Proposed Rule2024-00414
Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility
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
January 26, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") tentatively concludes that requiring 100% of all handset models to be certified as hearing aid-compatible is an achievable object and seeks comment on revising the definition of hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth connectivity technology. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on a number of implementation proposals related to this tentative conclusion.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 18 (Friday, January 26, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5152-5177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00414]
[[Page 5152]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 23-388; FCC 23-108; FR ID 195641]
Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(``Commission'') tentatively concludes that requiring 100% of all
handset models to be certified as hearing aid-compatible is an
achievable object and seeks comment on revising the definition of
hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth connectivity technology.
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on a number of implementation
proposals related to this tentative conclusion.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before February 26,
2024, and reply comments on or before March 11, 2024. Written comments
on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before March 26,
2024. Written comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) in this document must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA and must be submitted by the
public on or before February 26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 23-388,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the 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.
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 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. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Filing, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (2020), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), please send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11777272242125517772723f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c4a4f4f191c186c4a4f4f024b435a">[email protected]</span></a> or call
the Consumer & Governmental 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#f3b69f9addb99c9b9d809c9db3959090dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5b0999cdbbf9a9d9b869a9bb5939696db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>, of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure Policy
Division, (202) 418-1395. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information requirements contained in
this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#19494b58597f7a7a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="570705161731343479303821">[email protected]</span></a> or contact Cathy Williams
at (202) 418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in WT Docket No. 23-388; FCC 23-108,
adopted December 13, 2023, and released on December 14, 2023. The full
text of the document is available for download at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-108A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-108A1.pdf</a>. The complete text of this document
is also available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 45 L Street NE, Room
1.150, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270.
Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact
of the rule and policy changes contained in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments
must be by the deadlines for comments on this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking indicated in the DATES section of this document and must
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed in WT Docket No. 23-388.
Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains proposed modified
information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. If
the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection
requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal
Register inviting the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget to comment on the information collection requirements. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, then the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
[[Page 5153]]
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f), or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. The Commission has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that
all Americans, including those with disabilities, are able to access
communications services on an equal basis. The recent pandemic
highlighted just how important equal access to communications services
is for individual well-being as well as the day-to-day functioning of
American society. The Commission's commitment to ensuring accessibility
for all Americans includes ensuring those with hearing loss--more than
37.5 million Americans--have equal access to communications services as
required by section 710 of the Communications Act. This section directs
the Commission to facilitate compatibility between wireless handset
models and hearing aids. In fulfilling this statutory directive, the
Commission is committed to ensuring that its wireless hearing aid
compatibility provisions keep pace both with the ways handset models
couple with hearing devices and requiring all handset models to be
hearing aid compatible. It is with these objectives in mind that the
Commission initiates today's rulemaking.
2. Specifically, the Commission issues this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to develop a record with respect to a proposal submitted to
the Commission by the Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) Task Force on how
the Commission can achieve its long held goal of a 100% hearing aid
compatibility benchmark for all handset models offered in the United
States or imported for use in the United States. The HAC Task Force is
an independent organization composed of groups who represent the
interests of people with hearing loss, wireless service providers, and
wireless handset manufacturers that was formed for the purpose of
reporting to the Commission on whether requiring 100% of all handset
models to be certified as hearing aid compatible is an achievable
objective. The Task Force's Final Report represents a consensus
proposal for how the Commission can achieve this objective. The
Commission proposes to adopt the Task Force's proposal with certain
modifications in order to ensure that all handset models provide full
accessibility for those with hearing loss while at the same time
ensuring that its rules do not discourage or impair the development of
improved technology.
3. Specifically, the Commission tentatively concludes that
requiring 100% of all handset models to be certified as hearing aid
compatible is an achievable objective under the factors set forth in
section 710(e) of the Communications Act. As part of this
determination, the Commission seeks comment on adopting the more
flexible ``forward-looking'' definition of hearing aid compatibility
that the HAC Task Force recommends. This determination also includes a
proposal to broaden the current definition of hearing aid compatibility
to include Bluetooth connectivity technology and to require at least
15% of offered handset models to connect to hearing aids through
Bluetooth technology as an alternative to or in addition to a telecoil.
The Commission seeks comment on the Bluetooth technology that it should
utilize to meet this requirement and how it should incorporate this
requirement into its wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.
4. Further, the Commission explores ways to reach the 100%
compatibility benchmark, and it proposes a 24-month transition period
for handset manufacturers; a 30-month transition period for nationwide
service providers; and a 42-month transition period for non-nationwide
service providers to transition to a 100% hearing aid-compatible
handset standard for all handset models offered for sale in the United
States or imported for use in the United States. The Commission seeks
comment on certain implementation proposals and updates to the wireless
hearing aid compatibility rules related to these proposals. These
proposals include requirements for hearing aid compatibility settings
in handset models, revised website posting, labeling and disclosure
rules, and revised reporting requirements along with seeking comment on
renaming its Sec. 20.19 rules to better reflect what this section
covers.
5. The Commission's proposals are based on the results of
collaborative efforts of members of the HAC Task Force who worked
together over a period of years to reach a consensus proposal on how
best to ensure that all new handset models meet the needs of those with
hearing loss. The revisions that the Commission proposes today to its
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules would ensure greater access to
wireless communication services for Americans with hearing loss and the
ability of these consumers to consider the latest and most innovative
handset models for their needs.
II. Background
6. Over time, the Commission has progressively increased the
deployment benchmarks for hearing aid-compatible wireless handset
models. In 2016, the Commission reconfirmed its commitment to pursuing
100% hearing aid compatibility to the extent achievable. The 2016 HAC
Order supported this objective by increasing the number of hearing aid-
compatible handset models that handset manufacturers and service
providers were required to offer by adopting two new handset model
deployment benchmarks. After a two-year transition for handset
manufacturers, and with additional compliance time for service
providers, the then-applicable handset model deployment benchmarks were
increased to 66%. After a five-year transition period for handset
manufacturers, and with additional compliance time for service
providers, the 66% handset model deployment benchmarks were increased
to 85%.
7. In this same order, the Commission established a process for
determining whether a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement is
``achievable.'' The Commission stated that it wanted to continue the
``productive collaboration between stakeholders and other interested
parties'' that had been part of the process for enacting the two new
handset model deployment benchmarks. The Commission noted the
stakeholders' proposal to form a task force independent of the
Commission to ``issue a report to the Commission helping to inform''
the agency ``on whether 100 percent hearing aid compatibility is
achievable.'' Part of this process included determining whether the
hearing aid compatibility requirements should be modified to
[[Page 5154]]
include alternative technologies such as Bluetooth. The Commission
stated that it was deferring action on compliance processes, legacy
models, burden reduction, the appropriate transition periods, and other
implementation issues until after it received the HAC Task Force's
Final Report on achievability. The Commission specified that it
intended to decide by 2024 whether to require 100% of covered wireless
handset models to be hearing aid compatible. The Commission indicated
that it would make its determination as to whether this goal is
achievable by relying on the factors identified in section 710(e) of
the Communications Act. After the 2016 HAC Order was released,
sstakeholders convened the independent Task Force and filed progress
updates with the Commission.
8. In 2018, the Commission imposed new website posting requirements
and took steps to reduce regulatory burden on service providers by
allowing them to file a streamlined annual certification under penalty
of perjury stating their compliance with the Commission's hearing aid
compatibility requirements. As part of the 2018 HAC Order, the
Commission noted that, in the 100% hearing aid compatibility docket, it
was considering broader changes to the hearing aid compatibility rules
that may be appropriate in the event it required 100% of covered
handset models to be hearing aid compatible. The Commission indicated
that the website, record retention, and certification requirements it
was adopting as part of the 2018 HAC Order would remain in place unless
and until the Commission took further action in the 100% hearing aid
compatibility docket and that its decisions did not ``prejudge any
further steps we may take to modify our reporting rules in that
proceeding.''
9. In February 2021, the Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard
for determining hearing aid compatibility. The 2019 ANSI Standard was
to replace the existing 2011 ANSI Standard after a two-year transition
period that was set to end on June 5, 2023. Like the 2011 ANSI
Standard, the 2019 ANSI Standard addresses acoustic and inductive
coupling between wireless handset models and hearing aids but uses
heightened testing methodologies intended to ensure handset models
offer a better listening experience for consumers. In addition, the
2019 ANSI Standard includes for the first time a volume control
requirement. The standard specifically references the TIA 5050 Standard
that addresses volume control requirements for wireless handset models.
As part of the order adopting the 2019 ANSI Standard and the related
TIA 5050 Standard, the Commission reiterated its goal ``to continue on
the path to making 100% of wireless handsets hearing aid compatible.''
10. In December 2022, the HAC Task Force filed its Final Report
with the Commission, which makes five central recommendations. The
report recommends that the Commission: (1) adopt a more flexible,
forward-looking definition of hearing aid compatibility; (2) adjust
current technical standards; (3) allow for exploration of changes in
coupling technology (e.g., by additional exploration of Bluetooth and
alternative technologies); (4) allow reliance on information linked in
the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse; and (5) set a 90-day shot
clock for the resolution of petitions for waiver of the hearing aid
compatibility requirements.
11. The Final Report also recommends that the Commission grant the
volume control waiver request that the Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions (ATIS) filed the same day that the HAC Task Force
filed its Final Report. In its waiver request, ATIS asserted that the
testing performed by the Task Force revealed that the TIA 5050 Standard
for volume control was fundamentally flawed because it required the use
of a pulsed-noise signal, which ATIS claimed was insufficiently voice-
like to be compatible with many modern codecs. ATIS also stated that
the standard's use of a pulsed-noise signal resulted in none of the
handsets that it tested passing the standard. As a result, ATIS
requested that the Commission allow handsets to be certified as hearing
aid compatible using a modified volume control testing methodology.
12. On March 23, 2023, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)
released a Public Notice seeking comment on the HAC Task Force's Final
Report. The Public Notice sought comment generally on the report's
recommendations and whether they furthered the Commission's goal of
attaining 100% hearing aid compatibility. The Public Notice also asked
whether the report's recommendations were consistent with the policy
goals the Commission has historically outlined in its hearing aid
compatibility-related proceedings and with the Commission's statutory
duties under section 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
The Commission received three comments and three replies in response to
the Public Notice.
13. On April 14, 2023, WTB released an order extending the
transition period for exclusive use of the 2019 ANSI Standard from June
5, 2023 to December 5, 2023. WTB took this step to ensure that handset
manufacturers could continue to certify new handset models with hearing
aid compatibility features under the 2011 ANSI Standard while the
Commission considered ATIS's waiver petition. WTB stated that
continuing to allow new handset models to be certified as hearing aid
compatible is essential as the Commission moves to its goal of all
handset models being hearing aid compatible.
14. On September 29, 2023, WTB conditionally granted in part ATIS's
request for a limited waiver of the 2019 ANSI Standard's volume control
testing requirements. Under the terms of the waiver, a handset model
may be certified as hearing aid compatible under the 2019 ANSI Standard
if it meets the volume control testing requirements described in the
order as well as all other aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard. This
waiver will remain in place for two years to allow time for the
development of a new, full volume control standard and for its
incorporation into the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.
III. Discussion
15. Below, the Commission tentatively concludes that a 100% hearing
aid compatibility requirement for wireless handset models offered in
the United States or imported for use in the United States is an
achievable goal. The Commission seeks comment on ways to achieve this
goal, including seeking comment on a more flexible, forward-looking
definition of hearing aid compatibility, as recommended by the HAC Task
Force. In addition, consistent with the HAC Task Force's
recommendation, the Commission proposes to broaden the definition of
hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth connectivity technology.
The Commission proposes to implement this revised definition by
requiring at least 15% of offered handset models to connect to hearing
aids through Bluetooth technology as an alternative to or in addition
to a telecoil. The Commission also seeks comment on the Bluetooth
technology that it should utilize to meet this requirement and how it
should adopt this requirement into its wireless hearing aid
compatibility rules. The Commission furthers explore ways to reach the
100% compatibility benchmark as well as the appropriate transition
period for reaching that benchmark. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on implementation of these proposals and
[[Page 5155]]
updates to the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, including
proposed requirements for hearing aid compatibility settings in handset
models, updates to website posting, labeling and disclosure, and
revised reporting requirements. Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on renaming its hearing aid compatibility rules to reflect more
accurately what those rules cover.
A. Achievability of 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility Under the Section
710(e) Factors
16. In the 2016 HAC Order, the Commission stated that by 2024, it
would make a determination of whether 100% hearing aid compatibility is
achievable based on the factors identified in section 710(e) of the
Communications Act. The Commission noted that commenters recommend that
the Commission use a section 710 analysis (as opposed to the
achievability requirements of sections 716 and 718) to determine
whether a 100% standard is achievable. The Commission found that this
approach was consistent with the analysis it undertook previously when
adopting modifications to the then-current deployment benchmarks. The
HAC Task Force's Final Report did not directly address achievability
under the section 710(e) factors, and the Commission did not receive
comments addressing these factors in response to WTB's Public Notice
seeking comment on the HAC Task Force's Final Report.
17. The Commission tentatively concludes that requiring 100% of all
handset models to be certified as hearing aid compatible is an
achievable objective under the factors in section 710(e) of the
Communications Act. Section 710(e) requires the Commission, in
establishing regulations to help ensure access to telecommunications
services by those with hearing loss, to ``consider costs and benefits
to all telephone users, including persons with and without hearing
loss,'' and to ``ensure that regulations adopted to implement [the
Hearing Aid Compatibility Act] encourage the use of currently available
technology and do not discourage or impair the development of improved
technology.'' It further directs the Commission to use appropriate
timetables and benchmarks to the extent necessary due to technical
feasibility or to ensure marketability or availability of new
technologies to users.
18. The Commission tentatively concludes that the benefits to all
handset users of adopting a 100% compliance standard for handset models
offered in the United States or imported for use in the United States
would exceed the costs. The Commission anticipates that adopting a 100%
compliance standard would provide significant benefits to those with
hearing loss by ensuring that a greater share of handset models for
purchase are hearing aid compatible. At the same time, the Commission
does not expect that adopting the 100% standard would impose undue
burdens on manufacturers or service providers, as the vast majority of
new handset models are already hearing aid compatible today.
19. The HAC Task Force's Final Report found that, as of August
2022, about 93% of wireless handset models offered by manufacturers
were already hearing aid compatible, which exceeds the benchmarks in
the Commission's current rules. The Commission does not anticipate
large costs for those with or without hearing loss if non-compliant
models are discontinued, considering the overwhelming share of wireless
handset models are already hearing aid compatible. Given the existing
availability of hearing aid-compatible handset models, the Commission
seeks comment on its tentative conclusion and on any specific burden or
cost that a 100% compliance standard would impose on manufacturers and
service providers. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to
which a 100% compliance standard would reduce the affordability of
lowest-cost handset models and adversely affect low-income persons.
20. In addition, the Commission tentatively concludes that adopting
a 100% compliance standard would encourage the use of currently
available technology and would not discourage or impair the development
of improved technology. Handset manufacturers, service providers, and
consumer organizations that compose the HAC Task Force all unanimously
support the Task Force's consensus proposal for achieving 100%
compliance, and the Task Force's Final Report provides no indication or
evidence that adopting the new standard would discourage the use of
currently available technology or the development of improved
technology. To the contrary, the Task Force's Final Report suggests
that revising the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules to permit
the use of Bluetooth as a coupling method would better align the
Commission's requirements with current consumer preferences, as
Bluetooth has become an increasingly popular method for pairing hearing
aid devices to wireless handsets. The Commission seeks comment on this
tentative conclusion.
