Rule2024-25088
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
November 13, 2024
Effective
December 13, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") adopts a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement that applies to all future wireless handset models offered for sale or use in the United States and implementation provisions related to this 100% requirement, including a Bluetooth coupling requirement.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89832-89868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25088]
[[Page 89831]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 219
November 13, 2024
Part III
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Part 20
Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 89832]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 23-388; FCC 24-112; FR ID 257122]
Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(``Commission'') adopts a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement
that applies to all future wireless handset models offered for sale or
use in the United States and implementation provisions related to this
100% requirement, including a Bluetooth coupling requirement.
DATES: Effective December 13, 2024, except for amendatory instructions
3 and 4 which are delayed indefinitely. The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective dates of
these amendments. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of June 3, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli Johnson, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#42072e2b6c082d2a2c312d2c022421216c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="30755c591e7a5f585e435f5e705653531e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure Policy
Division, (202) 418-1395.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, in WT Docket No. 23-388; FCC 24-112, adopted October 17,
2024, and released on October 18, 2024. The full text of the document
is available for download at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-112A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-112A1.pdf</a>. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format, etc.), and reasonable accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) may be requested by
sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed8b8e8ed8ddd9ad8b8e8ec38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02646161373236426461612c656d74">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530. 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 prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule
changes contained in this final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act. The requirements in revised Sec.
20.19(b)(3)(iii), (f), (h), and (i)(4) and (5) constitute new or
modified collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. They will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements
contained in this proceeding. This document will be submitted to OMB
for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. In addition, the
Commission notes that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, it previously sought, but did not receive, specific
comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. The Commission describes impacts that might affect small
businesses, which includes more businesses with fewer than 25
employees, in the FRFA.
Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
Commission will include a copy of the Report and Order in a report sent
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis:
I. Introduction
In this final rule, we advance our goal of ensuring that all
Americans can access communications services on an equal basis by
fulfilling the Commission's longstanding commitment to establish a 100%
hearing aid compatibility requirement that applies to all future
wireless handset models offered for sale or use in the United States.
By our actions in this final rule, 48 million Americans with hearing
loss will be able to choose among the same handset models that are
available to consumers without hearing loss. No longer will they be
limited in their choice of technologies, features, and prices available
in the handset model marketplace. Further, our rules will encourage
handset manufacturers to move away from proprietary Bluetooth coupling
standards and ensure more universal connectivity between handset models
and hearing aids, including over-the-counter hearing aids. In order to
ensure that older hearing aid compatible handset models, which tend to
be lower priced, continue to be available for consumers to purchase, we
provide for a phase-out period while these handset models are gradually
replaced with new handset models that meet the latest certification
standards. In addition, we strengthen wireless handset accessibility to
encompass not only compatibility that benefits consumers who use
hearing aids, but also a 100% volume control requirement for new
handsets that benefits all consumers with hearing loss. Finally, we
adopt revised labeling and website posting requirements that allow
consumers to have access to the information that they need to make
informed handset model purchasing decisions.
The revisions that we adopt to our hearing aid compatibility rules
are based in part on the collaborative efforts of members of the
Hearing Aid Compatibility Task Force (HAC Task Force), who worked
together over a period of years to reach a consensus on how the
Commission could achieve its long held goal of a 100% hearing aid
compatibility benchmark for all handset models offered for sale or use
in the United States. The HAC Task Force, an independent organization
composed of groups who represent the interests of people with hearing
loss, wireless service providers, and wireless handset manufacturers,
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 HAC Task Force's Final
Report represents consensus recommendations for how the Commission can
achieve this objective.
We are committed to continuing to ensure that our wireless hearing
aid compatibility provisions evolve to keep pace with technological
advances in the ways handset models pair with hearing aids, and we will
continue to monitor and update our hearing aid compatibility rules as
circumstances warrant.
The ANSI C63.19 standards, developed by IEEE, are referenced in the
[[Page 89833]]
amendatory text (Sec. 20.19) of this document; they were previously
approved for incorporation by reference in that section.
II. Summary
Based on the HAC Task Force's recommendations and the record in
this proceeding, we determine that requiring 100% of all handset models
to be certified as hearing aid-compatible is consistent with section
710(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, amended. As part of this
determination, we adopt the forward-looking definition of hearing aid
compatibility that the HAC Task Force recommends, and we incorporate
this definition into our rules. In order to keep pace with consumer
pairing preferences, we adopt a coupling requirement based on Bluetooth
technology standards that meet the requirements of our expanded
definition of hearing aid compatibility and certain functional
requirements. Further, as we proposed in the 100% HAC Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (100% HAC NPRM), 89 FR 5152 (January 26, 2024), we
require handset manufacturers to transition to our 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement within a 24-month transition period and
nationwide service providers to do so within a 30-month transition
period. We will allow non-nationwide service providers to transition to
our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement over a 42-month
transition period. These robust transition periods will ensure that
consumers with hearing loss promptly receive the benefits of our 100%
hearing aid compatibility requirement.
