaning given to it by section 3(2)(A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A)), i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one Start Printed Page 61660or more of the major life activities of such individuals;
Id. at 603(b)(3).
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” http://web.sba.gov/​faqs/​faqindex.cfm?​areaID=​24 (revised Sept. 2009).
The Commission assumes that villages, school districts, and special districts are small, and they total 48,558. See U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page 273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was 38,967, of which 35,819 were small. Id.