21. Further, with respect to its tentative conclusion regarding the
impact of a 100% requirement on technology, the Commission specifically
seeks comment on whether allowing Bluetooth coupling as a way to
achieve hearing aid compatibility or as an alternative or replacement
for telecoil coupling would satisfy relevant statutory criteria. To
permit the use of Bluetooth coupling as an alternative or as a
replacement for telecoil coupling, is it sufficient for the Commission
to find that Bluetooth coupling meets the achievability factors of
section 710(e)? If so, commenters should explain how Bluetooth coupling
meets the requirements of section 710(e) or why this method does not
meet these statutory requirements. Are there other statutory
requirements that Bluetooth coupling must meet in order for the
Commission to allow its use as an alternative or replacement for
telecoil coupling? If so, commenters should explain why Bluetooth
coupling meets or does not meet these other statutory requirements.
22. Finally, the Commission tentatively concludes that adopting a
100% compliance standard after a reasonable transition period meets the
requirements of section 710(e) that the Commission ``use appropriate
timetables or benchmarks to the extent necessary (1) due to technical
feasibility, or (2) to ensure the marketability or availability of new
technologies to users.'' The transition periods that the Commission
proposes below will expand access to hearing aid-compatible handset
models while giving manufacturers and service providers sufficient
notice and lead time to build hearing aid compatibilities into all
future handset models rather than just a percentage of handset models.
The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. Do
commenters agree with the Commission's analysis and on the costs and
benefits of its proposed finding? Given the current number of handset
manufacturers who already include hearing aid compatibility in all of
their handset models, would the Commission's finding adversely impact
the ability of handset manufacturers to innovate and create new
products? If so, how would shifting to a 100% requirement curtail
innovation? Similarly, would requiring hearing aid compatibility in all
handset models impose an undue burden on those handset manufacturers
who currently do not meet this mark, or otherwise create disruptions in
the competitive marketplace?
[[Page 5156]]
B. Definition of Wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility
23. As a threshold question for implementing a 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement, the Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate definition of hearing aid compatibility for wireless
handsets. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on expanding the
definition of hearing aid compatibility to reflect changing coupling
technologies. First, the Commission seeks comment on adopting the HAC
Task Force's recommended ``flexible'' hearing aid compatibility
definition. Next, the Commission proposes to expand the definition to
include Bluetooth connectivity and to require a certain percentage of
offered handset models to include Bluetooth connectivity technology. As
part of that proposal, the Commission seeks comment on which Bluetooth
technologies it should recognize and how it should adopt these
technologies into its rules.
1. HAC Task Force Recommended Hearing Aid Compatibility Definition
24. Background. The Commission's existing wireless hearing aid
compatibility rules do not contain an express definition of hearing aid
compatibility in the definitional section. Rather, the Commission's
rules provide that a handset model is considered to be hearing aid
compatible if it has been certified as such under a Commission-approved
technical standard that the Commission has incorporated by reference
into the rules through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. As of
December 5, 2023, a new handset model can be certified as hearing aid
compatible only if it meets the acoustic and inductive coupling
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and applicable volume control
requirements.
25. The HAC Task Force recommends that the Commission define
hearing aid compatibility in a more flexible manner than whether a
handset model merely meets the criteria of a technical certification
standard that the Commission has incorporated by reference into its
rules. Specifically, the Task Force ``encourages the Commission to
adopt a forward-looking, flexible definition'' of hearing aid
compatibility ``that reflects changing technologies while abiding by
Congress's direction in the statute.'' Specifically, the Task Force
recommends that a hearing aid-compatible handset model be defined as a
handset model that: (1) has an internal means for compatibility; (2)
meets established technical standards for hearing aid coupling or
compatibility; and (3) is usable.
26. In the Public Notice, WTB sought comment on whether the Task
Force's proposed revised definition of hearing aid compatibility would
be consistent with the Commission's goal of ensuring that consumers
have access to handset models that are fully hearing aid compatible.
WTB asked whether the proposed definition would allow the Commission to
determine hearing aid compatibility with certainty and whether a
definition that makes general reference to ``established technical
standards for hearing aid coupling or compatibility'' would be
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or other legal
requirements. In response to the Public Notice, the Consumer Technology
Association (CTA) expresses support for the Task Force's proposed
definition, arguing that a more flexible approach encourages innovation
while ensuring objective testing standards. In reply comments, the Task
Force states that the definition of hearing aid compatibility should
incorporate current and alternative hearing aid compatibility
technologies.
27. HAC Task Force Definition. The Commission seeks comment on the
HAC Task Force proposed definition of hearing aid compatibility,
including whether it could adopt the definition in a manner that is
consistent with the statutory requirements of section 710(c) of the
Communications Act. Section 710(c) provides that ``[t]he Commission
shall establish or approve such technical standards as are required to
enforce this section.'' Further, this section states that ``[a]
telephone or other customer premises equipment that is compliant with
relevant technical standards developed through a public participation
process and in consultation with interested consumer stakeholders . . .
will be considered hearing aid compatible for purposes of this
section.'' It also states that ``[t]he Commission shall consult with
the public, including people with hearing loss, in establishing or
approving such technical standards.'' Finally, this section states that
``[t]he Commission shall remain the final arbiter as to whether the
standards meet the requirements of this section.''
28. Is the more flexible definition of hearing aid compatibility
that the Task Force proposes consistent with section 710(c)? Does
section 710(c) require the Commission to continue to define hearing aid
compatibility through technical standards that the Commission
incorporates by reference into its rules or does it permit the
Commission to recognize technical standards that industry and consumers
are using for hearing aid compatibility without adopting those
standards through a rulemaking process? Commenters should provide a
detailed analysis of why their approach is consistent with statutory
requirements, including why the commenter's proposal is more consistent
with the public interest than the Commission's current approach. This
analysis should also explain the costs and benefits of the commenter's
proposed approach versus the Commission's current approach.
29. In adopting technical standards into its hearing aid
compatibility rules, the Commission has relied historically on
standards that were developed by organizations composed of handset
manufacturers, wireless service providers, and, in some cases, groups
that represent consumers with hearing loss who, through a consensus-
driven process, create or revise technical standards. The standards
development process does not necessarily include an opportunity for
members of the public to participate in the initial creation of new
technical standards. Once these technical standards bodies have
developed a new standard, they petition the Commission to adopt the new
standard into the hearing aid compatibility rules. The Commission
accomplishes this task in compliance with the APA and Communications
Act through notice and comment rulemaking that allows the Commission to
meet public participation requirements.
30. The HAC Task Force recommends, however, that the Commission
adopt a more forward-looking definition of hearing aid compatibility
that would allow for the express incorporation of alternative and
innovative technologies that can enable compatibility between handset
models and hearing aid devices. As stated above, the Task Force
proposes that the Commission define a hearing aid-compatible handset
model as a handset model that: (1) has an internal means for
compatibility; (2) meets established technical standards for hearing
aid coupling or compatibility; and (3) is usable. The Commission seeks
comment on each part of the HAC Task Force's proposed definition of
hearing aid compatibility, as discussed below.
31. ``Internal Means of Compatibility.'' The Task Force recommends
that the Commission define an ``internal means of compatibility'' to
mean that ``the capability must be provided as an integral part of the
phone, rather than through the use of add-on components that
significantly enlarge or alter the
[[Page 5157]]
shape or weight of the phone as compared to other phones offered by the
manufacturer.'' The Commission seeks comment on this aspect of the HAC
Task Force's proposed definition of hearing aid compatibility. As the
Task Force notes, its proposed definition of ``internal means of
compatibility'' is based on language from the 2003 HAC Order. This
Order recognized that section 710(b)(1)(B) of the Act refers to
providing for internal means for effective use with hearing aids. The
Commission interpreted this to mean that the capability must be
provided as an integral part of the handset model, rather than through
the use of add-on components that significantly enlarge or alter the
shape or weight of the handset model as compared to other handset
models offered by manufacturers. Commenters supporting or opposing this
part of the HAC Task Force's proposed definition of hearing aid
compatibility should explain why they support or oppose this part of
the definition and whether it is consistent with the Commission's
recognition of a possible Bluetooth coupling standard. Is this part of
the Task Force's proposed definition clear and can it be applied
effectively by testing organizations? Does it include the types of
connectivity components that are desirable to include, and exclude
those that are undesirable to include?
32. ``Meets Established Technical Standards.'' The Commission seeks
comment on the ``meets established technical standards for hearing aid
coupling or compatibility'' portion of the HAC Task Force's proposed
definition. With respect to this portion of the definition, the Task
Force states that ``[a]ny established technical standard for hearing
aid coupling should be interoperable, non-proprietary, and adopted by
industry and consumers alike.'' The HAC Task Force also ``recommends
that the Commission consider factors such as ease-of-use, reliability,
industry adoption, and consumer use and adoption when evaluating what
technical standards'' would meet the proposed definition. The
Commission seeks comment on this approach, particularly because use of
an ``established technical standards'' definition would be in contrast
to an approach that would seek to reference each and every possible
technical standard within Sec. 20.19 of its rules. The Commission
notes that incorporating multiple standards by reference may be
particularly difficult where technology is rapidly changing, new or
revised standards continue to be developed, and the legal requirements
for incorporating specific technical standards by reference into
Commission regulations may be resource intensive and would necessarily
lag behind marketplace developments.
33. If the Commission adopts this approach, how should it evaluate
whether a standard is ``established'' and ``adopted by industry and
consumers alike?'' What criteria should the Commission rely on to make
these determinations? To be deemed ``established,'' would a given
standard have to be adopted by all manufacturers and consumers or just
a certain percentage of manufacturers and consumers, and how would the
Commission measure the degree of acceptance of a standard by industry
and consumers? How would testing bodies and the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology determine compliance with such standards?
Further, should the Commission qualify the term ``non-proprietary'' in
the Task Force's proposed definition, to permit reliance on proprietary
Bluetooth standards, as discussed in the next section?
34. Further, would adopting this portion of the definition be
consistent with the section 710(c) requirement that a wireless handset
model is hearing aid compatible if it is compliant with relevant
technical standards developed through a public participation process
and in consultation with interested stakeholders, including people with
hearing loss, as discussed above? The Commission notes that section
710(c) appears to provide that a handset model may be deemed compatible
by complying with a technical standard that has not yet been
affirmatively adopted or approved by the Commission:
The Commission shall establish or approve such technical
standards as are required to enforce this section. A telephone or
handset that is compliant with relevant technical standards
developed through a public participation process and in consultation
with interested consumer stakeholders (designated by the Commission
for the purposes of this section) will be considered hearing aid
compatible for purposes of this section, until such time as the
Commission may determine otherwise. The Commission shall consult
with the public, including people with hearing loss, in establishing
or approving such technical standards. The Commission may delegate
this authority to an employee pursuant to section 155(c) of this
title. The Commission shall remain the final arbiter as to whether
the standards meet the requirements of this section.
35. Should the Commission interpret section 710(c) to permit
handset models to be designated as hearing aid compatible based on a
technical standard that has been ``developed through a public
participation process'' and in consultation with designated consumer
stakeholders, even if the standard has not yet been adopted or approved
by the Commission? How should the Commission define and determine
compliance with such a ``public participation process'' and consumer
consultation? Would the Commission's adoption of such a procedure be
consistent with the Commission's other section 710 obligations, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and the U.S. Constitution?
36. Further, would this approach be sufficiently certain for
enforcement purposes as required by section 710(c)? If the Commission
took this approach, how would it enforce such a standard?
Alternatively, can the Commission adopt the Task Force's proposed
definition, while still incorporating by reference industry-developed
standards for hearing aid compatibility into its rules, consistent with
its current approach?
37. ``Is Usable.'' Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the
third aspect of the HAC Task Force's proposed definition of hearing aid
compatibility. The Task Force explains that it defines ``usable'' in a
manner consistent with the Commission's accessibility requirements.
Specifically, the Task Force states that ``usable'' refers ``to
ensuring that an individual has adequate information on how to operate
a product and access to the `full functionality and documentation for
the product, including instructions, product information (including
accessible feature information), documentation, bills and technical
support which is provided to individuals without disabilities.' '' The
Commission seeks comment on incorporating this aspect of the proposed
definition into its rules. What does this aspect of the HAC Task
Force's proposed definition add to the Commission's hearing aid
compatibility rules that its rules do not already cover? Does
``usable'' mean anything more than complying with Commission
regulations and practicing good consumer relations?
38. Office of the Federal Register Regulations. The Commission also
seeks comment on the HAC Task Force's proposed definition in light of
the Office of the Federal Register incorporation by reference
regulations. When the Commission incorporates by reference a new
hearing aid compatibility standard into its rules, it must request
approval from the Director of the Federal Register by submitting a
request for approval that complies with Office of the Federal
[[Page 5158]]
Register incorporation by reference requirements. Among other
requirements, the Office of the Federal Register rules state that
``[i]ncorporation by reference of a publication is limited to the
edition of the publication that is approved'' and ``[f]uture amendments
or revisions of the publication are not included.'' Further, the Office
of the Federal Register requires that the Commission ``[e]nsure that a
copy of the incorporated material is on file at the Office of Federal
Register.'' The Commission also makes the document being incorporated
by reference available for inspection in the Commission's public
reference room.
39. As a result, when the Commission requests Director of the
Federal Register's approval, it must ensure that the standard that it
asks to be incorporated by reference is limited to the approved edition
and make clear that future updates to the standard are not incorporated
by reference without going through notice and comment rulemaking.
Further, to ensure that any technical standard is ``reasonably
available'' to affected parties, the Commission would ensure that a
copy of the incorporated standard is on file at the Office of Federal
Register and make a copy of the standard available for public
inspection in its reference room. The Commission seeks comment on
whether there is a way for it to continue to incorporate by reference
ANSI standards for hearing aid compatibility into its rules, while
allowing for a more flexible approach for alternative technologies,
such as Bluetooth technologies. Is there a way to distinguish
alternative coupling technologies, such as Bluetooth technologies, from
the traditional ANSI coupling capabilities?
40. The Commission also seeks comment on how the Commission could
comply with the Office of the Federal Register incorporation by
reference regulations if it adopted a specific Bluetooth standard, such
as the non-proprietary Bluetooth Low Energy Audio (Bluetooth LE Audio)
and the Bluetooth Hearing Access Profile (Bluetooth HAP) standards.
Could the Commission submit a copy of the Bluetooth LE Audio and
Bluetooth HAP standards to the Director of the Federal Register with
its request for incorporation by reference permission and then make a
copy of these standards available for public inspection in the
Commission's reference room? Further, how would the Commission address
updates to these standards given that the Commission can only
incorporate by reference an approved edition of a standard? Is there
another way consistent with statutory requirements that would allow the
Commission to recognize these standards without following the
traditional incorporation by reference process and that would allow the
standards to be updated as industry releases revised versions of these
standards?
2. Expanding the Definition of Hearing Aid Compatibility To Include
Bluetooth Connectivity
41. As part of the 2016 HAC Order, the Commission requested that
the HAC Task Force consider whether the 100% hearing aid compatibility
goal could be achieved in part or in whole by relying on alternative
hearing aid compatibility technologies, such as Bluetooth, bearing in
mind the importance of ensuring interoperability between hearing aids
and alternative technologies. The Task Force's Final Report recommends
that the Commission move to a hearing aid compatibility standard that
requires a handset model to be able to couple with hearing aids using
two of three possible methods. All handset models would have to be
capable of coupling using acoustic coupling and these handset models
would also have to be capable of coupling through either a telecoil
that meets certification standards or through Bluetooth connectivity.
In response to WTB's Public Notice seeking comment on the Task Force's
recommendation, most commenters expressed support for the Task Force's
proposal to permit Bluetooth connectivity to be used as an alternative
coupling method to telecoils, noting that most consumers are already
using hearing aids that come with Bluetooth connectivity.