After the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition
period ends, all handset models offered for sale or use in the United
States must be hearing aid-compatible. Any non-hearing aid compatible
handset models cannot obtain a certification under 47 CFR part 2,
subpart J, and handset manufacturers and service providers must remove
all non-hearing aid-compatible handset models from their portfolios
without exceptions. Further, after passage of the relevant transition
period, handset manufacturers and service providers must ensure that
each handset model in their portfolios has at least two ways to pair
with hearing aids. Specifically, after the relevant transition period
is completed, 100% of all handset models in a portfolio must meet
acoustic coupling standards and 85% of these same handset models must
also meet telecoil coupling standards. The remaining 15% of these
handset models must meet our new Bluetooth coupling requirement, along
with acoustic standards; these handsets may also contain telecoils, but
they are not required to include them.
We also adopt a 48-month transition period to a non-proprietary
Bluetooth coupling requirement. During this 48-month transition period,
handset manufacturers and service providers may meet our 15% Bluetooth
coupling requirement using either proprietary or non-proprietary
Bluetooth coupling technology. Once the 48-month transition period
expires, only non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets
our new definition of hearing aid compatibility and specified Bluetooth
functionality requirements will satisfy our 15% Bluetooth coupling
requirement. The non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology must be
completely independent of proprietary standards and could be met, for
example, by using such standards as Bluetooth Low Energy Audio
(Bluetooth LE Audio) and the related Bluetooth Hearing Access Profile
(Bluetooth HAP). Our approach will benefit consumers by ensuring more
universal connectivity between handset models and hearing aids,
including over-the-counter hearing aids, and will help to address the
issue of certain handset models only being able to pair with certain
hearing aids.
After the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period
ends, any new handset model that handset manufacturers and service
providers add to their handset model portfolios must meet applicable
volume control requirements, as well as the other technical
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard that is currently used for
certification purposes. The volume control requirement may be met using
the volume control waiver standard adopted by the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) in September 2023 (``HAC Waiver
Order''), 88 FR 70891 (October 13, 2023), as long as it remains in
effect. This decision to impose a 100% volume control benchmark on
handset models added to handset model portfolios after the applicable
100% hearing aid compatibility transition period ends allows handset
manufacturers and service providers to continue to offer handset models
certified under the 2011 ANSI Standard or older standards. Handset
manufacturers and service providers will be able to count as hearing
aid-compatible those handset models certified under the 2011 ANSI
Standard or older standards for handset model deployment purposes as
long as those handset models were being offered for sale or use in the
United States prior to the expiration of the relevant 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition period. Rather than requiring handset models
certified under the 2011 ANSI Standard or older standards to be removed
from handset model portfolios, these handset models will be gradually
replaced with new handset models that meet 2019 ANSI Standard
requirements, including volume control requirements, through the
typical handset model product cycle. This approach will ensure that
older hearing aid compatible handset models, which tend to be lower
priced, continue to be available for consumers to consider for purchase
during the remaining product cycle.
In addition to the above handset model requirements, we adopt other
updates and revisions to our wireless hearing aid compatibility rules
that are consistent with our decision to adopt a 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement and the related handset model deployment
benchmarks and transition periods. These changes include:
<bullet> After the expiration of the handset manufacturer 100%
hearing aid compatibility transition period, handset manufacturers must
ensure that all new handset models by default come out-of-the-box with
acoustic coupling and volume control certification requirements fully
turned on. We will allow, however, secondary settings to turn on the
handset model's telecoil or Bluetooth coupling functions, depending on
the secondary capability included in a particular handset model.
<bullet> We revise our handset model external printed package label
requirements and our related requirements concerning information that
must be included within the handset model's packaging in the form of
either a printed insert or a printed handset manual. We update these
requirements to reflect our new coupling standards to ensure that
consumers are fully informed about the pairing capabilities of handset
models they are considering for purchase.
<bullet> We continue to require the use of external printed package
labels, but will allow the information that must be included within a
handset model's packaging, either in the form of a printed insert or a
printed handset manual, to be delivered using digital labeling
technology as long as companies choosing this option maintain publicly
accessible websites where consumers can easily locate the required
information and the information is presented in a straight-forward
fashion using plain language. Handset manufacturers and service
providers choosing this option must provide consumers with both a
Quick-
[[Page 89834]]
Response (QR) code and the related website address where the required
information can be found.
<bullet> We determine that in cases where a handset manufacturer or
service provider recertifies a handset model using an updated
certification standard, the company does not need to assign the handset
model a new model number designation, unless the handset model's
hardware or software has been physically altered in form, features, or
capabilities in order to meet the requirements of the new certification
standard.
<bullet> As part of our implementation of a 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement, we revise our website posting and record
retention requirements to ensure that handset manufacturers and service
providers comply with our new standard and to ensure that consumers
have access to the information that they need to make informed
purchasing decisions.
<bullet> After the handset manufacturer's 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition period ends, we will eliminate FCC Form 655
that handset manufacturers currently file for reporting purposes and
instead require handset manufacturers to annually file FCC Form 855 for
compliance purposes. Beginning at the time handset manufacturers start
filing FCC Form 855, we will align their compliance filing deadline and
reporting period for this form with those used for service providers
who will continue to annually file this form, as updated to reflect our
new hearing aid compatibility requirements.
<bullet> We decline to adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendation
that we permit service providers to rely on the information linked to
in the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse as a legal safe harbor
for purposes of meeting handset model deployment benchmarks. We further
decline to adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendation that we establish
a 90-day shot clock for resolving hearing aid compatibility waiver
requests.
<bullet> We require handset manufacturers and service providers to
post on their publicly accessible websites point-of-contact information
that consumers can use to contact knowledgeable company employees with
hearing aid compatibility questions about the company's handset models.
