Notice2023-06757
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on ATIS Waiver Request on Behalf of the Covered Entities of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Task Force
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 3, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on a petition for waiver (Petition) filed by ATIS requesting waiver for all entities subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules. The Petition seeks to allow wireless handsets to satisfy a reduced volume control testing methodology to be certified as hearing-aid compatible.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19639-19642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06757]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[WT Docket No. 20-3; DA 23-250; FR ID 133942]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on ATIS Waiver
Request on Behalf of the Covered Entities of the Hearing Aid
Compatibility Task Force
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks
comment on a petition for waiver (Petition) filed by ATIS requesting
waiver for all entities subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules.
The Petition seeks to allow wireless handsets to satisfy a reduced
volume control testing methodology to be certified as hearing-aid
compatible.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before May 3, 2023,
and reply comments on or before May 18, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 20-3,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier,
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be
[[Page 19640]]
addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f090c0c5a5f5b2f090c0c41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f090c0c5a5f5b2f090c0c41080019">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
proceeding, contact Eli Johnson, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f3a131651351017110c10113f191c1c51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3b69f9addb99c9b9d809c9db3959090dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>, of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure Policy
Division, (202) 418-1395.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
document, WT Docket No. 20-3, DA 23-250, released on March 23, 2023.
The full text of this document is available for public inspection on
the FCC's website at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-250A1.docx">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-250A1.docx</a>.
Synopsis
1. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau seeks comment on a
petition for waiver (Petition) filed by ATIS requesting waiver of Sec.
20.19(b)(1) and (b)(3) of the Commission's rules for all entities
subject to the hearing aid compatibility rules. The Petition seeks to
allow wireless handsets to satisfy a reduced volume control testing
methodology to be certified as hearing-aid compatible. In particular,
we seek comment on this waiver request in the context of the
Commission's commitment to attaining 100% hearing aid compatibility of
covered wireless handsets, as soon as achievable, as well as the
Commission's previous finding that a volume control requirement is
necessary ``to ensure the provision of effective telecommunications for
people with hearing loss.''
2. The Commission's commitment to a volume control requirement
dates back to the original hearing aid compatibility order in 2003.
Since then, the Commission has repeatedly explored the issue and in
2017 concluded that ``the public interest and the objectives mandated
by section 710 of the Act will be served by modifying the Commission's
acoustic coupling HAC rules for wireless handsets to include a volume
control requirement designed to accommodate people with hearing loss.''
The Commission affirmed its belief ``that a volume control requirement
that specifies certain levels of amplification as an element of hearing
aid compatibility is just as necessary for wireless handsets as it is
for wireline phones, to ensure the provision of effective
telecommunications for people with hearing loss.'' In deciding to adopt
a wireless volume control requirement, the Commission stated that ``a
volume control requirement will not only improve communications for
those using hearing aids and cochlear implants, it also will help
millions of Americas with hearing loss who do not use these devices.''
3. While the Commission adopted a volume control requirement in
2017, the Commission delayed compliance with the requirement until
March 1, 2021. At the time the Commission adopted this rule, there was
no standard for volume control, but the Commission anticipated that
ANSI would adopt a standard that the Commission could incorporate into
its rules. The Commission expected to adopt the ANSI volume control
standard by 2019 in order to give manufacturers two years following
adoption to build the standard into new handsets. It was not until
2019, however, that ANSI submitted to the Commission as part of the
2019 ANSI Standard the ANSI/TIA-5050-2018 Volume Control Standard
(ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard), which is incorporated into the 2019
ANSI Standard. Commenters broadly supported the adoption of the 2019
ANSI Standard and the related ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard. Both
standards are incorporated into the Commission's rules by reference
(i.e., the standards are part of the Commission's rules). Under the
Commission's rules, beginning on June 5, 2023, a handset will be
considered ``hearing aid compatible'' if it ``meets the 2019 ANSI
Standard for all frequency bands that are specified in the ANSI
standard and all air interfaces over which it operates on those
frequency bands, and the handset has been certified as compliant with
the ANSI/TIA-Volume Control Standard.