42. In light of the record, the Commission proposes to expand the
definition of hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth
connectivity, and it seeks comment on the best way to accomplish this
objective. Below, the Commission proposes to require handset models to
connect to hearing aids through Bluetooth connectivity as an
alternative to telecoil coupling on a limited basis as it continues to
study this issue, as long as both types of handset models also meet
applicable acoustic coupling and volume control standards. As part of
its proposal, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should take a
``market based'' approach to Bluetooth technology whereby the
Commission would not explicitly adopt or incorporate by reference a
single Bluetooth connectivity technology but would allow market forces
to continue to determine which Bluetooth technology handset models use
to pair with hearing aids. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment
on an approach whereby the Commission would broaden the current
definition of hearing aid compatibility by explicitly incorporating by
reference one or more non-proprietary Bluetooth connectivity standards,
such as Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP, into the wireless hearing
aid compatibility rules, the use of which would be required on a non-
exclusive basis.
a. Requiring Bluetooth Connectivity as an Alternative Coupling Method
to Telecoil Coupling
43. Background. The HAC Task Force states that based on a survey
that it conducted, most consumers prefer to use Bluetooth connectivity
for pairing hearing aid devices with wireless handsets, as compared to
acoustic and telecoil coupling methods. Further, it explains that
unlike telecoils, Bluetooth audio transmission methods are expressly
designed to transmit and facilitate audio. According to the HAC Task
Force, consumers are increasingly using--and are increasingly finding a
satisfying listening experience with using--Bluetooth connectivity.
Bluetooth technology is an umbrella term for related technical
standards that enable devices to communicate wirelessly. Some of these
standards are proprietary standards, such as Apple's Made-for-iPhone
(MFi) and Google's Audio Streaming for Hearing Aids (ASHA) standards
and other standards are non-proprietary standards, such as LE Audio and
Bluetooth HAP standards. The Task Force indicates that variations of
these Bluetooth standards can be found in many of today's handset
models. In fact, the HAC Task Force states that ``[t]he vast majority
of wireless handsets now include at least some type of Bluetooth audio
technology, without a regulatory mandate . . . .'' The Task Force
expects even greater use of Bluetooth connectivity in the coming years.
44. The vast majority of commenters support the Task Force's
findings with respect to Bluetooth coupling between wireless handset
models and hearing aids. Bluetooth Special Interest Group, Inc.
(Bluetooth SIG) states that more than 80% of hearing aids today use
some form of Bluetooth technology, and that the Commission should adopt
Bluetooth as a primary coupling method. CTA states that nine out of ten
consumers own smartphones with Bluetooth and two-thirds report that
their hearing device includes satisfactory direct Bluetooth audio
streaming. Samsung expresses support for the consensus recommendation
on coupling requirements and notes that
[[Page 5159]]
Bluetooth is among the top three most frequently mentioned features
included in hearing devices desired by consumers. The Mobile & Wireless
Form (MWF) states that Bluetooth is a dominant wireless technology and
used in over-the-counter hearing aids.
45. The Task Force's Final Report notes, however, that there is a
subset of consumers that continue to use telecoils and that these
consumers find telecoils to be an important feature in wireless handset
models. This finding is consistent with a comment arguing that telecoil
coupling facilitates interoperability, is more reliable than Bluetooth,
is consistent across devices, and does not require replacing hearing
aids or a handset when the other is updated. This commenter states that
through its HAC rules, the Commission is helping to maintain the
availability of telecoils and urges the Commission to have a 100%
telecoil requirement.
46. Discussion. The Commission proposes to require some handset
models to connect to hearing aids through Bluetooth connectivity as an
alternative to telecoil coupling on a limited basis as it continues to
study this issue. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The
record indicates that Bluetooth coupling is presently being widely
utilized by consumers to couple handsets with hearing aids and
achieving positive results. Under its proposal, the Commission will
maintain a telecoil requirement but require a certain percentage of
handset models to use Bluetooth connectivity as an alternative to
telecoil coupling as long as both types of handset models also meet
applicable acoustic coupling and volume control requirements, as
discussed in more detail below.
47. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how Bluetooth
coupling compares with telecoil coupling as far as interoperability
between handsets and hearing aids. Is a handset model that meets
telecoil certification requirements more expensive to manufacture then
a handset model that substitutes Bluetooth connectivity for a telecoil?
Does one type of coupling have better sound quality or maintain its
connection better than the other type of coupling? Is it easier to
connect a handset to a hearing aid with a telecoil connection versus a
Bluetooth connection? What are the costs and benefits of allowing
Bluetooth coupling on a limited basis as an alternative to telecoil
coupling? Would a gradual transition from telecoil coupling to
Bluetooth coupling serve the public interest? As Bluetooth coupling
becomes more accepted by consumers, will telecoil coupling become a
less favorable way of connecting handsets to hearing aids as the HAC
Task Force suggests?
48. The Commission is concerned with the cost to consumers of
Bluetooth connectivity versus telecoil coupling. When using Bluetooth
connectivity as an alternative to telecoil coupling, how frequently do
consumers need to replace hearing aids or a handset when the other is
updated? Similarly, does telecoil technology evolve over time, or is it
a stable technology that does not change in the way Bluetooth standards
are updated and therefore does not require a handset to be replaced
when a consumer purchases a new hearing device with telecoil
connectivity? In general, do lower priced hearing devices include
telecoil or Bluetooth connectivity? Are new over-the-counter hearing
aids more likely to include telecoil or Bluetooth connectivity? If they
are more likely to include Bluetooth connectivity, what type of
Bluetooth technology are they likely to include? How can the Commission
ensure that its hearing aid compatibility rules allow consumers to have
access to reasonably priced hearing aid-compatible handset models?
49. The Commission also seeks comment on the future of telecoil
coupling. Is the HAC Task Force's observation that Bluetooth coupling
has been steadily increasing over time while telecoil coupling has been
stagnating an accurate reflection of consumer preferences and trends?
Is telecoil coupling being replaced with Bluetooth connectivity in the
marketplace? Would allowing market conditions to control the
replacement of telecoil coupling with Bluetooth connectivity
technologies in handset models protect the interests of all consumers?
Will relying on market conditions--which may lead to fewer handset
models with telecoil coupling--leave behind the needs of consumers who
may not be able to update to the newest handset models or hearing aids
or who find that telecoil coupling better meets their needs?
b. Alternative Approaches to Adopting a Bluetooth Connectivity
Requirement
50. Given its proposal to require Bluetooth coupling in a certain
percentage of handset models (either as an alternative to or in place
of telecoil)--and in light of the various Bluetooth technologies
currently in use in the market--the Commission seeks comment on how to
implement Bluetooth coupling into its rules. Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on two alternative approaches to adopting such
a requirement: (1) requiring a certain percentage of handset models to
meet a Bluetooth technical standard (either proprietary or non-
proprietary) without incorporating by reference any particular standard
into its rules; or (2) requiring a certain percentage of handset models
to meet a (non-proprietary) Bluetooth standard that has been
specifically incorporated by reference into its rules. In considering
these approaches, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a
need for it to approve and incorporate by reference particular
Bluetooth technical standards into its rules for hearing aid
compatibility certification or whether the Commission can adopt a
Bluetooth connectivity requirement without incorporating by reference a
particular standard into the rules.
51. Market Based Approach to a Bluetooth Requirement. Given the
variety of Bluetooth standards that exist today--both proprietary and
non-proprietary--the Commission seeks comment on an approach to
implementing a Bluetooth requirement that does not mandate a particular
Bluetooth connectivity technology. Under this approach, the Commission
would not explicitly adopt or endorse a particular Bluetooth
connectivity technology or standard but would allow manufacturers and
service providers to determine which Bluetooth technology to use to
satisfy the required percentage of Bluetooth-compatible handset models
(e.g., the proposed 15% requirement, as detailed below).
52. Would this approach be in the public interest? How would such
an approach impact the development of Bluetooth technology in handset
models? This approach appears to be consistent with the 2003 HAC Order,
where the Commission noted that Congress expressly avoided technology
mandates so as not to ``inhibit future development'' of handset models,
provided they are compatible with hearing aids. Further, under this
approach, the Commission could continue to monitor the development of
Bluetooth connectivity between wireless handset models and hearing aids
as it has been doing since the release of the 2016 HAC Order. If an
issue develops in the future, the Commission could take action at that
time to resolve the problem. The Commission seeks comment on this
analysis.
53. The Commission also seeks comment on whether this approach is
consistent with the Commission's obligations under section 710(c).
Section 710(c) of the Act states that
[[Page 5160]]
``[t]he Commission shall establish or approve such technical standards
as are required to enforce this section.'' If the Commission does not
establish or approve a specific Bluetooth standard, how can the
Commission enforce a Bluetooth connectivity requirement? For the
purposes of implementing section 710(c), can a distinction be drawn
between the industry-developed standards for the more traditional
coupling technologies (i.e., acoustic and inductive) and volume control
on the one hand, and the standards developed for Bluetooth technology
on the other hand? For example, should the fact that industry has
already developed and implemented a variety of proprietary and non-
proprietary standards for Bluetooth coupling impact how the Commission
evaluates the need for it to adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement
into its rules? Should the Commission rely on the fact that handset
manufacturers have already been including various forms of Bluetooth
connectivity in their handset models without the Commission's
involvement, and more recently have been including updated versions of
this form of connectivity that permit lower battery usage and can allow
a user to connect to assistive listening devices in movie theaters,
convention centers, public transit vehicles, and other ventures?
54. Along these same lines, how would an approach that may allow
manufacturers and service providers to meet Bluetooth benchmarks using
proprietary standards, be consistent with the ``established technical
standard for hearing aid coupling compatibility'' portion of the HAC
Task Force's proposed definition for hearing aid compatibility? As
noted above, the Task Force proposes that ``[a]ny established technical
standard for hearing aid coupling should be interoperable, non-
proprietary, and adopted by industry and consumers alike.'' If the
Commission adopts this proposed definition, should it limit the
permissible Bluetooth standards to non-proprietary standards? Even if
the Commission does not adopt a specific Bluetooth standard, should it
nevertheless stipulate that any Bluetooth standard that a manufacturer
chooses to use in a handset model must at least incorporate LE Audio
technology given the efficiency and quality advantages of that
technology? Under a market-based approach, could the Commission
encourage use of the latest non-proprietary Bluetooth standards, such
as the Bluetooth LE Audio and HAP Profile?
55. Incorporation by Reference of a Non-Proprietary Bluetooth
Connectivity Standard. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on
requiring a handset model to meet a Bluetooth standard that it has
incorporated by reference into its rules in order to meet a Bluetooth
requirement. Under this approach, the Commission would broaden the
current definition of hearing aid compatibility by explicitly
incorporating by reference non-proprietary Bluetooth connectivity
standards whose use would be required on a non-exclusive basis.
Specifically, the Commission would explicitly incorporate by reference
the non-proprietary Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP standards into
its hearing aid compatibility rules and require their use instead of a
telecoil in a manner consistent with the proposed Bluetooth
requirement.
56. Under this approach, handset models could come with other
Bluetooth connectivity options, such as Apple's MFi and Google's ASHA
proprietary standards, but the handset models also would have to
include a non-proprietary Bluetooth standard, such as Bluetooth LE
Audio and Bluetooth HAP coupling abilities, in order to satisfy the
Commission's certification rules. Handset models that include other
Bluetooth technologies rather than the Commission endorsed
technologies, such as proprietary technologies, could not be used to
satisfy the Bluetooth benchmark, unless the Commission decides to allow
interim use of other Bluetooth technologies to meet the Bluetooth
benchmark as a means of transitioning to full utilization of the
Commission endorsed Bluetooth technology. The Commission seeks comment
on this approach.
57. The HAC Task Force's Final Report states that Bluetooth LE
Audio is an industry standard and that handset models with Bluetooth LE
Audio are likely to increase interoperability with hearing devices
entering the marketplace. Further, the Final Report states that
Bluetooth HAP, which extends the Bluetooth LE Audio standard, is likely
to increase Bluetooth technology's popularity as a coupling method for
hearing devices and wireless handsets. The Final Report states,
however, that Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP are relatively new
standards and that to ensure a seamless transition to full
interoperability the Commission should allow the use of well-
established standards, such as Bluetooth Classic, ASHA, and MFi in the
near term.
58. As an initial matter, the Commission seeks comment on whether
it is required by section 710(c) to incorporate specific Bluetooth
standards by reference into its rules in order to implement a Bluetooth
requirement (e.g., the proposed 15% requirement, as detailed below), or
whether it can interpret section 710(c) to allow a handset model to
meet a standard that has not been affirmatively adopted or incorporated
by reference into the Commission's rules. Further, what are the costs
and benefits of this approach relative to the more flexible market-
based approach discussed above? Does this approach balance the need to
adopt specific Bluetooth standards into the Commission's rules with the
need to avoid excluding other standards, the loss of which might force
consumers to replace their hearing aids prematurely to avoid
connectivity issues with a new handset? How would this approach affect
the availability of proprietary Bluetooth standards? Do proprietary
Bluetooth technologies provide superior connectivity that would be
sacrificed under this approach? What are the quality differences, if
any, between the various Bluetooth standards with regard to the
consumer experience in coupling and utilizing such Bluetooth
technology? Would this approach be feasible in view of the pace at
which Bluetooth technologies change and develop? Would one of these
approaches better protect the interests of consumers with hearing loss
and the ability of handset manufacturers to innovate?
59. If the Commission adopts a specific non-proprietary Bluetooth
standard, would the Commission run the risk of tipping the marketplace
in favor of Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP rather than another
non-proprietary Bluetooth connectivity standard? In addition to
Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP, are there other non-proprietary
Bluetooth connectivity standards that the Commission should consider
incorporating by reference into the wireless hearing aid compatibility
rules? Are there other non-proprietary Bluetooth standards in the
development stage? How can the Commission ensure that its choice of a
non-proprietary Bluetooth standard is best suited to meet the needs of
consumers with hearing loss?
60. Transitional Use of Proprietary Bluetooth Standards. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether it should permit the use of
other Bluetooth standards, such as proprietary standards, to satisfy
its certification requirements on an interim basis as the industry
transitions to full use of the Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP. In
its Final Report, the HAC Task Force
[[Page 5161]]
states that the Commission should consider incorporating Bluetooth
technology such as Apple's MFi and Google's ASHA into the Commission's
rules for a period of transition. The Task Force states that Bluetooth
LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP represent a long-term goal and current
``widespread use'' of these other Bluetooth standards ``indicates that
these methods should be considered to ensure a seamless transition
toward full interoperability.''
61. Recently, the HAC Task Force reiterated its commitment to
continuing to explore the development and inclusion of Bluetooth LE
Audio and Bluetooth HAP in new handset models. How likely is it that
handset manufacturers will replace proprietary Bluetooth connectivity
in their handset models with non-proprietary standards and over what
time period? If the Commission allows the use of proprietary Bluetooth
standards to meet the Bluetooth benchmark before transitioning to
exclusive use of Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP, how long should
the transition period be? What are the costs and benefits of allowing
the use of proprietary standards for a period of time while the
marketplace transitions to full use of Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth
HAP?
62. Other Approaches to Adopting Bluetooth Standards. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should
establish a Bluetooth safe harbor or allow WTB to use its delegated
authority to approve new Bluetooth connectivity standards or new
editions of currently adopted standards that meet certain requirements.
63. Under the safe harbor approach, the Commission would require a
certain percentage of handset models to include Bluetooth LE Audio and
Bluetooth HAP connectivity technologies, but the Commission would not
require compliance with a certain edition or version of these
technologies by referencing those editions or versions in its rules. As
long as the handset model included some edition or version of the
technologies, the handset model would meet certification requirements
in terms of the proposal to require a certain percentage of handset
models to meet Bluetooth connectivity requirements. Is the
establishment of a Bluetooth safe harbor consistent with the
requirements of section 710(c)? Under the safe harbor approach, how
would the Commission enforce compliance with these technologies if it
does not require compliance with a specific edition or version of the
technologies?
64. Along these same lines, the Commission seeks comment on whether
WTB could use its delegated authority under Sec. 20.19(k) to adopt new
Bluetooth connectivity technologies into the hearing aid compatibility
rules or use this authority to revise the edition that could be used
for certification purposes. Under this approach, the Commission could
establish criteria that should guide the Bureau when making the
determination of whether to approve a new Bluetooth connectivity
standard or new edition of a currently approved standard.