<bullet> We eliminate the de minimis exception in our hearing aid
compatibility rules for handset manufacturers and service providers
using a three-step process that is consistent with the 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition periods.
<bullet> We revise the heading of Sec. 20.19 of our rules from
``Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets'' to ``Hearing loss compatible
wireless handsets,'' or ``HLC'' for short, in order to ensure that the
heading more accurately reflects the scope of the section.
<bullet> Finally, we determine that our decision to adopt a 100%
hearing aid compatibility requirement is consistent with and furthers
our goal to advance digital equity and inclusion for all.
III. Background
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, 81 FR 60625 (September 2, 2016), 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 and related
transition periods. In October 2018, the handset model deployment
benchmark for handset manufacturers increased to 66%, and in October
2021 it increased to 85%. Similarly, in April 2019 the handset model
deployment benchmark for nationwide service providers increased to 66%,
and in April 2022 it increased to 85%. Likewise, in April 2020 the
handset model deployment benchmark for non-nationwide service providers
increased to 66%, and in April 2023 it increased to 85%. Currently, the
generally applicable handset model deployment benchmark is 85% for
handset manufacturers and service providers, unless they qualify for de
minimis status.
In that 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 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 added 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, stakeholders convened the independent
HAC Task Force and filed progress updates with the Commission.
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, 83 FR 8624
(February 28, 2018), 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 adopted
a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. 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.''
In February 2021, the Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard for
determining hearing aid compatibility (86 FR 23614 (May 4, 2021)). The
2019 ANSI Standard was to replace the existing 2011 ANSI Standard after
a 24-month 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 incorporates by reference the
TIA 5050 Standard that addresses volume control requirements
[[Page 89835]]
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.''
In December 2022, the HAC Task Force filed with the Commission its
Final Report, 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.
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 HAC 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.
On March 23, 2023, WTB released a Public Notice in WT Docket No.
15-285 seeking comment on the HAC Task Force's Final Report (DA 23-
251). 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. The Commission
received three comments and three replies in response to the Public
Notice.
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 (88 FR 25286 (April 26, 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 was essential as the Commission moves to its
goal of all handset models being hearing aid compatible.
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 (88 FR 70891 (October 13, 2023)). 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 HAC Waiver Order as well as all
other aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard. This waiver will remain in
place for 24 months from the release date of the Order to allow time
for the development of a new, full volume control standard and for its
incorporation into the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.
Subsequently, on December 14, 2023, the Commission released a
notice of proposed rulemaking (100% HAC NPRM) seeking to develop a
record with respect to the HAC Task Force's proposal on how the
Commission can achieve its long held goal of a 100% hearing aid
compatibility benchmark for all handset models offered for sale or use
in the United States. The 100% HAC NPRM proposed to adopt the HAC 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 our rules not discourage or impair
the development of improved technology. Specifically, the 100% HAC NPRM
tentatively concluded 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 100% HAC NPRM sought comment on
adopting the more flexible ``forward-looking'' definition of hearing
aid compatibility that the HAC Task Force recommends, and proposed to
broaden the current definition of hearing aid compatibility to include
Bluetooth coupling technology, and to require at least 15% of offered
handset models to pair with hearing aids through Bluetooth coupling
technology. The 100% HAC NPRM sought comment on the Bluetooth coupling
technology that the Commission should adopt to meet this requirement
and how it should incorporate this requirement into the Commission's
hearing aid compatibility rules.
Further, the 100% HAC NPRM explored ways to reach the 100% hearing
aid compatibility benchmark and proposed 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 compatibility
requirement for all handset models offered for sale or use in the
United States. In addition, the 100% HAC NPRM sought comment on certain
implementation proposals and updates to the hearing aid compatibility
rules related to the proposed 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement. These proposals included 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 revising the heading of Sec. 20.19 of the
Commission's rules to better reflect the scope of its requirements.
IV. Discussion
A. Establishing a 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirement
We find that establishing a 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement for all handset models offered for sale or use in the
United States meets the requirements of section 710(e) of the
Communications Act. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we stated that we would use a
section 710(e) analysis to evaluate whether a 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement is achievable, and we tentatively concluded
that requiring 100% of all handset models to be certified as hearing
aid-compatible is an achievable objective. In reaching this tentative
conclusion, we noted that the Commission had previously decided that it
would make a determination of whether a 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement is achievable utilizing a section 710(e) analysis.
We find that section 710(e) provides the appropriate standard for
evaluating whether 100% hearing aid compatibility is an achievable
objective. The Commission has used a section 710(e) analysis when
considering whether to adjust handset model deployment benchmarks.
Continuing to use this standard to determine whether to adopt a 100%
hearing aid compatibility
[[Page 89836]]
requirement is consistent with Commission precedent, and the record
supports our decision. Commenters agree that adopting a 100% hearing
aid compatibility requirement is consistent with the requirements of
section 710(e) and that adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement will benefit consumers with hearing loss. Further,
commenters state that adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement will encourage the use of currently available technology
and will not discourage or impair the development of improved
technology.
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.'' Section
710(e) 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.