4. According to ATIS's Petition, during the course of the hearing
aid compatibility Task Force's work this past spring, the Task Force
discovered ``significant and material problems with the methodology
used for testing volume control.'' Specifically, Working Group 3 of the
Task Force received data on eighteen mobile handsets that were tested
under the new standards. ATIS states that the ANSI/TIA Volume Control
Standard's methodology for testing volume control resulted in every
current HAC-certified handset they tested failing to pass the standard.
5. Accordingly, ATIS specifically requests a waiver of Sec.
20.19(b)(1) and (b)(3), asking us to allow wireless handsets to satisfy
a reduced volume control testing methodology instead of the full ANSI/
TIA Volume Control Standard in order to be certified as hearing-aid
compatible. ATIS asserts that there is a ``problem with the underlying
testing methodology'' in the ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard that
renders compliance with the ANSI 2019 Standard functionally impossible
for handsets. ATIS proposes that, for the duration of the waiver, the
Commission allow a handset to be certified as hearing-aid compatible if
it:
i. Meets the following clauses of the 2019 ANSI Standard:
a. RF Immunity Test (M--``clause 4'') and
b. T-Coil Compatibility Test (T--``clause 6'')
ii. Passes the conversational gain test in the ANSI/TIA Volume
Control Standard for all available codecs and air interface
combinations at the 2N level; and
iii. Obtains passing results for at least one of the device's
available codecs for the distortion and frequency response requirements
in the ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard. Under the proposed waiver,
ATIS also requests that test codecs be limited to those that are in
scope for the ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard, which include
narrowband and wideband codecs.
6. ATIS asserts that TIA is in the process of ``reinitializing''
its standards committee to revise the ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard.
ATIS then notes that stakeholders would need a period of time for
testing and implementation of the standard before the Commission
considers adopting the revised standard into its rules. ATIS requests
that the waiver remain in effect until the Commission has had the
opportunity to review the revised standard.
7. In the context of the Commission's commitment to attaining 100%
hearing aid compatibility for handsets, to the extent achievable, as
well as the significance of the volume control standard for improving
accessibility to handsets for consumers with hearing loss, we seek
comment on how to address any request for waiver of the volume control
standard, as well as the scope of this particular request.
8. We note that when the Commission adopted a volume control
requirement for mobile handsets in October 2017, work on a wireless
volume control
[[Page 19641]]
standard was already well underway. In 2019, the current standard was
completed and was submitted to the Commission by the ASC C63 Committee
with a request that it be incorporated in the Commission's rules. In
the ensuing rulemaking, industry commenters supported adoption of the
standard, and no party raised concerns about the suitability of the
testing requirements for volume control. Accordingly, we seek comment
on what steps the covered entities took, prior to the recent testing
conducted by the Task Force, to ensure that they would be able to
comply with the adopted standard, which was developed by technical
committees on which affected manufacturers ordinarily are well
represented.
9. We seek comment on the potential impact of this waiver request
on consumers, as well as the application of the Commission's
established waiver standard. In particular, we seek comment on the
impact of the requested waiver of the volume control requirement on the
more than 30 million Americans who have hearing loss. Would a grant be
consistent with the Commission's commitment to implementing a volume
control standard to improve accessibility and with our statutory duties
under section 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as modified? How
would a denial of the requested waiver impact consumers? In addition,
we seek comment on whether and how the requested waiver would further
our goal of making 100% of wireless handsets hearing-aid compatible. Do
individuals and consumer groups representing individuals who are deaf
and hard of hearing support the scope of the waiver request?
10. We also seek comment on the scope of the waiver request. The
waiver request seeks a departure from the volume control standard
previously supported by parties and adopted into the Commission's
rules. Is the alternative volume control testing methodology proposed
by ATIS sufficient to ensure that handsets have adequate volume
control? Did the covered entities perform any testing to ensure that
this alternative volume control testing methodology would ensure that
handsets have sufficient volume control? If so, we encourage industry
to share data related to this testing in their comments.