Alternatively, the Commission could adopt the Bluetooth connectivity
standard and allow WTB to use its delegated authority to approve new
editions of the Commission's adopted standard. WTB could make a list of
approved standards publicly available that handset manufacturers could
use for certification purposes.
65. If the Commission adopted this approach, would WTB be required
to use notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures or could WTB release a
Public Notice authorizing the use of a new Bluetooth connectivity
standard or the use of a new edition of a currently approved standard?
Would such an approach be consistent with section 710(c) of the Act and
other statutory requirements, such as notice and comment rulemaking
procedures? Would the Commission need to differentiate the process of
adopting new ANSI standards from the processes of adopting new
Bluetooth connectivity standards or editions? If the Commission needed
to differentiate the two processes, how would the Commission make this
distinction? Would the Commission need to adjust or supplement WTB's
delegated authority under Sec. 20.19(k) if it determine to use this
approach?
66. Bluetooth Compliance Requirements. Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on how it could ensure a handset model is in compliance
with the Bluetooth standards permitted by any of the above approaches.
How could the Commission ensure that a handset model complies with the
Bluetooth connectivity standard that the manufacturer indicates that it
meets, and how can it ensure that this standard meets minimum consumer
requirements for a quality wireless connection with a hearing device?
67. The HAC Task Force suggests that a handset manufacturer should
be required to submit a Bluetooth attestation as part of its FCC
equipment certification application. The Commission seeks comment on
this suggestion. Would the submission of an attestation be sufficient
to meet statutory requirements? How could the Commission ensure that a
handset model submitted with an attestation actually meets the
Bluetooth connectivity standards that the manufacturer indicates is
embedded within the handset model? What kind of testing does a handset
model undergo in order to receive such an attestation? Should the
Commission rely on the Bluetooth standard party's own testing process
such that an attestation is sufficient to satisfy that process
including any interoperability concerns? Even if a handset model
receives an attestation, how can the Commission ensure that the
standard that is incorporated into the handset model is robust enough
to meet the minimum consumer needs with respect to establishing a
quality connection between the handset model and a hearing device?
68. Bluetooth SIG has indicated that it has its own qualification
process, which involves testing at the product level for
interoperability. If the Commission adopts Bluetooth LE Audio and
Bluetooth HAP standards, should the Commission rely on the Bluetooth
SIG's own testing process such that an attestation is sufficient to
satisfy that process including any interoperability concerns? Is there
reason to believe that some Bluetooth standards bodies provide more
robust testing then other standards bodies?
C. Compliance Benchmarks
69. Background. The Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules
require that 85% of the total number of handset models that
manufacturers and service providers offer must be certified as hearing
aid compatible. The Commission's rules, however, do not impose separate
benchmarks for the three components of the 2019 ANSI Standard (acoustic
coupling, inductive coupling, and volume control). That is, in order
for a handset model to be certified as hearing aid compatible under
this standard, the handset model must meet all aspects of the standard
and not just certain parts of the standard. Further, the Commission's
rules allow handset manufacturers and service providers to grandfather
existing hearing aid-compatible handset models for benchmark purposes
as long as the handset models are still offered to the public.
70. Under the HAC Task Force's 100% proposal, after the applicable
transition period passes, all of the handset models that manufacturers
and service providers offer in their handset portfolios would have to
be certified as hearing aid compatible. The Task Force
[[Page 5162]]
proposes, however, that a portion of handset models could be certified
as hearing aid compatible by meeting only certain aspects of the 2019
ANSI Standard's requirements rather than all of the requirements as
presently required. Specifically, the Task Force proposes that to meet
the 100% compatibility requirement, all handset models would have to
meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's acoustic coupling requirements, but only
85% of these handset models would have to continue to meet the 2019
ANSI standard's telecoil coupling requirements. The remaining 15% of
these handset models would have to meet a new Bluetooth connectivity
requirement. To the extent the handset model ``does not pass the
telecoil test, it would have to support Bluetooth, and vice-versa.''
While the Task Force's Final Report does not contain a specific volume
control benchmark proposal, recently members of the Task Force
reiterated their commitment to working towards the goal that all new
handset models will meet hearing aid compatibility requirements and
that this will include an applicable volume control requirement.
71. As discussed above, the HAC Task Force has recommended that the
Commission consider a ``more forward-looking'' definition of HAC. The
Task Force asserts that its proposed 85/15% split between telecoil and
Bluetooth coupling requirements is an appropriate way to reflect the
popularity of Bluetooth connectivity for pairing hearing aid devices to
handsets. According to a survey that it conducted, most consumers
prefer to use Bluetooth connectivity for pairing hearing aid devices
with wireless handsets, as compared to acoustic and telecoil coupling
methods. Further, the Task Force states that unlike telecoils,
Bluetooth audio transmission methods are expressly designed to transmit
and facilitate audio. By contrast, the HAC Task Force explains,
telecoils are a ``by-product'' of certain 1940s-era phone designs that
later proved useful to couple to a similarly coiled piece of copper in
a hearing aid. Noting that consumers are already familiar with
Bluetooth technology, the Task Force reports that the vast majority of
wireless handset models now include at least some type of Bluetooth
audio technology. The Task Force expects even greater use of Bluetooth
connectivity in the coming years and that consumers will prefer
Bluetooth applications over acoustic and inductive coupling.
72. The Task Force's Final Report appears to recommend that at the
end of its proposed four-year transition period for manufacturers and
five-year transition period for service providers, all handset models
in a manufacturer's or service provider's overall handset portfolio
would have to be certified as hearing aid compatible under the 2019
ANSI Standard, subject to the percentages detailed above. The Final
Report, though, is ambiguous regarding the grandfathering of existing
handset models that have been certified as hearing aid compatible under
older technical standards and are still being offered to the public.
While the body of the Final Report does not discuss this issue, it does
suggest in its Model Rule section that the current grandfathering rule
be kept in place but given a new subparagraph designation. The Final
Report does not explain how the grandfathering rule would operate with
respect to the overall composition of a handset manufacturer's or
service provider's handset portfolio after the end of the relevant
transition periods.
73. In response to WTB's Public Notice seeking comment on the Task
Force's Final Report, CTA, MWF, and Samsung state that they support the
HAC Task Force's consensus recommendations that provide a path to 100%
hearing aid compatibility. Further, CTA and Samsung state that they
support the Task Force's recommendation regarding the 85% benchmark for
telecoil coupling and the 15% benchmark for Bluetooth coupling. Samsung
also states that the Commission should adopt a benchmark for the volume
control requirement, but it does not propose a benchmark for this
requirement. The HAC Task Force states that the Commission should adopt
a new Bluetooth connectivity benchmark, and Bluetooth SIG states that
the use of a Bluetooth coupling requirement will help the Commission
achieve its 100% hearing aid compatibility objective. As noted above,
however, an individual commenter argues that the Commission should
adopt a 100% telecoil requirement. This commenter states that telecoil
coupling facilitates interoperability, is more reliable than Bluetooth,
is consistent across devices, and does not require replacing hearing
aids or a handset when the other is updated. Further, this commenter
states that the Commission ``is helping to maintain the availability of
telecoils'' and that the Commission ``should require telecoil
technology in 100% of all mobile devices . . . and mandate a timeline
for compliance.''
74. 100% Benchmark. Consistent with its tentative conclusion
regarding achievability, the Commission proposes that after the
expiration of the relevant transition periods, 100% of the handset
models that manufacturers and service providers offer or import for use
in the United States must be certified as hearing aid compatible. As
part of this requirement, the Commission proposes to require all
handset models offered or imported for use in the United States to have
at least two forms of coupling, as proposed by the HAC Task Force: (1)
100% of handset models would be required to meet an acoustic coupling
requirement; and (2) 100% of handset models would be required to meet
either a telecoil or a Bluetooth coupling requirement. Specifically, at
least 85% of handset models would be required to meet a telecoil
requirement and at least 15% of handset models would be required to
meet a Bluetooth requirement. Any handset models not meeting a telecoil
requirement would be required to meet a Bluetooth requirement, and any
handset models not meeting a Bluetooth requirement would be required to
meet a telecoil requirement. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal in more detail below and throughout this NPRM. These handset
models would have to be certified as hearing aid compatible under the
requirements of part 2 subpart J--Equipment Authorization Procedures of
the Commission's rules, and include the relevant test reports showing
compliance with these rules and the Commission's Sec. 20.19 hearing
aid compatibility testing requirements for mobile handset models. All
of these procedures must be complied with in full for a handset model
to be labeled as hearing aid compatible and offered in the United
States or imported for use in the United States. Once the relevant
transition period ends, handset manufacturers and service providers
will no longer be able to offer handset models that are not certified
as hearing aid compatible.
75. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to require all
handset models that manufacturers and service providers offer in the
United States or imported for use in the United States to be hearing
aid compatible after the end of the applicable transition periods.
Since the Commission has tentatively concluded above that 100% is
achievable, and no commenters opposed or found issue with some form of
a 100% requirement when WTB sought comment on the HAC Task Force's
Final Report, any commenter objecting to the Commission's proposal
should explain why this objective is not achievable using the statutory
criteria outlined above.
76. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment below on a
proposal--as
[[Page 5163]]
well as an alternative approach--for meeting the 100% hearing aid-
compatible handset portfolio requirement, including its proposed 85/15%
split for telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity. Under the Commission's
proposal, manufacturers and service providers could meet the 100%
requirement by including grandfathered handset models that have been
certified as hearing aid compatible in their overall handset portfolios
as long as the handset models are still being offered in the United
States or imported for use in the United States, as the Commission's
current rule allows. Manufacturers and service providers could meet the
85/15% telecoil/Bluetooth requirement using new or grandfathered
handset models. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on an
approach where it would discontinue its grandfathering rule and not
allow handset manufacturers and service providers to count
grandfathered handset models certified under older certification
standards towards the benchmark. Under this alternative, 100% of the
handset models in a manufacturer's or service provider's handset
portfolio would have to be certified as hearing aid compatible using
the 2019 ANSI Standard's requirements, as modified by a possible
telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity split.
77. Grandfathering Proposal to Reach 100%. Consistent with its
existing rules, the Commission proposes to allow manufacturers and
service providers to continue to offer handset models that are already
certified as hearing aid compatible under older technical standards
after the end of the relevant transition periods. These handset models
would be grandfathered, and manufacturers and service providers could
include these handset models as part of their 100% handset portfolios
as long as the handset models are still being offered. Under this
proposal, 100% of handset models would have to meet an acoustic
coupling requirement, and could meet this requirement with handset
models certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard or with grandfathered
handset models (i.e., handset models previously certified using a pre-
2019 ANSI Standard). Further, all handset models would have to meet a
telecoil or Bluetooth requirement, with at least 85% meeting a telecoil
requirement--which could be met using handset models certified under
the 2019 ANSI Standard or grandfathered handset models--and with at
least 15% meeting a Bluetooth requirement. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal.
78. Under the Commission's grandfathering proposal, handset
manufacturers and service providers would have in their handset
portfolios handset models that have been certified under different
certification standards. For instance, manufacturer and service
provider handset portfolios might include handset models certified as
hearing aid compatible using the 2011 ANSI Standard and other handset
models certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard. With respect to handset
models certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard, some of these handset
models might be certified as hearing aid compatible under the
conditions of WTB's volume control waiver order or, depending on
timing, under a new volume control standard that the Commission has
adopted. Further, if the Commission adopts the Task Force's proposal
regarding the 85/15% split between telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity,
manufacturer and service provider handset portfolios might include
these types of handset models as well. All of these handset models
could be part of a manufacturer's or service provider's 100% hearing
aid-compatible handset portfolio as long as the handset models are
still being offered.
79. If the Commission adopts this proposal, should it modify its
grandfathering rule to allow only a certain percentage of a handset
portfolio to include handset models certified under older certification
standards or older volume control requirements (e.g., the volume
control waiver standard)? Should the Commission modify the
grandfathering rule if it adopts a new volume control requirement to
replace the waiver condition standard? How would such an approach work
and would it require that certified handset models be taken out of a
handset portfolio prior to the end of a handset model's product cycle?
What would be the costs and benefits of such a rule and how would such
a rule impact consumers, manufacturers, and service providers? Would
removal of handset models certified under prior standards adversely
affect consumers by prematurely removing from the market handset models
that are relatively low-priced or that offer special features relied
upon by certain groups of customers?
80. If the Commission adopts the Task Force's proposed 85/15% split
between telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity, but allows grandfathered
handset models to count towards these benchmarks, how should the
Commission count handset models certified under pre-2019 ANSI Standards
towards this split? Under a grandfathering approach to the 85/15%
split, would handset manufacturers and service providers be likely to
offer fewer new handset models with telecoil connectivity? Or are
market incentives sufficient to ensure that manufacturers and service
providers would continue to offer new handset models with telecoil
coupling technology? What percentage of handset models have both
Bluetooth connectivity and telecoil capabilities? If the Commission
adopts its grandfathering proposal, should it impose a requirement on
service providers that they have to offer a certain percentage of new
handset models that meet telecoil requirements and the rest would have
to meet Bluetooth connectivity requirements? If so, what percentage
should the Commission impose and how would this percentage work with
small or rural service providers that may only add one or two new
handset models over a period of years? Alternatively, does the fact
that a consumer can purchase a handset directly from a manufacturer and
bring the handset to the service provider's network solve this problem?
What are the costs and benefits to consumers to having to purchase a
handset from a manufacturer and bring it to the service provider for
service? What impact does this approach have on manufacturers and
service providers?
81. Alternative Approach to Reach 100%. Alternatively, instead of
allowing grandfathering, should the Commission require 100% of all
handset models offered in the United States or imported for use in the
United States to meet the 2019 ANSI Standard (or any future ANSI
standards), with 100% of handset models meeting the acoustic coupling
portion of the 2019 ANSI standard, at least 85% of all handsets models
meeting the telecoil portion of the 2019 ANSI standard, and at least
15% meeting a Bluetooth component? Under this approach, manufacturers
and service providers would no longer be able to offer handset models
certified as hearing aid compatible under earlier (pre-2019) versions
of the ANSI standard and would either have to remove these handset
models from their handset portfolios or recertify these handset models
under the 2019 ANSI Standard. The Commission seeks comment on this
approach, as opposed to its proposal above to allow handset models to
meet the 100% benchmark using grandfathered handset models. What are
the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach? Would an approach that
requires service providers and manufacturers either to retire older
handset models or certify those handset
[[Page 5164]]
models under the 2019 ANSI Standard lead to better options available in
the market for consumers with hearing loss? Given the pace of
technology advancement, would such an approach be feasible for
manufacturers and service providers? Would it be more straightforward
and thus (i) easier for manufacturers and service providers to
implement; (ii) easier for consumers to understand; and (iii) easier
for the Commission to enforce?
82. The Commission seeks comment on the differences between its
grandfathering proposal and this alternative approach, including the
costs and benefits of each option, and how either approach might impact
transition time. Should the Commission consider a hybrid of the two,
such as a phased approach that would enable it to reach a 100%
benchmark using grandfathered handset models within a shorter period of
time, with the ultimate goal of 100% of handset models meeting the 2019
ANSI Standard (or newer ANSI standards as they are developed)? For
example, after one year, 75% of handset models could be grandfathered;
after two years, 50%; after three years, 25%; and after four years, no
grandfathered handset models could be counted towards the 100%
benchmark.
83. Volume Control Benchmark. Under either the Commission's
grandfathering proposal or the alternative 100% 2019 ANSI Standard
approach, how should the Commission incorporate the volume control
requirement into its benchmarks? As noted above, under the Commission's
current rules, as of December 5, 2023, handset models can no longer be
certified as hearing aid-compatible using the older 2011 ANSI Standard
that does not include a volume control requirement. After this date,
handset models can only be certified as hearing aid-compatible if they
meet the requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and the related TIA
5050 Standard that sets forth volume control requirements for wireless
handset models. The recently issued HAC Waiver Order, however, modified
these requirements by allowing handset models to be certified as
hearing aid-compatible if the handset model meets the limited volume
control standard set out in that order and all other aspects of the
2019 ANSI Standard. This waiver remains in effect for a two-year period
that ends on September 29, 2025.