We find that the benefits of adopting a 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement for all handset models offered for sale or
use in the United States will exceed the costs. As the record reflects,
a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement will provide significant
benefits to those with hearing loss by ensuring that all handset models
offered for sale or use in the United States are hearing aid-compatible
rather than only a certain percentage of these handset models. Under
this final rule, consumers with hearing loss will be able to consider
any handset model for purchase rather than just a limited number of
handset models. We agree with Accessibility Advocates that, given that
two-thirds of all households are wireless only and that most people,
including those with hearing loss, rely solely on wireless handsets for
their telecommunication needs, a 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement has become essential. Further, we do not anticipate any
costs for those with or without hearing loss if non-compliant handset
models are discontinued, considering the overwhelming share of wireless
handset models already meet acoustic and telecoil standards and most
include some form of Bluetooth coupling technology. In addition, given
our decision below to allow the grandfathering of existing hearing aid-
compatible handset models, we do not find that our 100% compliance
standard will reduce the affordability of lowest-cost handset models or
adversely affect low-income persons.
With respect to the costs and benefits for handset manufacturers
and service providers, Accessibility Advocates and the Competitive
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) state that the benefits
of a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement will exceed its costs
for these types of companies. We find that the costs to handset
manufacturers and service providers should be minimally different than
they are now. The vast majority of new handset models are already
hearing aid-compatible, and, in fact, the great majority of handset
manufacturers and service providers are already at the 100% standard.
The HAC Task Force states that as of August 2022, about 93% of wireless
handset models offered by manufacturers were already certified as
hearing aid-compatible under the 2011 ANSI Standard or an older ANSI
standard, which exceeds the benchmarks in the Commission's current
rules.
In addition, as required by section 710(e), we find that a 100%
compliance standard will encourage the use of currently available
technology and will not discourage or impair the development of
improved technology. The HAC Task Force, Accessibility Advocates, and
CTIA agree with this conclusion. Handset manufacturers, service
providers, and consumer organizations that compose the HAC Task Force
all unanimously support its consensus proposal for achieving 100%
compliance. The HAC Task Force's Final Report and the record in this
proceeding provides no indication or evidence that adopting this new
standard will discourage the use of currently available coupling
technologies, such as acoustic and telecoil coupling, or the
development of improved coupling technologies. Further, as discussed
below and consistent with the HAC Task Force's recommendation, we are
adopting a new Bluetooth coupling requirement that commenters indicate
will encourage the use of currently available Bluetooth coupling
technology and the development of new and advanced Bluetooth coupling
technology.
Further, we conclude that adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility
compliance standard in conjunction with the transition periods and
handset model deployment benchmarks that we adopt below is consistent
with the requirements of section 710(e) The transition periods that we
adopt below will allow sufficient time to expand access to hearing aid-
compatible handset models while giving handset manufacturers and
service providers sufficient notice and lead time to build hearing aid
compatibilities into all future handset models rather than into just a
certain percentage of future handset models. Handset manufacturers are
familiar with the 2019 ANSI Standard, which is the exclusive testing
standard for determining capability. Handset manufacturers are already
using this standard to certify new handset models as hearing aid
compatible. Similarly, the new Bluetooth coupling requirement allows
handset manufacturers to continue to use Bluetooth coupling technology
that they already include in their current handset models. As a result,
the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods that we adopt
below take into consideration technical feasibility and will ensure a
smooth transition to a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement.
Finally, the handset model deployment benchmarks we adopt below
take into consideration that, while many consumers prefer Bluetooth
over telecoil coupling, there are still those who prefer telecoil
coupling. Our handset model deployment benchmarks ensure the
marketability of new handset models by adopting the HAC Task Force's
recommendation on the appropriate split between future handset models
that should be required to include Bluetooth coupling technology and
those that should be required to include telecoils. In addition, the
Bluetooth coupling functionality requirements that we adopt below will
encourage the development of advanced Bluetooth coupling technologies
that will further benefit consumers with hearing loss. As a result, we
find that our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement properly
considers technical feasibility and ensures the marketability and
availability of new hearing aid compatibility technology.
B. Expanding the Definition of Hearing Aid Compatibility
We adopt the HAC Task Force's expanded definition of hearing aid
compatibility, which defines a hearing aid-compatible handset model as:
(1) having an internal means for compatibility; (2) meets established
technical standards for hearing aid coupling or compatibility; and (3)
is usable. Further, we adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendations on
how we
[[Page 89837]]
should define each of these terms. This expanded definition of hearing
aid compatibility allows us to continue to use ANSI certification
standards that we incorporate by reference into our hearing aid
compatibility rules to objectively measure acoustic, telecoil, and
volume control compatibility. Further, this revised definition allows
us to adopt a coupling requirement that is based on Bluetooth coupling
technologies that meet certain functional requirements that we
expressly incorporate into the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
rules without also expressly incorporating a specific Bluetooth
coupling technology, such as Bluetooth LE Audio and the related
Bluetooth HAP standards.
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we observed that our existing hearing aid
compatibility rules do not contain an express definition of hearing aid
compatibility in the definition section of the rules. Rather, we stated
that our hearing aid compatibility 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 expressly incorporated by reference into the hearing aid
compatibility rules through notice and comment rulemaking procedures.
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we sought comment on defining 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 the rules.
Specifically, we sought comment on whether we should adopt what the HAC
Task Force calls a more forward-looking, flexible definition of hearing
aid compatibility that reflects changing coupling technologies. This
definition would 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.