11. We seek comment on the portion of the waiver related to
conversational gain and the scope of that request. The waiver proposes
to test only the 2N force, which replicates the experience of hearing
aid users. The ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard, however, also requires
testing of conversational gain at the 8N force, which is intended to
replicate the experience of those consumers with hearing loss who do
not use hearing aids. The waiver request does not specify why covered
entities need a waiver of the 8N force portion of the conversational
gain test, other than the ``high failure rate'' at the 8N force. What
specific problem with the 8N testing requirement makes compliance with
the test problematic? Are there steps manufacturers could take that
would address such problems and enable their devices to pass the test?
How would the testing methodology proposed by ATIS, which would include
a waiver of the requirement to test conversational gain at the 8N
force, ensure that a handset's conversational gain is suitable for
those consumers with hearing loss that do not use hearing aids? Should
we maintain the testing requirement at the 8N force, as specified in
the ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard?
12. We seek comment on the portion of the waiver request related to
distortion and frequency response and its scope. Guidance from the
Office of Engineering and Technology Knowledge Database (KDB) requires
the worst-case test result to be submitted for certification--which
ATIS suggests ``implicitly require[es] an all-codec approach.'' With
this in mind, would it be sufficient to test and document only one of a
device's available codecs for the distortion and frequency response
requirements of the ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard, as ATIS requests?
What was the basis for the Task Force working group's finding that
``meeting the distortion and frequency response requirements when
tested with a single codec'' is ``sufficient to indicate that the
amplifier/speaker combination is capable of producing the desired
output signal quality and level''? Did the working group or covered
entities perform any testing to ensure that this would be the case? How
can we be sure that the consumer experience would not be negatively
affected if testing only one of the device's available codecs for
distortion and frequency response? If testing only one of a device's
available codecs is sufficient, why was the ANSI/TIA Volume Control
Standard developed to test both narrowband and wideband codecs? Which
specific types of codecs are incompatible with the pulse-noise test? If
we were to grant a waiver, is there a way to tailor the request more
narrowly for relief to address ATIS's concerns with the pulse-noise
signal test? For example, could we limit the tests to only those codecs
within the scope of the ANSI/TIA Volume Control Standard?
13. We also seek comment on whether we should impose other
conditions on the waiver, if granted. For example, should we require
labeling specifying that a handset tested under this methodology did
not meet the full volume control standard? What other conditions are
necessary to ensure that consumers with hearing loss have access to
hearing-aid compatible handsets that meet established technical
standards?
14. Finally, we seek comment on the timeframe contemplated for the
waiver. We note that the request does not seek a specific length of
time for the waiver. If granted, should we set additional time limits
or reporting requirements on the waiver? For example, should we
consider requiring ATIS to submit quarterly reports on the progress of
revising the volume control standard? In order to ensure hearing aid
compatibility compliance pursuant to the ATIS waiver and because timely
hearing aid compatibility compliance is in the public interest, should
we consider requiring the waiver's covered entities to participate in
the TIA standards-setting process? Should we establish a period of time
for testing and implementation of the standard?
15. ATIS cites as evidence the Task Force's concurrently filed
Final Report and Recommendation (Report), which recommends revisions to
our hearing aid compatibility rules--including revisions to the
standards for volume control testing. However, we do not seek feedback
here on the Report or its recommendations, except to the extent that
ATIS relies on studies in the Report as support for its waiver request.
We only solicit comment on ATIS's specific waiver request, and on any
alternate relief that may be appropriate.
16. We note that the Commission adopted an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) in the proceeding that adopted the volume-control standard. The
FRFA, among other things, analyzes the objectives and the economic
effects on small entities of the requirement that ATIS asks us to
waive. We seek comment on how the proposed waiver and the alternatives
discussed herein could affect the IRFA and the FRFA previously adopted
by the Commission. How could action in response to ATIS's petition
ensure that we are minimizing burdens on small entities?
17. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may seek comment on
potential new or modified information
[[Page 19642]]
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in this document as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Amy Brett,
Acting Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2023-06757 Filed 3-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 3, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.