84. If the Commission adopts an approach where all handset models
must be certified as hearing aid-compatible using the 2019 ANSI
Standard, as modified by the HAC Waiver Order, should it include a 100%
volume control requirement at the end of the transition period? On the
other hand, if the Commission allows manufacturers and service
providers to meet the 100% requirement using grandfathered handset
models, as it proposes above, should it impose a requirement that a
certain percentage of handset models must meet the volume control
portion of the 2019 ANSI Standard, as modified by the HAC Waiver Order?
Or should the Commission limit the volume control requirement to all
new handset models certified as hearing aid compatible using the 2019
ANSI Standard, as modified by the HAC Waiver Order, without setting an
overall volume control benchmark for the portfolio? How would the
grandfathering approach--which means that not all available handset
models would meet a volume control requirement--impact consumers with
hearing loss?
85. How should the Commission handle the volume control requirement
if the Commission adopts a new volume control standard to replace the
TIA 5050 Standard, as modified by the HAC Waiver Order? Under these
circumstances, should the Commission allow a limited grandfathering of
handset models that meet the HAC Waiver Order's volume control standard
and all other aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard, but not the
requirements of the new volume control standard? Should the Commission
impose a requirement that these types of handset models should be
eliminated from handset portfolios over a certain time period, such as
two years from the effective date of the new volume control standard?
Alternatively, should the Commission just allow these types of handset
models to be phased-out over the handset model's normal product life
cycle? What are the costs and benefits to consumers and manufacturers
of permitting these types of handset models to be grandfathered?
86. Telecoil/Bluetooth Benchmarks. The Commission also seeks
comment on implementing its proposed 85/15% split between telecoil and
Bluetooth connectivity under the two alternatives discussed above
(i.e., its grandfathering proposal and the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard
approach), as well as some alternative approaches to setting benchmarks
for telecoil and Bluetooth coupling. In this regard, the Commission
notes that members of the HAC Task Force have recently reiterated their
commitment to working towards the goal of including Bluetooth
connectivity as an alternative to telecoil coupling in a certain
percentage of handset models as described in the HAC Task Force's Final
Report. Under either approach, how does the Commission enforce a
requirement that at least 85% of handset models must meet telecoil
requirements and at least 15% must meet a Bluetooth connectivity
standard? Should the Commission allow a handset model that meets
telecoil certification requirements and Bluetooth connectivity
requirements to be counted as meeting both the telecoil and Bluetooth
connectivity requirements? Should the Commission allow for some
fluctuation within a range close to an 85/15% split, or should it
strictly enforce that number? For example, should the Commission
require that a manufacturer or service provider offer at least 85% of
handset models that meet the telecoil requirements and the rest of the
handset models offered meet a Bluetooth connectivity standard, without
imposing a 15% minimum? If a manufacturer releases one new handset
model a year, how many years after the transition date will it take for
the 85/15% split to be reached?
87. Instead of its proposed 85/15% split between telecoil and
Bluetooth connectivity, the Commission seeks comment on a number of
alternative approaches to establishing a telecoil and Bluetooth
coupling benchmark.
<bullet> Under the first alternative, instead of the Commission's
proposed 85/15% split, should it continue to require all handset models
to meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's telecoil requirements? This approach
would require 100% compliance with all three aspects of the 2019 ANSI
Standard (acoustic coupling, telecoil coupling, and volume control) and
would ensure that consumers who use telecoils in their hearing aids
could purchase any new handset model on the market without having their
selection of handset models reduced by an 85% benchmark. This approach
would not require a certain percentage of handsets to meet a Bluetooth
connectivity requirement.
<bullet> Under the second alternative, should the Commission
require 100% of new handset models to meet all three aspects of the
2019 ANSI Standard and impose an additional requirement that 15% of
these handset models must also meet a Bluetooth connectivity
requirement?
<bullet> Under the third alternative, should the Commission set a
deadline for 50% or more of handset models to incorporate Bluetooth
connectivity technology, while retaining an 85% telecoil requirement?
This alternative reflects the fact that Bluetooth connectivity is
popular among consumers with hearing loss and that 56% of handset
models already support
[[Page 5165]]
some form of Bluetooth connectivity. Would this approach create
redundancy in coupling requirements or provide consumers with hearing
loss much needed flexibility to connect with hearing devices?
<bullet> Under the fourth alternative, instead of an 85/15% split,
should the Commission impose a different telecoil/Bluetooth split such
as a 75/25% or 60/40% split or should the Commission's rules provide
for a gradual change in the split over a period of years that results
in a more even split between the telecoil and Bluetooth coupling
requirements?
<bullet> Under the fifth alternative, should the Commission avoid
imposing a precise percentage and give manufacturers and service
providers more flexibility to follow market demands and determine the
percentage of handset models that they offer that meet either telecoil
or Bluetooth connectivity requirements? Would such a flexible approach
benefit or harm consumers with hearing loss and how would the
Commission monitor and evaluate whether the split that develops is
appropriate or harmful to consumers with hearing loss?
88. The Commission seeks comment on these alternative approaches.
Is there a significant additional cost to incorporating both forms of
connectivity in a single handset model (even though most new handsets
today offer both technologies)? Would any of these approaches impede
the development or improvement of handset model technology, either for
consumers in general or for consumers with hearing loss? The Commission
seeks comment on this issue in light of the Task Force's statement that
consumers prefer Bluetooth coupling over telecoil coupling. Is one of
these approaches more in the interest of consumers while allowing more
opportunity for handset manufacturers to innovate? What are the costs
and benefits of each of these approaches or an approach that gradually
evens the split between telecoil and Bluetooth coupling requirements
over a period of years and what should the period of years be?
D. Transition Periods for 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility
89. The Commission proposes to establish a 24-month transition
period for handset manufacturers to meet the 100% benchmark, running
from the effective date of an amended rule adopting the 100%
requirement, and a 30-month transition period for nationwide service
providers. Further, the Commission proposes a 42-month transition
period for non-nationwide service providers. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
90. While the Commission's proposed transition periods are shorter
than the four-year transition period the HAC Task Force recommends for
handset manufacturers and the five-year transition period it recommends
for service providers, the Commission previously has relied on a two-
year transition period when transitioning to new technical standards
and the Commission proposes that establishing a two-year transition
period again would be appropriate to balance the product development
cycles for manufacturers and service providers with the needs of
consumers with hearing loss. The longer transition periods the
Commission proposes for service providers will allow new handset models
certified using the latest certification standards to flow downstream
and be available for providers to offer for sale.
91. Given that the Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard in
February 2021 and that WTB has conditionally granted ATIS's volume
control waiver request, the Commission believes that these transition
periods are reasonable. Handset manufacturers have been on notice since
February 2021 of the requirements of the new standard and WTB granted
ATIS's request to adjust the volume control testing requirements by
waiver, based on the conditions set out in the ATIS Ex Parte Letter. Is
there any reason why handset manufacturers cannot meet a two-year
transition requirement assuming that the volume control testing
requirements are those recently approved by WTB and the Commission does
not adopt a new volume control standard before the end of the
manufacturer transition period? Since the current volume control
testing requirements are based on ATIS's request, is there a reason why
manufacturers cannot meet ATIS's requested testing methodology by the
end of a two-year transition period?
92. In order to meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's requirements and
related volume control requirements, is it simply a matter of testing
existing hearing aid-compatible handset models under the new standards
or is there reason to believe that handset models need to be redesigned
to meet the new standards? If handset models have to be redesigned to
meet the new standards, would this process already be underway? The
Commission notes that the Task Force indicates that part of the reason
it is supporting the 85/15% split is because the 2019 ANSI Standard's
telecoil testing requirements are ``more difficult'' to meet than the
2011 ANSI Standard's telecoil requirements. Given that the Task Force
is accounting for the new telecoil testing standards in its proposed
85/15% split, why does this not support a two-year transition period
for manufacturers? Commenters arguing that the new telecoil testing
standard requires a longer transition period should explain why
adjusting the split downward is not a better solution then drawing out
the transition period.
93. The Commission seeks comment on whether manufacturers and
service providers can achieve compliance with a 100% requirement within
the proposed timeframes, and if not, about potential alternative
timeframes. The Commission seeks comment on the steps manufacturers and
service providers must take to meet a 100% compliance standard and the
scope and timeline of any necessary changes. What, if any, obstacles do
manufacturers or service providers anticipate facing? Given the
significant public interest in moving quickly to achieve 100%
compliance as well as the current extensive availability of hearing
aid-compatible handset models, any commenters proposing longer
transition periods should provide specific information about why more
time is needed.
94. The Commission seeks comment on how the two alternatives
outlined above for reaching 100% compatibility (i.e., the
grandfathering proposal or the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach) would
impact transition times. Would the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach
require a longer transition period to 100% hearing aid compatibility
than its grandfathering proposal? What impact would that longer period
have on consumers with hearing loss? If the Commission requires 100% of
handset models to meet only certain aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard
(or future ANSI standards adopted by the Commission), is a 24-month
transition period for manufacturers and a 30-month or 42-month
transition period for service providers feasible? Alternatively, if the
Commission adopts the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach, should it
impose the transition period proposed by the Task Force--four years for
manufacturers and five years for service providers? Instead of a single
timeline, should the Commission develop separate timelines for reaching
different aspects of hearing aid compatibility, such as 100% compliance
on acoustic coupling, as compared to reaching 100% compliance for
``magnetic/wireless coupling'' (i.e., the 85/15% proposal for telecoil
coupling and Bluetooth connectivity), and another
[[Page 5166]]
timeline for reaching 100% for volume control?
E. Handset Settings for Hearing Aid Compatibility
95. The Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules do
not address whether a handset model by default must come out-of-the-box
with its hearing aid compatibility functions fully turned on, or
whether it is permissible for a manufacturer to require a consumer to
turn these functions on by going into the handset's settings. Further,
the Commission's rules do not address whether a handset model can have
two different settings: one setting that turns on acoustic coupling and
volume control, but not telecoil coupling, and a second separate
setting that turns on the handset model's telecoil coupling
capabilities. In addition, the Commission's rules do not address
whether a handset model in telecoil mode has to continue to fully meet
acoustic and volume control requirements.
96. While the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules do not
address this issue, staff has informally advised handset manufacturers
that handset models cannot have separate selections for volume control
compliance and another for RF interference and telecoil compliance.
Staff has stated that only one hearing aid compatibility selection is
permitted and multiple selections are not permitted. Recently, staff
has been asked whether this informal advice could be modified to allow
two hearing aid compatibility modes of operation in a handset model and
whether a handset model in telecoil mode must continue to fully meet
acoustic coupling and volume control requirements.
97. The HAC Task Force's Final Report does not address this hearing
aid compatibility handset model setting issue. The Task Force does
recommend, however, that the Commission require acoustic coupling in
all handset models and adopt a Bluetooth connectivity requirement as an
alternative coupling method to telecoil coupling in a certain
percentage of handset models. If the Commission adopts this Bluetooth
proposal, then a handset model certified as hearing aid compatible
under the 2019 ANSI Standard would have to meet at least three hearing
aid compatibility requirements. The handset model would have to meet
acoustic coupling and volume control requirements and--depending on the
handset model--would also have to meet either a telecoil coupling or
Bluetooth connectivity requirement. It is also conceivable that a
handset model might meet acoustic, telecoil, and Bluetooth coupling
requirements as well as the volume control requirements that WTB
recently addressed.
98. Given these potential alternative coupling methods and informal
manufacturer requests that the Commission allow more than one mode of
operation for hearing aid compatibility in a handset model and detail
what each mode of operation must include, the Commission believes
stakeholders would benefit from the establishment of a rule, and it
seeks comment on this issue. The Commission proposes that after the
expiration of the manufacturer transition period, all handset models
must by default come out-of-the-box with acoustic coupling and volume
control certification requirements fully turned on. The Commission
further proposes to permit handset models to have a specific setting
that turns on the handset model's telecoil or Bluetooth coupling
function, depending on the secondary capability included in a
particular handset model. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals as well as whether a handset model operating in telecoil or
Bluetooth coupling mode must also continue to meet acoustic coupling
and volume control requirements or some aspects of these requirements.
99. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is
necessary for a handset model in telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode to
continue to fully meet acoustic and volume control requirements. Should
the Commission allow handset models operating in telecoil or Bluetooth
coupling mode to automatically turn off acoustic coupling or the volume
control function, or should it require these functions to remain on or
some portion of these functions to remain on? Is it technically
feasible for a handset model in telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode to
meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's acoustic and volume control requirements
in full or even necessary from a consumer's perspective for a handset
model in telecoil mode or Bluetooth coupling mode to meet these
requirements? Should a handset model that meets all four hearing aid
compatibility requirements be required to meet all aspects of acoustic
and volume control requirements or only some part of those requirements
when it is operating in telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode? If it is
technically feasible for a handset model to operate with telecoil and/
or Bluetooth coupling at the same time as meeting the acoustic coupling
and volume control requirements, should the Commission require all
available coupling options to be turned on in the handset model's
default mode?
100. If the Commission determines to allow more than one hearing
aid compatibility mode of operation, it is concerned with how difficult
it might be for consumers to discover these features and to understand
their functionality. In this regard, should the Commission establish
standard hearing aid compatibility settings that would be consistent
across all hearing aid-compatible handset models? Would it be helpful
if the Commission were to establish uniform, industry-wide nomenclature
for compatibility modes in handset models? If the Commission allows a
handset model to have two compatibility modes, what should it call
these modes? Should the default mode be called HAC mode and the second
mode be called Telecoil or Bluetooth mode, depending on the handset
model? What if a handset model meets all four hearing aid compatibility
requirements? Under these circumstances, should it allow three
different modes of compatibility and, if so, what should the Commission
require each of these modes to be called, and what hearing aid
compatibility functions should it require to be included in each mode?
101. Commenters should fully explain why they support or oppose the
Commission's proposals for different modes of operations and why the
Commission's proposals are in the public interest or not in the public
interest. What are the costs and benefits of each of the Commission's
proposals? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of the
Commission's proposals in terms of their impact on handset
manufacturers and consumers?
F. Consumer Notification Provisions
1. Labeling and Disclosure Requirements
102. The Commission seeks comment on whether to revise the labeling
and disclosure requirements in Sec. 20.19(f). As stated above, the
Commission proposes that, after the expiration of the applicable
transition period for handset manufacturers, all handset models must be
certified as hearing aid compatible. Further, the Commission proposes
that at least 85% of these handset models must meet a telecoil coupling
requirement and that at least 15% of these handset models must meet the
Commission's new Bluetooth coupling requirement. The Commission
proposes using either its grandfathering proposal or a 100% 2019 ANSI
Standard alternative. Under either approach, the Commission proposes
that all new handset models must be certified using
[[Page 5167]]
the 2019 ANSI Standard's acoustic coupling requirements and the related
volume control requirements, and that all new handset models must meet
either the standard's telecoil coupling requirement or a Bluetooth
requirement. If the Commission adopts these proposed changes, it
tentatively conclude that it should revise the package labeling
provisions in Sec. 20.19(f)(1) of the Commission's rules to reflect
these changes. Specifically, it tentatively concludes that the handset
model's package label must state whether the handset model includes
telecoil coupling capability that meets certification requirements;
includes Bluetooth connectivity as a replacement for meeting telecoil
certification requirements; or includes both. The Commission seeks
comment on whether revising the package labeling rule in this way would
be sufficient to ensure that consumers can easily determine from
looking at a handset model's package label whether the handset model
has the coupling ability that meets their needs.
103. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it should make
a corresponding change to the package insert and handset user manual
requirements in Sec. 20.19(f)(2) to require information in a package
insert or user manual about whether a handset model meets telecoil
certification requirements; replaces this requirement with Bluetooth
coupling ability; or includes both. Section 20.19(f)(2) establishes
labeling and disclosure requirements for manufacturers and service
providers and requires them to include certain information about the
hearing aid compatibility of each handset model in a package insert or
user manual for the handset. For new handset models that use Bluetooth
coupling rather than telecoil coupling to meet Commission requirements,
the Commission proposes to require that the package insert or handset
model user manual explain that the handset model does not meet telecoil
certification requirements and instead couples with hearing aids using
a Bluetooth standard and provide the name of that Bluetooth standard.
The Commission seeks comment on whether revising the rule in this way
would provide sufficient information for consumers.
104. Further, if the Commission allows handset models to have
default and secondary hearing aid compatibility modes of operation, it
tentatively concludes that it should modify its handset package insert
and user manual requirements to require an explanation of each of these
modes, what each mode does and does not include, and how to turn these
settings on and off. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. How
can the Commission ensure that consumers can easily understand these
modes of operation and what each mode of operation includes and does
not include? Besides the name of the mode, how does the Commission
ensure that consumers can easily find these modes in a handset model's
setting and that the modes are not buried in subheadings? Commenters
supporting this modification should provide examples of what the
package insert or user manual rule should state. Commenters supporting
or opposing this change should explain why this change is or is not in
the public interest and why this change is consistent or inconsistent
with section 710(d) of the Act.
2. Digital Labeling Technology
105. As an additional proposed change to Sec. 20.19(f)(2), the
Commission proposes to permit manufacturers and service providers to
provide the information required under this section to consumers
through the use of digital labeling technology (e.g., quick response
(QR) codes) on handset boxes rather than through a package insert or
user manual. A QR code is a type of barcode that can be read easily by
a digital device, such as a handset with a camera, and is typically
used for storing Uniform Resource Locator (URL) information. Companies
often use QR codes to link consumers to a company's web page in order
to provide consumers with additional information on a company product.
106. When the Commission adopted the requirement for package
inserts, it considered requests from industry to give manufacturers and
service providers more flexibility in the methods used to convey
information on a handset model's hearing aid compatibility and volume
control capabilities, including providing this information online
rather than in the packaging insert or user manual. The Commission
found, however, that consumers may not necessarily visit service
provider websites before going to a service provider's store and
purchasing a hearing aid-compatible handset. Therefore, the Commission
required that package inserts and user manuals be provided with hearing
aid-compatible handset models and that this information not just be
provided online.
107. The Commission proposes to reconsider its determination and
allow manufacturers and service providers to meet the requirements of
Sec. 20.19(f)(2) through the use of digital labeling technology such
as QR codes on handset boxes, or other accessible formats. When the
Commission required manufacturers and service providers to include this
information in package inserts or user manuals and declined to permit
this information to be provided online, it based its decision on its
finding that consumers may not necessarily visit service provider
websites before going to a service provider's store and purchasing a
hearing aid-compatible handset. By contrast, permitting service
providers and manufacturers to include QR codes on handset packaging
would not require consumers to visit a website before purchasing a
handset and instead would provide consumers with access to relevant
information at the point of sale while consumers are in stores making
purchasing decisions. Further, permitting manufacturers and service
providers to use QR codes on a handset model's package as an
alternative to including a paper insert or user manual with the
required hearing aid compatibility information could help ensure that
consumers receive more up to date information, while saving paper and
helping to streamline packaging.
108. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and whether
permitting the use of QR codes would be an effective alternative
approach for ensuring that consumers with hearing loss receive relevant
hearing aid compatibility information when purchasing their mobile
devices. Would allowing the use of QR codes provide a more consumer
friendly approach then continuing to require the use of paper inserts
and user manuals? How familiar are consumers with QR codes? Are there
enough consumers that are not familiar with QR codes that the
Commission should continue to require the use of paper inserts and user
manuals in addition to allowing the use of QR codes? Do consumers have
the ability to scan a QR code before purchasing a handset, or would
they have to rely on store employees to scan the code for them so that
they could read the information?
109. Do paper inserts and user manuals have benefits that QR codes
cannot provide? If so, what are these benefits? Along these same lines,
are there other types of digital labeling technology that the
Commission should consider permitting as either an alternative to or in
conjunction with the use of QR codes? What are these other digital
labeling technologies? Further, if the Commission allows the use of
digital labeling technology as an alternative to paper inserts and user
manuals, how can it ensure that these methods of labeling do not become
obsolete before it can update the labeling rules? Finally, what are the
costs and benefits of
[[Page 5168]]
permitting the use of QR codes or other types of digital labeling as an
alternative to continuing to require the use of paper inserts and user
manuals?
3. Handset Model Number Designation
110. The Commission seeks comment on whether to update its rule on
handset model number designations. Section 20.19(g) of the Commission's
rules requires that ``where a manufacturer has made physical changes to
a handset that result in a change in the hearing aid compatibility
rating under the 2011 ANSI standard or an earlier version of the
standard, the altered handset must be given a model designation
distinct from that of the handset prior to its alteration.'' The
Commission seeks comment on how this rule should apply in cases where a
handset model that has passed the 2011 ANSI Standard and has an
assigned model number subsequently passes the 2019 ANSI Standard. Under
the current rule, if there have been no physical changes to the handset
model (i.e., no changes in hardware or software) a new model number
would not be required, but the handset manufacturer may issue the
handset model a new model number if it chooses to.
111. In these cases, where a handset model that is already
certified as hearing aid compatible is re-certified under an updated
ANSI standard, the Commission seeks comment on whether to revise the
rule to require a manufacturer to issue a new model number even if
there is no physical change to the handset model. Would revising the
rule to require manufacturers to issue a new model number for such
handset models benefit consumers with hearing loss by making it easier
for them to identify the handset models that have been certified under
updated standards? How would consumers be able to discern which models
have been certified under updated standards otherwise? Would the costs
or other burdens associated with such an approach be significant enough
to outweigh the potential benefits for consumers?
G. Website, Record Retention, and Reporting Requirements
1. Website and Record Retention Requirements
112. After the end of the applicable transition periods, the
Commission tentatively concludes that it should require handset
manufacturers and service providers to identify on their publicly
accessible websites which handset models in their handset portfolios
meet telecoil certification requirements. For those handset models that
do not meet telecoil certification requirements, the Commission
tentatively concludes that handset manufacturers and service providers
must affirmatively state that the handset model does not meet telecoil
certification requirements and identify which Bluetooth connectivity
standards the handset model meets instead. The Commission also
tentatively concludes that handset manufacturers and service providers
must identify on their publicly accessible websites the conversational
gain with and without hearing aids for each handset model that they
offer regardless of whether the handset model meets telecoil
certification standards or includes Bluetooth connectivity instead. The
posting of a handset model's conversational gain with and without
hearing aids is consistent with the Commission's current handset model
package label rule. The Commission believes that all of this
information is essential for consumers to have access to in order to
purchase handset models that meet their individual needs.
113. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative conclusions.
Commenters opposing these tentative conclusions should clearly explain
why these tentative conclusions are not in the public interest. What
are the costs and benefits of these tentative conclusions? The
Commission notes that if it allows the use of QR codes or other digital
labeling technology as an alternative to paper inserts or user manuals,
this may be the only way a consumer might be able to access some of
this information. Further, consumers might research this information
online before going to a store or may actually buy the handset online
without going to the store. Commenters should provide a detailed
explanation as to why they support or oppose these tentative
conclusions.
114. Further, if the Commission adopts a 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement, it seeks comment on whether to streamline
other components of the website and record retention requirements in
the Commission's rules. In 2018, the Commission imposed new website
posting requirements for service providers and required providers to
retain information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules. Under these
requirements, each manufacturer and service provider that operates a
publicly-accessible website must make available on its website a list
of all hearing aid-compatible handset models currently offered, the
ANSI standard used to evaluate hearing aid compatibility, the ratings
of those handset models under the relevant ANSI standard, if
applicable, and an explanation of the rating system. In addition,
service providers must post on their websites: a list of all non-
hearing aid-compatible handset models currently offered, as well as a
link to the current FCC web page containing information about the
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules and service providers'
obligations. Each service provider must also include the marketing
model name/number(s) and FCC ID number of each hearing aid-compatible
and non-hearing aid-compatible handset model currently offered.
115. Service providers must also retain on their website a link to
a third-party website as designated by the Commission or WTB, with
information regarding hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-
compatible handset models or, alternatively, a clearly marked list of
hearing aid-compatible handset models that have been offered in the
past 24 months but are no longer offered by that provider. The rules
also require that the information on a manufacturer's or service
provider's website must be updated within 30 days of any relevant
changes, and any website pages containing information so updated must
indicate the day on which the update occurred.
116. Further, the rules require service providers to retain
internal records for discontinued handset models, to be made available
upon Commission request of: (1) handset model information, including
the month year/each hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-
compatible handset model was first offered; and (2) the month/year each
hearing aid-compatible handset model and non-hearing aid-compatible
handset model was last offered for all discontinued handset models
until a period of 24 months has passed from that date.
117. The Commission seeks comment on whether to streamline these
requirements by eliminating the requirement to post or retain
information about non hearing aid-compatible handset models. If the
Commission requires that 100% of handset models be hearing aid
compatible, it does not anticipate that there would continue to be a
need for providers to post information about non hearing aid-compatible
handset models on their websites. Do commenters disagree? Should the
Commission continue to require service providers to post information
and keep records about the non-hearing aid-compatible handset
[[Page 5169]]
models they offered previously? Would doing so provide useful
information for consumers? If the Commission adopts the 100% compliance
standard, would the website and record retention rules continue to be
necessary to help ensure compliance with the hearing aid compatibility
requirements?
2. FCC Form 655 and 855
118. In this section, the Commission tentatively concludes that
after the handset manufacturer 100% transition period ends, it will
revise the handset manufacturer annual reporting requirement by
eliminating the requirement that a manufacturer use FCC Form 655 for
reporting purposes and instead replace this requirement with the
requirement that it use FCC Form 855 for reporting purposes. FCC Form
855 is the same form that service providers presently file to show
compliance with the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility
provisions. The Commission also tentatively concludes that after the
expiration of the manufacturer transition period, it will change the
reporting deadline for handset manufacturers from July 31 each year to
January 31 each year. Along with requiring handset manufacturers to
file the same form as service providers, this change would align the
filing deadline for handset manufacturers with the current filing
deadline for service providers. The Commission seeks comment on these
tentative conclusions below.
119. Background. Under Sec. 20.19(i), handset manufacturers are
presently required to submit FCC Form 655 reports on their compliance
with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements each year.
FCC Form 655 requires manufacturers to provide information on: (i)
handset models tested since the most recent report, for compliance with
the applicable hearing aid compatibility technical ratings; (ii)
compliant handset models offered to service providers since the most
recent report, identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s)
and FCC ID number; (iii) for each compliant model, the air interface(s)
and frequency band(s) over which it operates, the hearing aid
compatibility ratings for each frequency band and air interface under
the ANSI standard (if applicable), the ANSI standard version used, and
the months in which the model was available to service providers since
the most recent report; (iv) non-compliant models offered to service
providers since the most recent report, identifying each model by
marketing model name/number(s) and FCC ID number; (v) for each non-
compliant model, the air interface(s) over which it operates and the
months in which the model was available to service providers since the
most recent report; (vi) total numbers of compliant and non-compliant
models offered to service providers for each air interface as of the
time of the report; (vii) any instance, as of the date of the report or
since the most recent report, in which multiple compliant or non-
compliant devices were marketed under separate model name/numbers but
constitute a single model for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility
rules, identifying each device by marketing model name/number and FCC
ID number; (viii) status of product labeling; (ix) outreach efforts,
and (x) if the manufacturer maintains a public website, the website
address of the page(s) containing the required information regarding
handset models.
120. Section 20.19(i) also requires that service providers submit
FCC Form 855 each year certifying under penalty of perjury their
compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
requirements. Certifications filed by service providers must include:
(i) the name of the signing executive and contact information; (ii) the
company(ies) covered by the certification; (iii) the FCC Registration
Number (FRN); (iv) if the service provider maintains a public website,
the website address of the page(s) containing the required information
regarding handset models; (v) the percentage of handset models offered
that are hearing aid compatible; and (vi) a statement certifying that
the service provider was in or was not in full compliance with the
hearing aid compatibility provisions for the reporting period.
121. Prior to the 2018 HAC Order, the Commission required service
providers to show compliance with the Commission's wireless hearing aid
compatibility provisions by filing FCC Form 655 just as handset
manufacturers are presently required to do. In the 2018 HAC Order,
however, the Commission took steps to reduce regulatory burden on
service providers by eliminating annual service reporting requirements
and allowing service providers to instead file a streamlined annual
certification stating their compliance with the Commission's hearing
aid compatibility requirements. The Commission found that many of the
benefits of annual status reporting by service providers had become
increasingly outweighed by the burdens that such information collection
placed on those entities. The Commission noted that the action it was
taking would streamline ``the Commission's collection of information
while continuing to fulfill the underlying purposes of the current
reporting regime.''
122. While the 2018 HAC Order did not change the reporting
requirements for handset manufacturers, the Commission noted that in
the 100% hearing aid compatibility docket it was considering broader
changes to the hearing aid compatibility rules that may be appropriate
in the event it required 100% of covered handset models to be hearing
aid compatible. The Commission indicated that the website, record
retention, and certification requirements it was adopting as part of
the 2018 HAC Order would remain in place unless and until the
Commission took further action in the 100% hearing aid compatibility
docket and that its decisions did not ``prejudge any further steps we
may take to modify our reporting rules in that proceeding.''
123. Currently, handset manufacturer compliance filings are due by
July 31 each year and cover the reporting period from the previous July
1 to June 30. Service providers compliance filings are due by January
31 of each year and cover the previous calendar year--January 1 through
December 31.
124. Discussion. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative
conclusions to require handset manufacturers to file FCC Form 855
instead of FCC Form 655 and to align the filing deadline for handset
manufacturers to the January 31 deadline that currently applies to
service providers. Is moving handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855
after the end of the manufacturer transition period consistent with a
100% hearing aid compatibility standard? If the Commission requires all
handset models to be hearing aid compatible, would requiring
manufacturers to submit information on the more detailed FCC Form 655
still be necessary? After the transition period expires, handset
manufacturers will no longer be permitted to offer non-hearing-aid
compatible handset models. Is there any reason why the Commission would
need to continue to collect information about handset models such as
the marketing name or model number, air interface, or months offered?
125. Is it in the public interest to move handset manufacturers to
FCC Form 855 once the handset manufacturer transition period ends? The
Commission seeks comment on the relative costs and benefits of moving
handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855 rather than continuing to require
them to file FCC Form 655. Would moving
[[Page 5170]]
manufacturers to FCC Form 855 be sufficient to emphasize to
manufacturers the importance of compliance with the Commission's rules
while reducing the burdens of gathering, formatting, and submitting
data for FCC Form 655? Similarly, would aligning the manufacturer
compliance filing deadline with the current January 31 deadline for
service providers provide for efficiencies or create any difficulties
for handset manufacturers or service providers?
126. As discussed above, as part of its proposal for a 100% hearing
aid compatibility benchmark, the Commission proposes to require that at
least 85% of handset models offered meet a telecoil coupling
requirement and that at least 15% of handset models offered meet a
Bluetooth connectivity requirement. If the Commission adopts these
proposed benchmarks, should it retain the FCC Form 655 reporting
obligation for handset manufacturers so that it can monitor
manufacturers' compliance, or would it be sufficient to require
manufacturers to certify that they are in compliance with these
requirements and all other requirements by filing under penalty of
perjury FCC Form 855 as service providers presently do? Given the
Commission's proposal that handset manufacturers would have to indicate
on their websites which of their offered handset models meet telecoil
certification standards and which do not, would such a requirement
eliminate the need to require manufacturers to file FCC Form 655 and
allow the Commission to replace this requirement with a requirement
that they file FCC Form 855?