Commenters urge us to adopt the HAC Task Force's flexible and
forward-looking revised definition of hearing aid compatibility. In its
comments, the HAC Task Force asserts that this revised definition of
hearing aid compatibility benefits consumers with hearing loss and
meets the needs of handset manufacturers and service providers. We find
that this revised definition of hearing aid compatibility allows the
Commission's rules to keep pace with evolving coupling technologies and
to ensure that consumers with hearing loss have access to the latest
handset models with the most current coupling technology. Further, we
find this revised definition is consistent with our 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement because it allows for a wider range of
coupling technologies. As discussed below, it permits us to mandate a
Bluetooth coupling requirement without specifying a specific Bluetooth
coupling technology and gives us the ability to expand our coupling
requirements in the future without having to incorporate a specific
coupling standard into the hearing aid compatibility rules, as the
Commission presently does with respect to acoustic, telecoil, and
volume control certification requirements.
We also adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendations for defining
each of the terms that comprise the three parts of our new definition
of hearing aid compatibility. Commenters support this approach,
asserting that the revised definition should be broadly construed to
ensure increased innovation that meets the needs of consumers with
hearing loss. Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) states that in
order to ensure the strongest compatibility framework, the definition
must allow for the express incorporation of alternative and innovative
coupling technologies.
Part 1: ``Having an Internal Means of Compatibility.'' We adopt the
HAC Task Force's recommendation that we define ``having an internal
means for compatibility'' to mean that the compatibility 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 the same manufacturer. This definition is consistent
with section 710(b)(1) of the Communications Act which requires the
Commission to ensure that handset models have an internal means for
effective use with hearing aids. Further, this definition is consistent
with the Commission's past interpretation of this statutory language.
In the 2003 HAC Order, 68 FR 54173 (September 16, 2003), the Commission
interpreted this statutory language 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. Further, the Commission stated that
many consumers find the use of accessory devices such as neck loops or
hands-free headsets to be unduly restrictive because they are
cumbersome, inconvenient, and expensive.
Accessibility Advocates and the Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF)
recognize that this definition of internal compatibility is consistent
with our current requirements concerning acoustic and telecoil
connectivity, as well as volume control functionality, because these
forms of hearing aid compatibility are built into handset models.
Further, Accessibility Advocates state that relying on external
compatibility solutions does not give consumers with hearing loss equal
access to the functionality of handset models that internal solutions
provide. Accessibility Advocates also state that external wireless
solutions have never been construed as providing ``equal access'' and
should not be now. We agree. As required by section 710(b)(1), we will
continue to require that hearing aid capability features in handset
models provide an internal means for effective use with hearing aids.
Part 2: ``Meets Established Technical Standards for Hearing Aid
Coupling or Compatibility.'' We also adopt the HAC Task Force's
recommendation for how we should define the term ``meets established
technical standards for hearing aid coupling or compatibility.'' Like
the first part of our expanded definition of hearing aid compatibility,
this part of our revised definition also incorporates the requirements
of section 710(b)(1) of the Communications Act. This section requires
the Commission to ensure that handsets must meet established technical
standards for effective use of handset models with hearing aids. The
Commission interprets this directive to require that handset models
work with hearing aids through built-in functionality that is testable
to a technical standard to ensure that the compatibility can be
objectively measured. The Commission's current rules utilize ANSI
standards to satisfy this requirement, which the Commission has
incorporated by reference into the hearing aid compatibility rules.
ANSI standards provide measurement methodologies and performance
criteria testing requirements that are used to objectively measure
acoustic and telecoil connectivity and volume control functionality.
The HAC Task Force acknowledges that the reference to established
technical standards in our expanded definition of hearing aid
compatibility allows the Commission to continue to rely on ANSI
standards as currently provided in Sec. 20.19(b) of the Commission's
rules. The Commission
[[Page 89838]]
has recognized, however, that section 710(e) of the Communications Act
requires that the Commission's regulations not discourage or impair the
development of improved technology. It is with this statutory directive
in mind that we expand our definition of hearing aid compatibility to
allow for the use of technical standards that require the effective use
of handset models with hearing aids that the Commission does not
specifically incorporate by reference into the hearing aid
compatibility rules. In these circumstances, the Commission will ensure
effective use by adopting functionality requirements that include
performance requirements. We agree with the HAC Task Force that these
types of technical standards should ensure that the hearing aid
compatibility technology is interoperable, non-proprietary, and adopted
by industry and consumers alike. Consistent with the HAC Task Force's
recommendation, we will consider factors such as ease-of-use,
reliability, industry adoption, and consumer use and adoption when
evaluating whether technical standards defined by functionality
requirements provide for effective use of handset models with hearing
aids.
Part 3: ``Is Usable.'' Finally, we adopt the HAC Task Force's
recommendation for how we should define the term ``is usable.'' We
agree with the HAC Task Force that this term should mean that consumers
with hearing loss must have adequate information on how to operate
their handset models and access to the full functionality and
documentation for their handset models, including instructions, product
information (including accessible feature information), documentations,
bills, and technical support which is provided to individuals without
hearing loss. As Accessibility Advocates recognize, these requirements
are consistent with sections 255 and 716 of the Communications Act.
Section 255(b) provides that ``[a] manufacturer of telecommunications
equipment or customer premises equipment shall ensure that the
equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities, if ready achievable.''
Further, section 255(c) provides that ``[a] provider of
telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is accessible
to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily
achievable.'' In addition, section 716(a)(1) of the Communications Act
provides that ``a manufacturer of equipment used for advanced
communications services, including end user equipment, network
equipment, and software, shall ensure that the equipment and software
that such manufacturer offers for sale or otherwise distributes in
interstate commerce shall be accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities, unless the requirements . . . are not achievable.''
Usability is critically important to consumers with hearing loss, and
we will consider usability to be a significant factor in deciding
whether to expand our rules to allow for new coupling methodologies
that we do not necessarily specifically incorporate into our rules.
C. Adopting a Bluetooth Coupling Requirement
We adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement that is based on
Bluetooth coupling technology that meets the requirements of our
expanded definition of hearing aid compatibility that we adopted above
and certain functional requirements that we adopt below. In the 100%
HAC NPRM, we sought comment on the HAC Task Force recommendation that
the Commission adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement and that the
Commission expand the definition of hearing aid compatibility to allow
for this requirement. We find that adopting a Bluetooth coupling
requirement is consistent with section 710 of the Communications Act.
We therefore adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement that is based on
our expanded definition of hearing aid compatibility and on a
functional definition of Bluetooth coupling technology.
Sections 710(a) and (c) of the Communications Act require the
Commission to establish regulations ``to ensure reasonable access to
telephone service by persons with impaired hearing'' and to ``establish
or approve such technical standards as are required'' to do so. Section
710(c) also provides that the Commission is the final arbiter as to
whether standards meet technical standard requirements. The Commission
relies on this statutory authority when it incorporates by reference
new ANSI standards into the hearing aid compatibility rules. When a new
ANSI standard becomes available, the ANSI committee petitions the
Commission to adopt the new standard. The Commission seeks comment on
the petition and implementation issues related to the new standard.
After considering the views of all interested parties, including
members of the public with hearing loss, the Commission decides whether
to incorporate the new standard into the hearing aid compatibility
rules along with any related implementation provisions. The Commission
followed this process when it determined to incorporate by reference
the 2019 ANSI Standard into the hearing aid compatibility rules.
In the present case, the HAC Task Force recommends that the
Commission adopt Bluetooth coupling methods such as Bluetooth Classic,
Made-for-iPhone (MFi), and Audio Streaming for Hearing Aids (ASHA) into
the hearing aid compatibility rules for a period of transition. The
Commission has twice sought comment on this recommendation. First, WTB
issued a Public Notice in WT Docket No. 15-285 asking for comment on
the HAC Task Force's Final Report, including its Bluetooth coupling
recommendation (DA 23-251 (March 23, 2023)). Based on these comments,
we released the 100% HAC NPRM in which we proposed to expand the
definition of hearing aid compatibility to include a Bluetooth coupling
requirement. As required by sections 710(a) and (c) of the
Communications Act, we sought comment on this proposal and on
suggestions for how we should implement it. Commenters support this
proposal to adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement and provide comments
on how we should implement the requirement. Based on this record, we
adopt the HAC Task Force's Bluetooth coupling recommendation.
Bluetooth is an umbrella term for a group of related technical
profiles that enable devices to communicate wirelessly with each other
over a short distance. Bluetooth coupling has become a popular way to
pair wireless handset models with hearing aids, as compared to acoustic
and telecoil coupling methods. Bluetooth coupling technology is
incorporated into handset models using internal chipsets and antennas.
Unlike telecoils, Bluetooth audio transmission methods are expressly
designed to transmit and facilitate audio. The vast majority of current
handset models include some type of Bluetooth coupling technology.
Bluetooth transmission power is generally limited to 2.5 milliwatts,
which gives it a limited range of approximately 33 feet. It uses Ultra
High Frequency (UHF) radio waves in the Industrial, Scientific, and
Medical (ISM) bands from 2.402 GHz to 2.48 GHz. Once a handset is
paired with hearing aids, the handset will remember the hearing aids
and automatically pair with the hearing aids if the user disconnects
the handset from the hearing aids in order to connect the hearing aids
to another device, unless the user asks the handset model to forget the
pairing.
The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG) is a standards
setting
[[Page 89839]]
body that manages and oversees the Bluetooth standard. Handset
manufacturers must meet Bluetooth SIG standards in order to market
their products as Bluetooth enabled devices. A network of patents
applies to the technology, which is licensed to individual qualifying
devices. Bluetooth SIG works with handset and hearing aid manufacturers
when formulating new Bluetooth pairing standards. Recently, Bluetooth
SIG worked with hearing aid manufacturers to standardize wireless
coupling and wireless streaming for hearings aids using Bluetooth
pairing technology that ensures that users have the best opportunity to
pair their hearing aids with their handsets. As a result of this work,
Bluetooth SIG has introduced Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and the
Public Access Profile specification for coupling with Auracast
(Bluetooth Auracast) that allows wireless broadcast audio streaming
from audio sources in public locations. Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth
HAP, and Bluetooth Auracast are non-proprietary, low energy Bluetooth
coupling standards.
We find that adopting a Bluetooth coupling requirement is supported
by the record and is consistent with our revised definition of hearing
aid compatibility. Bluetooth coupling technology uses an internal means
of pairing handsets with hearing aids without altering the physical
shape of the handset or requiring additional equipment. It relies on
chipsets and antennas located within a handset model that allow the
handset model to wirelessly connect to hearing aids over short
distances. The chipsets use a codec to control audio quality, and the
Bluetooth LE Audio standard utilizes an updated codec. Bluetooth
coupling technology provides a built-in pairing functionality that is
not dependent on any add-on components. As a result, we find that
Bluetooth coupling technology satisfies the internal requirement of our
revised definition of hearing aid compatibility.