127. In addition, if the Commission adopts its grandfathering
proposal for the 100% requirement, handset manufacturers would have in
their handset portfolios handset models certified under different
certification standards, including some handset models certified under
the 2011 ANSI Standard and others certified under the 2019 ANSI
Standard. Would maintaining the FCC Form 655 reporting requirement be
necessary to obtain information about the different hearing aid-
compatible handset models that manufacturers offer? In this regard, the
Commission notes that handset manufacturers are required to indicate on
their websites the ANSI standard under which a handset model is
certified. Does this website posting requirement eliminate the need to
file FCC Form 655 because of grandfathered handset models? Further, can
the Commission gather relevant handset model information from equipment
authorization reports instead of from FCC Form 655?
128. Finally, if the Commission maintains the FCC Form 655 filing
requirement for handset manufacturers after the end of the manufacturer
transition period, are there any changes that the Commission should
make to this form in regards to the information that the form collects?
Further, are the any changes that the Commission should make to FCC
Form 855 in regards to the information that this form collects either
in terms of service providers or if it moves handset manufacturers to
this form, too?
3. Reliance on Accessibility Clearinghouse
129. The Commission proposes to decline the HAC Task Force's
recommendation that the Commission permit service providers to rely on
the information linked to in the Commission's Accessibility
Clearinghouse as a legal safe harbor when making a determination of
whether a handset model is hearing aid compatible for purposes of
meeting applicable benchmarks.
130. The HAC Task Force's Final Report recommends that service
providers should be able to rely on the information reported in the
Global Accessibility Reporting Initiative (GARI) database, which is
linked at the Accessibility Clearinghouse website. The Report asserts
that the GARI database would provide a more up-to-date snapshot of
hearing aid-compatible handset models than the annual FCC Form 655
report that manufacturers file. Presently, the Commission allows
service providers to rely on the information from a handset
manufacturer's FCC Form 655 as a safe harbor. In its Public Notice, WTB
sought comment on the HAC Task Force's recommendation. MWF commented
that its GARI website had ``gained global recognition'' and that the
database ``is kept up to date with the available devices in the
marketplace.'' MWF also noted that for the GARI website, ``all
manufacturer statements'' are ``subject to the legal requirements for
accuracy of representations to consumers.'' The HAC Task Force, in its
reply, argued that being able to rely on the GARI database ``will
provide a user-friendly experience for service providers to receive
timely information, compared to the Form 655 reports and Equipment
Authorization System.''
131. While handset manufacturers must certify to the accuracy of
their FCC Form 655 reports, there is no similar requirement with
respect to the information handset manufacturers submit to the GARI
database. The GARI database is not a Commission-maintained database,
and the Commission does not control who can access the database and
what information is added to the database. The Commission has no means
of ensuring that the information in the GARI database is accurate,
timely, or complete. Further, the Commission already allows service
providers to rely on the information from a handset manufacturer's FCC
Form 655 as a safe harbor, and it is not convinced that it is necessary
to allow service providers a second safe harbor that may not contain
accurate information.
132. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to decline the Task
Force's recommendation that would allow a service provider to rely on
the information linked to in the Commission's Accessibility
Clearinghouse to determine whether a handset model is hearing aid
compatible for the purpose of meeting applicable benchmarks. The
Commission seeks comment on its proposed determination. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether, once the transition to 100% hearing aid
compatibility is completed, its rules should continue to require
service providers to either link to the GARI database on their publicly
accessible websites or provide a list for the past 24 months of hearing
aid-compatible handset models that they no longer offer.
133. The Commission also proposes to decline the Task Force's
recommendation that, if a handset model is not in the GARI database,
the Commission ``automatically and immediately upload'' handset
manufacturers' FCC Form 655 reports to the Accessibility Clearinghouse
after they are submitted to the Commission. The Commission already
posts these reports on the Commission's wireless hearing aid
compatibility website and links to that website on the Accessibility
Clearinghouse website. The Commission seeks comment on its proposed
determinations.
4. Contact Information for Consumers
134. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should modify its
website posting requirements to require handset manufacturers and
service providers to include on their publicly accessible websites a
point-of-contact for consumers to use in order to resolve questions
they have about a company's hearing aid-compatible handset models.
Under its tentative conclusion, handset manufacturers and service
providers would provide the name of a
[[Page 5171]]
department or a division that is staffed with knowledgeable employees
and provide an email address, mailing address, and a toll free number
that consumers could contact in order to find out information about a
hearing aid-compatible handset model that the company offers or to ask
questions about how a particular handset model links to the consumer's
hearing device. The Commission would expect manufacturers and service
providers to be responsive to consumer questions and interact with
consumers asking questions about hearing aid-compatible handset models
in a manner consistent with the Consumer Code for Wireless Service that
can be found on CTIA's website.
135. Section 710(a) of the Act requires the Commission to
``establish such regulations as are necessary to ensure reasonable
access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing.'' The
Commission seeks comment on whether requiring handset manufacturers and
service providers to post contact information on their publicly
accessible websites is necessary in order to ensure that consumers with
hearing loss have reasonable access to telephone service. The
Commission believes such a requirement might be beneficial to consumers
in terms of getting their questions answered and may help handset
manufacturers and service providers sell new handsets and services.
Further, by requiring the contact information to be provided on
publicly accessible websites, the information can be easily updated and
is readily accessible to the public; a provider's website is also a
place the public reasonably expects to find contact information for
these types of inquiries. The Commission's website posting rules
require websites to be updated within 30 days of a change.
136. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that
handset manufacturers and service providers should be required to
include contact information on their publicly accessible websites that
consumers can use regarding questions that they might have on a
company's hearing aid-compatible handset models. How can the Commission
ensure that handset manufacturers and service providers display contact
information in a uniform fashion and in a uniform location on their
websites? Should the Commission require that this information be
provided on the first page of their hearing aid compatibility web pages
and in a particular location on this page, such as the upper right-hand
corner? Should the Commission require that this information be labeled
as HAC Contact Information or something similar? How can the Commission
ensure that consumers can easily find the required contact information,
and should the Commission require additional information to be provided
beyond what it is proposing?
137. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to require
handset manufacturers and service providers both to provide this
contact information on their publicly accessible websites, and also to
provide this contact information in their FCC Form 655 and 855 filings.
Under this alternative, the Commission would modify these forms to
provide a space where this contact information would be provided. These
forms contain certification requirements to ensure the accuracy of the
information that is provided; however, the forms are only due once a
year and are not required to be updated within 30 days of a change as
the Commission's website posting rule requires. Further, consumers
might not be aware of these forms or where to access them but are
likely familiar with company websites and understand how to access
them. Moreover, consumers would expect to find this type of contact
information on a company website.
138. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
should require handset manufacturers and service providers to enter the
required contact information in a Commission-maintained database. Under
this approach, the Commission would create a database that would
contain company point-of-contact information for consumers who have
hearing aid compatibility questions related to a company's hearing aid-
compatible handset models that they offer. Companies would be required
to enter their contact information for hearing aid compatibility
questions directly into the database and to update their contact
information within 30 days of any changes. This database would operate
similarly to the Commission's Recordkeeping Compliance Certification
and Contact Information Registry. This database could be used to search
for a company's representatives who are knowledgeable about the
company's hearing aid-compatible handset models that they offer and
could answer consumer questions related to these models.
139. Commenters supporting or opposing the above approaches should
explain why these proposals are consistent or inconsistent with
statutory requirements. In addition, commenters should explain why
these proposals are or are not in the public interest and what the
costs and benefits of each of these proposals are. Is the Commission's
website posting approach more beneficial to consumers in terms of
getting questions answered and to companies in terms of selling new
handsets and services then the other approaches outlined above? Are
consumers familiar with FCC Form 655 and 855 filings, and do they know
where to find these filings and how to access them? From a consumer's
perspective is it necessary for consumers to be able to find this
contact information on the certification forms or is being able to
locate it on a company's website sufficient? Is the website posting
approach more consumer friendly than adding the contact information to
FCC Forms 655 and 855 or the database approach? If the Commission
adopts a database approach, how would consumers know about the database
or where to find it? Are consumers more likely to go to a company's
website before exploring other options? Further, is there an existing
Commission database that is accessible to consumers that the Commission
could utilize for purposes of requiring handset manufacturers and
service providers to list customer service contact information?
140. Finally, the Commission proposes to delete the last sentence
of Sec. 20.19(j) which provides that for state enforcement purposes
the procedures set forth in part 68, subpart E of the Commission's
rules should be followed. The rules in part 68, subpart E relate to
sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Communications Act rather than
section 610 and the Commission, therefore, proposes to delete this
sentence.
H. Sunsetting the De Minimis Exception
141. In view of its tentative conclusion to require 100% of handset
models to be hearing aid compatible after the expiration of the
relevant transition periods, the Commission tentatively concludes that
it should remove the de minimis exception in Sec. 20.19(e) of the
Commission's rules. Under this tentative conclusion, once the
applicable transition periods expire handset manufacturers and service
providers will no longer be able to claim de minimis status.
142. Section 20.19(e) provides a de minimis exception to hearing
aid compatibility obligations for those manufacturers and mobile
service providers that only offer a small number of handset models.
Specifically, section 20.19(e)(1) provides that manufacturers and
service providers offering two handset models or fewer in the United
States over an air interface are exempt
[[Page 5172]]
from the requirements of Sec. 20.19, other than the reporting
requirement. Section 20.19(e)(2) provides that manufacturers or service
providers that offer three handset models over an air interface must
offer at least one compliant model. Section 20.19(e)(3) provides that
manufacturers or service providers that offer four or five handset
models in an air interface must offer at least two handset models that
are hearing aid compatible in that air interface.
143. The Commission first adopted the de minimis rule together with
the initial wireless hearing aid compatibility requirements in 2003,
based on its recognition that the hearing aid compatibility
requirements could have a disproportionate impact on small
manufacturers or those that sell only a small number of digital
wireless handset models in the United States, as well as on service
providers that offer only a small number of digital wireless handset
models. In the 2005 HAC Order, the Commission clarified that the de
minimis rule applies on a per air interface basis, rather than across a
manufacturer's or service provider's entire product line. In 2010, the
Commission modified the de minimis exception as applied to companies
that are not small entities by deciding that, beginning two years after
it offers its first handset model over an air interface, a manufacturer
or service provider that is not a small entity, must offer at least one
model that is hearing aid compatible.
144. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion to
remove the de minimis exception to its hearing aid compatibility rules.
Maintaining a de minimis exception that would permit a manufacturer to
certify less than 100% of its handset models as hearing aid compatible
or would allow a service provider to maintain a handset portfolio that
is less than 100% composed of hearing aid-compatible handset models
would be inconsistent with the Commission's objective of developing a
100% compliance standard. While the de minimis exception served an
important purpose when it was implemented two decades ago, today
manufacturers and service providers are able to offer more easily a
range of hearing aid-compatible handset models using a variety of
technologies including Bluetooth. Considering the developments in
hearing aid compatibility technologies, and the greater availability of
hearing aid-compatible handset models, the Commission seeks comment on
whether maintaining the de minimis exception is necessary. Are there
reasons why smaller manufacturers cannot certify all of their handset
models as hearing aid compatible or why smaller manufacturers or
wireless providers cannot ensure that all of the handset models that
they offer are hearing aid compatible? Do commenters believe that
maintaining a de minimis exception would still be necessary to preserve
competitive opportunities for small entities?
I. 90-Day Shot Clock for Waivers
145. The HAC Task Force's Final Report recommends that the
Commission set a 90-day shot clock for the resolution of petitions for
waiver of the hearing aid-compatibility requirements, which would
include a public notice comment cycle. In the Public Notice on the Task
Force's recommendations, WTB sought comment on this proposal. In its
reply comments, the Task Force reiterated its recommendation. No other
commenters addressed this issue.
146. The Commission proposes to decline the Task Force's
recommendation because it does not anticipate that establishing a shot
clock would be necessary to ensure the timely resolution of potential
future requests for waiver of the hearing aid compatibility rules or to
ensure that the deployment of new technologies is not delayed. In
addition, given the highly technical nature of the questions that arise
in the hearing aid-compatibility proceedings, establishing a 90-day
shot clock could limit public participation and negatively impact
staff's ability to work with affected stakeholders to develop consensus
solutions that serve the interest of consumers with hearing loss. The
Commission notes that not only is the 90-day proposal half of what it
sought comment on, but that the Commission also sought comment on
whether there are situations in which it should have the ability to
extend the waiver deadline. The Commission also notes that section
710(f) requires the Commission to periodically review the regulations
established pursuant to the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act. This
statutory obligation should curtail the need for waivers. The
Commission seeks comment on its proposed determination.
J. Renaming Section 20.19
147. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should
revise the heading of Sec. 20.19 of its rules to better reflect the
scope of its requirements. Section 20.19 is currently titled ``Hearing
aid-compatible mobile handsets.'' The rules, however, are intended to
help ensure access to communications services for consumers who use
hearing aids as well as other types of hearing devices such as cochlear
implants and telecoils as well as consumers who have hearing loss but
do not use hearing devices. The Commission seeks comment on whether it
should revise the heading of Sec. 20.19 to better reflect the scope of
the requirements. If so, the Commission seeks comment on what heading
the it should adopt. For example, should the Commission rename Sec.
20.19 to ``Accessibility for Consumers with Hearing Loss'' or ``Hearing
Loss Interoperability Requirements?'' Are there alternative headings
the Commission should consider? Would revising the section heading
create consumer confusion or provide needed clarity?
K. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion
148. To the extent not already addressed, the Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues
discussed herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its
inquiries may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's
relevant legal authority.
149. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section
above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings related to this document
shall refer to WT Docket No. 23-388.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
150. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested
[[Page 5173]]
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
151. The Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules ensure that
the millions of Americans with hearing loss will have access to the
same types of technologically advanced telephone handsets as those
without hearing loss. Both manufacturers and service providers, some of
which are small entities, are required to make available handsets that
meet specified technical criteria for hearing aid compatibility. The
Commission issued the NPRM to develop a record relating to a proposal
submitted by the Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) Task Force on how the
Commission can achieve its goal of requiring 100% of handsets offered
by handset manufacturers and service providers to be certified as
hearing aid compatible.
152. The NPRM tentatively concludes that requiring 100% of all
handsets to be certified as hearing aid compatible is an achievable
objective under the factors set forth in section 710(e) of the
Communications Act. As part of this determination, the NPRM seeks
comment on adopting the more flexible ``forward-looking'' definition of
hearing aid compatibility that the HAC Task Force recommends. This
determination also includes a proposal to broaden the current
definition of hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth
connectivity technology and to require at least 15% of offered handset
models to connect to hearing aids through Bluetooth technology as an
alternative to or in addition to a telecoil. The NPRM seeks comment on
the Bluetooth technology the Commission should utilize to meet this
requirement and how to incorporate this requirement into the wireless
hearing aid compatibility rules. Additionally, the NPRM proposes a 24-
month transition period for handset manufacturers; a 30-month
transition period for nationwide service providers; and a 42-month
transition period for non-nationwide service providers to transition to
a 100% hearing aid-compatible handset standard for all handset models
offered for sale in the United States or imported for use in the United
States. The NPRM also seeks comment on certain implementation proposals
and updates to the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules related to
these proposals.
B. Legal Basis
153. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4 and
641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154 and 641-646.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
154. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
155. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities
that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry
specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the
regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in
the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.
156. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
157. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that
at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
158. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms
had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
159. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically
applicable to unlicensed communications handset manufacturers. Radio
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing is the closest industry with a SBA small business size
standard. The Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products
made by these establishments are:
[[Page 5174]]
transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS
equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment,
and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA
small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having
1,250 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017
show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees.
Thus, under the SBA size standard the majority of firms in this
industry can be considered small.
160. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
161. Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless
Resellers. The closest industry with a SBA small business size standard
is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications and they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. Under the SBA size standard for this
industry, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry
provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,375 firms
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, for this industry under
the SBA small business size standard, the majority of providers can be
considered small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
162. The Commission expects potential rule changes proposed in the
NPRM, if adopted, could impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements on some small entities. If the proposals
in the NPRM are adopted, small and other manufacturers and service
providers would be required to certify that 100% of handsets offered
are hearing aid compatible. Small and other manufacturers' and service
providers' handset portfolios would be allowed to meet this 100%
requirement, with grandfathered handsets, or in the alternative, could
be required to have 100% of handsets meet aspects of the 2019 ANSI
Standard. Additionally, small and other manufacturers' and service
providers' could be subject to a compliance requirement that 85% of
these handsets must meet the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling
requirements and the remaining 15% of these handsets meet a new
Bluetooth connectivity requirement as a replacement for meeting the
standard's telecoil requirements.
163. If adopted, the transition period for compliance would allow a
24-month transition period for handset manufacturers; a 30-month
transition period for nationwide service providers; and a 42-month
transition period for non-nationwide service providers, which are
typically small entities, to transition to a 100% hearing aid-
compatible handset standard for all handset models offered for sale in
the United States or imported for use in the United States.
164. In addition, small and other handset manufacturers could be
subject to compliance requirements should certain implementation
proposals and updates to the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules
be adopted. For example, a revision to the package labeling provisions
in section 20.19(f)(1) of the Commission's rules could require handset
manufacturers to have the handset package label state whether the
handset has a telecoil that meets certification requirements or instead
includes Bluetooth connectivity as a replacement for meeting telecoil
certification requirements. Also, if a corresponding change to the
package insert and handset manual requirements in section 20.19(f)(2)
is adopted, manufacturers could be required to provide information in a
package insert or user manual about whether a handset meets telecoil
certification requirements or replaces this requirement with Bluetooth
coupling ability.
165. If the proposed rules are adopted small and other handset
manufacturers and service providers would be required to identify on
their publicly accessible websites which handsets in their handset
portfolios meet telecoil certification requirements. For those handsets
that do not meet telecoil certification requirements, handset
manufacturers and service providers would be required to identify which
Bluetooth connectivity standards these handsets include. Handset
manufacturers and service providers would also be required to identify
on their publicly accessible websites the conversational gain with and
without hearing aids for each handset that they offer regardless of
whether the handset meets telecoil certification standards or includes
Bluetooth connectivity instead.
166. Additionally, after the expiration of the manufacturer
transition period, all handsets would be required by default to have
their acoustic and volume control functions on. Handsets would also be
allowed to I have a secondary mode whereby the handset's telecoil is
turned on or, for those handsets that substitute Bluetooth connectivity
for telecoil connectivity, the Bluetooth function is turned on. In
addition, proposed modifications of the handset package insert and user
manual requirements could require an included explanation of each of
these modes, what each mode does and does not include, and how to turn
these settings on and off. In view of the proposal to require 100% of
handsets to be hearing aid compatible, should it be adopted, the de
minimis exception in section 20.19(e) of the rules would be removed.
167. Small entities may be required to hire attorneys, engineers,
consultants, or other professionals to comply with the rule changes
proposed in the NPRM, if adopted. The Commission does not believe,
however, that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with
any of the proposal rule changes will unduly burden small entities.
While the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the
potential rule changes and compliance obligations raised in the NPRM,
in its discussion of the proposals the Commission has requested
comments from the parties in
[[Page 5175]]
the proceeding including cost and benefit analyses which may help the
Commission identify and evaluate relevant matters for small entities,
such as compliance costs and burdens that may result from the proposed
rules and the matters on which the Commission has requested comments.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
168. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business 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 such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
169. In the NPRM, the Commission considers specific steps it could
take and alternatives to the proposed rules that could minimize
potential economic impact on small entities that might be affected by
the proposed rule changes, as well as any other rule changes that may
be required as a result of comments provided by interested parties. The
Commission proposes a 24-month transition period for handset
manufacturers; a 30-month transition period for nationwide service
providers; and a 42-month transition period for non-nationwide service
providers, which are typically small entities, to transition to a 100%
hearing aid-compatible handset standard for all handset models offered
for sale in the United States or imported for use in the United States.
The proposed transition periods would minimize some economic impact for
small manufacturers and service providers since they would not have to
immediately comply with the revised standard in the short term. In
particular, the 42-month transition period would be particularly
beneficial for non-nationwide providers, which are usually small
entities. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed
transition periods are reasonable timeframes to allow implementation of
the 100% compliance standard. Alternatively, the Commission considered
using the longer transition periods recommended by the HAC Task Force;
however, the proposal in the NPRM is both more in keeping with previous
transition periods the Commission has utilized for new technical
standards and serves the needs of consumers with hearing loss as soon
as possible without negatively impacting product development cycles for
manufacturers and service providers.
170. To limit any potential burdens regarding the impact of the
proposed transition to a 100% compliance standard on previously
manufactured wireless handsets, the Commission proposes to allow
manufacturers and service providers to continue to offer handsets that
are already certified as hearing aid compatible as part of their
hearing aid-compatible handset portfolio. Under this proposal, handsets
would be grandfathered and manufacturers and service providers can
include these handsets in their 100% handset portfolios as long as the
handsets are still being offered. This grandfathering proposal could
minimize the burdens associated with implementing the new standard for
small entities because they would not have to recertify previously
approved handsets. In developing the proposal, the Commission
considered discontinuing its grandfathering rule, in which case 100% of
the handset models in a manufacturer's or service provider's handset
portfolio would have to be certified as hearing aid-compatible using
the 2019 ANSI Standard's requirements, as modified by a possible
telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity split. The NPRM seeks comment from
small and other entities on the economic impact of adopting such an
approach.
171. To reduce potential reporting burdens, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to eliminate website and record retention
requirements that may no longer be necessary if it adopts a 100%
compliance standard. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on
whether to eliminate the requirement that service providers and
manufacturers post or retain information about non hearing aid-
compatible handsets. Additionally, the Commission proposes to eliminate
the annual service reporting requirements for manufacturers if the
Commission adopts a 100% compliance standard. Alternatively, the
Commission considered approaches that would retain website and record
retention requirements as well as annual service reporting
requirements, but believes the proposed approach would better serve the
needs of small entities for the reasons stated above.
172. The Commission seeks to balance the potential economic impact
and burdens that small entity manufacturers and service providers might
face in light of the 100% compliance requirement with the need to
ensure that Americans with hearing loss can access a wide array of
handsets with emerging technologies. Therefore the NPRM seeks comment
on alternative obligations, timing for implementation, and other
measures including costs and benefits analyses that will allow the
Commission to more fully consider and evaluate the economic impact on
small entities. The Commission will review the comments filed in
response to the NPRM and carefully consider these matters as it relates
to small entities before adopting final rules in this proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
173. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
174. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1-4 and
641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154 and 641-646, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
175. It is further ordered that WT Docket No. 15-285 is hereby
terminated.
176. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Incorporation by reference, Individuals with disabilities,
Telecommunications, Telephones.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 155, 157, 160, 201,
214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309,
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, and 615c, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 20.19 by:
[[Page 5176]]
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3), (c) introductory text,
(c)(1) through (3);
0
b. Removing paragraph (e);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (f) through (l) as paragraphs (e) through
(k);
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (e) introductory text,
(e)(1), and (e)(2) introductory text;
0
e. Adding paragraph (e)(2)(ix) to newly redesignated paragraph (e);
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1);
0
g. Adding paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (ii) to newly redesignated paragraph
(h); and
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(2) introductory text, and
(h)(2)(iv) through (vi).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Handset model compatibility on or after December 31, 2026. In
order to satisfy a manufacturer or service provider's obligations under
paragraph (c) of this section, a handset model submitted for equipment
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid
compatibility on or after December 31, 2026 must meet:
(i) The 2019 ANSI standard's acoustic coupling requirements;
(ii) The 2019 ANSI standard's volume control requirements; and
(iii) Either the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling
requirements or have Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement
for or in addition to meeting the standard's telecoil coupling
requirements.
(iv) All such new handset models must by default have their
acoustic and volume control functions on. Such handset models may also
have a secondary mode whereby the handset model's telecoil is turned on
or, for those handset models that substitute Bluetooth connectivity for
telecoil connectivity, the Bluetooth function is turned on.
(2) Handset model compatibility before December 31, 2026. In order
to satisfy a manufacturer's or service provider's obligations under
paragraph (c) of this section, a handset model submitted for equipment
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid
compatibility before December 31, 2026 must meet either:
(i) The 2019 ANSI standard; or
(ii) The 2019 ANSI standard's acoustic coupling requirements,
applicable volume control requirements, and either the standard's
telecoil coupling requirements or have Bluetooth connectivity
technology as a replacement for or in addition to meeting the
standard's telecoil coupling requirements.
(3) Handset models operating over multiple frequency bands or air
interfaces
(i) Beginning on December 31, 2026, a handset model is hearing aid-
compatible if it meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section for all frequency bands that are specified in the 2019 ANSI
standard and all air interfaces over which it operates on those
frequency bands, and the handset model has been certified as compliant
with the test requirements for the 2019 ANSI standard pursuant to Sec.
2.1033(d) of this chapter.
(ii) Before December 31, 2026, a handset model is hearing aid-
compatible if it meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section for all frequency bands that are specified in the 2019 ANSI
standard and all air interfaces over which it operates on those
frequency bands, and the handset model has been certified as compliant
with the test requirements for the 2019 ANSI standard pursuant to Sec.
2.1033(d) of this chapter.
* * * * *
(c) Phase-in of hearing aid-compatibility requirements. The
following applies to each manufacturer and service provider that offers
handset models used to deliver digital mobile services as specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) Manufacturers--Number of hearing aid-compatible handset models
offered. After December 31, 2026, for each digital air interface for
which it offers handset models in the United States or imported for use
in the United States, one-hundred (100) percent of the handset models
that the manufacturer offers must be certified as hearing aid-
compatible.
(i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of those handset models must
meet the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling requirements or have
been certified as meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI
standard; and
(ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of those handset models must
have Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement for or in
addition to meeting the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling
requirements or the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI standard.
(2) Tier I carriers. After June 30, 2027, for each digital air
interface for which it offers handset models to customers, one-hundred
(100) percent of the handset models that the provider offers must be
certified as hearing aid-compatible.
(i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of those handset models must
meet the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling requirements or have
been certified as meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI
standard; and
(ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of those handset models must
have Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement for or in
addition to meeting the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling
requirements or the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI standard.
(3) Service providers other than Tier I carriers. After June 30,
2028, for each digital air interface for which it offers handset models
to customers, one-hundred (100) percent of the handset models that the
provider offers must be certified as hearing aid-compatible.
(i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of those handset models must
meet the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling requirements or have
been certified as meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI
standard; and
(ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of those handset models must
have Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement for or in
addition to meeting the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling
requirements or the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI standard.
* * * * *
(e) Labeling and disclosure requirements for hearing aid-compatible
handset models.
(1) Package label. For all handset models certified to be hearing
aid-compatible, manufacturers and service providers shall ensure that
the handset model's package label states that the handset model is
hearing aid-compatible and the handset model's actual conversational
gain with and without a hearing aid if certified using a technical
standard with volume control requirements. The actual conversational
gain displayed for use with a hearing aid shall be the lowest rating
assigned to the handset model for any covered air interface or
frequency band. The label shall also state whether the handset model
has a telecoil that meets certification requirements, includes
Bluetooth connectivity as a replacement for meeting telecoil
certification requirements, or includes both.
(2) Package insert or handset manual. For all handset models
certified to be hearing aid-compatible, manufacturers and service
providers shall disclose to
[[Page 5177]]
consumers through the use of digital labeling (e.g., a QR Code) on the
handset model's package label, or through the use of a package insert,
or in the handset model's user manual:
* * * * *
(ix) Where applicable, an explanation that the handset model does
not meet telecoil certification requirements and instead couples with
hearing aids using a Bluetooth connectivity standard and provide the
name of that Bluetooth standard. This explanation should also indicate
that the handset model will, by default, have its acoustic and volume
control functions on and that it may also have a secondary mode whereby
the handset model's telecoil is turned on or, for those handset models
that substitute Bluetooth connectivity for telecoil connectivity, the
Bluetooth function is turned on. The explanation must include an
explanation of each of these modes, what each mode does and does not
include, and how to turn these settings on and off.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Each manufacturer and service provider that operates a
publicly-accessible website must make available on its website:
(i) A list of all hearing aid-compatible models currently offered,
the ANSI standard used to evaluate hearing aid compatibility, the
ratings of those models under the relevant ANSI standard, if
applicable, and an explanation of the rating system. Each service
provider must also include on its website: A list of all non-hearing
aid-compatible models currently offered, as well as a link to the
current FCC web page containing information about the wireless hearing
aid compatibility rules and service provider's obligations. Each
service provider must also include the marketing model name/number(s)
and FCC ID number of each hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-
compatible model currently offered.
(ii) In addition, each manufacturer and service provider must
identify on their publicly accessible websites, for all handset models
in their handset portfolios that are certified as hearing aid
compatible under (b) of this section, which of those handset models
meet telecoil certification requirements and which have Bluetooth
connectivity technology. For those handset models that do not meet
telecoil certification requirements, each manufacturer and service
provider must affirmatively state that the handset model does not meet
the telecoil certification requirements. For handset models that have
Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement to or in addition to
telecoil, manufacturers and service providers must identify which
Bluetooth connectivity standards these handset models include.
(iii) Each handset manufacturer and service provider must identify
on their publicly accessible websites the conversational gain with and
without hearing aids for each handset model certified as hearing aid
compatible that they offer regardless of whether the handset model
meets telecoil certification standards or includes Bluetooth
connectivity instead.
(iv) Each handset manufacturer and service provider must include on
its website a point-of-contact for consumers to use in order to resolve
questions they have about a company's hearing aid-compatible handset
models. Handset manufacturers and service providers must provide the
name of a department or a division that is staffed with knowledgeable
employees and provide an email address, mailing address, and a toll
free number that consumers could contact to find out information about
a hearing aid-compatible handset model that the company offers or to
ask questions about how a particular handset model couples with the
consumer's hearing device.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) On or after December 31, 2026, manufacturers and service
providers shall submit Form 855 certifications on their compliance with
the requirements of this section by January 31 of each year.
Information in each certification and report must be up-to-date as of
the last day of the calendar month preceding the due date of each
certification and report.
(ii) Before December 31, 2026, service providers shall submit Form
855 certifications on their compliance with the requirements of this
section by January 31 of each year. Manufacturers shall submit Form 655
reports on their compliance with the requirements of this section by
July 31 of each year. Information in each certification and report must
be up-to-date as of the last day of the calendar month preceding the
due date of each certification and report.
(2) Content of manufacturer and service provider certifications.
Certifications filed by service providers and manufacturers must
include:
* * * * *
(iv) If the company is subject to paragraph (g) of this section,
the website address of the page(s) containing the required information
regarding handset models;
(v) The percentage of handset models offered that are hearing aid-
compatible (companies will derive this percentage by determining the
number of hearing aid-compatible handset models offered across all air
interfaces during the year divided by the total number of handset
models offered during the year); and
(vi) The following language:
I am a knowledgeable executive [of company x] regarding compliance
with the Federal Communications Commission's wireless hearing aid
compatibility requirements as a company covered by those requirements.
I certify that the company was [(in full compliance/not in full
compliance)] [choose one] at all times during the applicable time
period with the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility handset
model deployment benchmarks and all other relevant wireless hearing aid
compatibility requirements.
The company represents and warrants, and I certify by this
declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 47 CFR 1.16 that the
above certification is consistent with 47 CFR 1.17, which requires
truthful and accurate statements to the Commission. The company also
acknowledges that false statements and misrepresentations to the
Commission are punishable under Title 18 of the U.S. Code and may
subject it to enforcement action pursuant to Sections 501 and 503 of
the Act.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-00414 Filed 1-25-24; 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 January 26, 2024.
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.