We also find that our Bluetooth coupling requirement is based on
established technical standards for hearing aid compatibility that
provide for effective use of handsets with hearing aids. The Bluetooth
standard is maintained and overseen by the Bluetooth SIG standards
setting body, which relies on handset and hearing aid manufacturer
input when establishing or modifying the standard. The standard uses a
measurable performance standard that provides an objective measurement
of interoperability to ensure the effective use of handsets with
hearing aids. The term ``Bluetooth'' is a registered trademark, and the
Bluetooth SIG enforces the trademark through a license enforcement
program. Handset and hearing aid manufacturers cannot include the
registered trademark on their products without ensuring that their
products are properly qualified. The Bluetooth SIG monitors the
marketplace to ensure that all products being sold as including
Bluetooth pairing technology have successfully completed the Bluetooth
Qualification Process. For these reasons, we find that our Bluetooth
coupling requirement meets the established technical standard for
effective use of handsets with hearing aids as required by our revised
definition of hearing aid compatibility.
Further, we find that Bluetooth coupling technology is usable, as
required by our revised definition of hearing aid compatibility. The
record indicates that many consumers prefer to pair their handsets to
their hearing aids using a Bluetooth connection rather than an acoustic
or telecoil connection. This fact demonstrates that consumers find
Bluetooth coupling usable and that they have the information that they
need to connect their handsets to their hearing aids. Bluetooth
coupling technology is widely included in many, if not most, current
handsets, is well known to consumers, and is easy to use in terms of
pairing handsets to hearing aids. The new Bluetooth HAP standard is
specifically designed to enable handset models to connect directly to
hearing aids using Bluetooth LE Audio. Bluetooth coupling technology
gives consumers with hearing loss the same access to the functionality
of their handsets as consumers without hearing loss. Consumers with
hearing loss can connect and disconnect to their hearing aids in the
same fashion and in the same time frame as consumers without hearing
loss might connect their handsets to earbuds or an external speaker.
Further, unlike with acoustic or telecoil coupling, Bluetooth
coupling does not require users to hold the handset next to their ears.
Rather, users can place the handset nearby and keep their hands free.
This flexibility may in part account for the popularity of Bluetooth
coupling. Bluetooth coupling also gives consumers with hearing loss the
flexibility to disconnect their handsets from their hearing aids and to
easily reconnect their handsets to their hearing aids at a later time.
Bluetooth technology remembers established pairings. Finally, Bluetooth
coupling delivers a high-quality audio signal that is purposely
designed for audio transmission. The quality of this connection is the
same for consumers with hearing loss as it is for consumers without
hearing loss. For these reasons, we find that Bluetooth coupling
technology is usable and meets the requirements of ease-of-use,
reliability, industry adoption, and consumer use and adoption.
While we adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement that is not based
on a specific Bluetooth standard, we agree with Accessibility Advocates
that handset manufacturers must consider certain functional
requirements when determining which specific Bluetooth coupling
technology to include in their future handset models in order to
satisfy our new Bluetooth coupling requirement. In order to meet our
new Bluetooth coupling requirement, we require handset manufacturers to
include Bluetooth coupling technology in their future handset models
that: (1) utilizes a global, low power wireless technology standard for
high quality audio voice streaming; (2) is a standalone non-proprietary
implementation; (3) is a qualified implementation that has undergone
testing to verify that the product conforms to the specifications it
claims to support; (4) offers full interoperability between hearing
aids and handset models to enable inter-network, inter-provider, inter-
platform, and inter-handset manufacturer functionality; and (5) uses a
design that meets broad, generic hearing aid requirements that
addresses needed features when coupling to handset models for all forms
of voice calls and associated handset model use. Below we adopt the
Bluetooth handset model deployment benchmark that the HAC Task Force
recommends, and we adopt a Bluetooth transition period that allows
handset manufacturers and service providers sufficient time to adjust
their handset model portfolios to meet our new Bluetooth coupling
requirement.
Finally, we note that section 710(c) of the Communications Act
requires the Commission to establish or approve such technical
standards as are required to ensure the compatibility of handsets
models with hearing aids. To verify our Bluetooth compatibility
requirements, we require handset manufacturers to provide, as part of
the statement required pursuant to Sec. 2.1033(d) of our rules, a
sworn declaration attesting to the handset model's compliance with our
Bluetooth compatibility requirements. These sworn declarations must be
in accordance with Sec. 1.16 of our rules and provide: (1) the
specific Bluetooth coupling standard included in each handset model;
(2) that the relevant handset model has been tested to ensure
compliance with the
[[Page 89840]]
designated Bluetooth coupling standard; and (3) after the transition to
a non-proprietary Bluetooth requirement, that the included Bluetooth
coupling technology is consistent with our Bluetooth functionality
requirements.
In addition, as the Commission has in the past, we will continue to
monitor the use of Bluetooth coupling technology as an effective means
of pairing handsets to hearing aids and should we become aware of an
issue with Bluetooth coupling, we will initiate a proceeding to review
the requirement. We will monitor compliance with our Bluetooth coupling
requirement in part through the Commission's consumer complaint
process.
D. Handset Model Deployment Benchmarks
After the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition
period ends, all handset models offered for sale or use in the United
States must be hearing aid-compatible. Any non-hearing aid compatible
handset models cannot obtain a certification under 47 CFR part 2,
subpart J, and handset manufacturers and service providers must remove
all non-hearing aid-compatible handset models from their portfolios
without exception. Further, after passage of the relevant transition
period, handset manufacturers and service providers must ensure that
each handset model in their handset model portfolios have at least two
ways to pair with hearing aids. Specifically, after the relevant
transition period is completed, 100% of all handset models in a handset
model portfolio must meet acoustic coupling standards and 85% of these
same handset models must also meet telecoil coupling standards. The
remaining 15% of these handset models must meet our new Bluetooth
coupling requirement, along with acoustic standards. The 15% of handset
models that must meet the Bluetooth coupling requirement, along with
acoustic requirements, can also contain telecoils, but they are not
required to do so. If they do include telecoils, then these handset
models would meet three pairing requirements, but the 15% requirement
only requires these handset models to meet acoustic and Bluetooth
coupling requirements.
Further, after the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition period ends, any new handset model that handset
manufacturers and service providers add to their handset model
portfolios must meet applicable volume control requirements, as well as
the other technical requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard that is
currently used for certification purposes. We will allow the volume
control requirement to be met using the volume control waiver standard
adopted in the HAC Waiver Order, as long as it remains in effect. This
decision to impose a 100% volume control benchmark on handset models
added to handset model portfolios after the applicable 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition period ends allows handset manufacturers and
service providers to continue to offer handset models certified under
the 2011 ANSI Standard or older standards and to count these handset
models for handset model deployment purposes, as long as these handset
models were being offered for sale or use in the United States prior to
the expiration of the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition period. Finally, we will allow proprietary, as well as non-
proprietary, Bluetooth coupling standards to satisfy our new Bluetooth
pairing requirement during a 48-month transition period to an
exclusively non-proprietary Bluetooth pairing requirement.
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we sought comment on the HAC Task Force's
recommendation that we require all handset models offered for sale or
use in the United States to have at least two forms of coupling. Based
on the HAC Task Force's recommendation, we proposed to require that:
(1) 100% of handset models be required to meet an acoustic coupling
requirement; and (2) 100% of handset models 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 coupling requirement. Handset models meeting the Bluetooth
coupling requirement could include telecoils, but would not be required
to include telecoils. We also proposed to allow handset manufacturers
and service providers to continue to be able to offer for sale or use
handset models certified as hearing aid-compatible under the 2011 ANSI
Standard or older standards after the end of the relevant transition
periods, as long as the handset models were being offered for sale or
use prior to the expiration of the relevant transition periods. In
addition, we sought comment on whether we should adopt a volume control
handset model deployment benchmark.
The record supports our adoption of the handset model deployment
benchmarks that we proposed in the 100% HAC NPRM. This support includes
requiring handset manufacturers and service providers to remove from
their handset model portfolios all non-hearing aid-compatible handset
models after the expiration of the relevant 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition periods. The HAC Task Force's Final Report
provides that after passage of the relevant transition period ``All
handset models must be hearing aid-compatible . . . .'' The HAC Task
Force states that all of its members support 100% hearing aid
compatibility, and Accessibility Advocates confirm that 100% hearing
aid compatibility was an area of consensus among members of the HAC
Task Force. The HAC Task Force's Final Report provides that 93% of the
handset models offered by handset manufacturers for the reporting
period July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, were rated as hearing aid-
compatible and more recent reports indicate that this number is higher
than 93%. In fact, many handset manufacturers and service providers
report that all of the handset models in their handset model portfolios
are rated as hearing aid compatible. As a result, the removal of non-
hearing aid-compatible handset models from the marketplace has been
ongoing for years and is part of the natural progression of handset
model development.
With respect to acoustic coupling, there is no disagreement in the
record that we should adopt a 100% acoustic coupling benchmark. These
same commenters also support our adopting the proposed 85/15% split
between telecoil and Bluetooth coupling. One commenter, however,
supports a 100% benchmark for telecoil coupling claiming that consumers
``who are hard of hearing prefer telecoil technology over Bluetooth
technology. We determine to maintain the current 85% benchmark
requirement for telecoil coupling. This percentage is supported by the
HAC Task Force and other commenters, including Accessibility Advocates.
According to a survey the HAC Task Force conducted, most consumers
prefer to use Bluetooth connectivity for pairing handsets to hearing
aids, as compared to telecoils. The HAC Task Force found that telecoil
use is stagnating. The record indicates that consumers prefer Bluetooth
coupling over telecoil coupling and that as consumers age into hearing
loss they are likely to be more familiar with Bluetooth coupling than
with telecoil coupling. Rather than revising the 85% telecoil coupling
benchmark at this time, we will maintain it and, as commenters suggest,
monitor this issue going forward. In the meantime, maintaining the 85%
telecoil coupling requirement gives handset manufacturers space in 15%
of their
[[Page 89841]]
handset models for technological innovation if they wish to use it for
something other than telecoils.
In monitoring this issue going forward, we will consider such
factors as consumer and technology trends for Bluetooth and telecoil
coupling and take into consideration consumer preferences and trends,
changes in the marketplace, and developments in research and technical
standards pertaining to hearing aid compatibility. We will monitor this
issue in the years leading up to the end of the Bluetooth non-
proprietary transition period and continue to monitor the issue
thereafter. If we become aware that an adjustment to the handset model
deployment benchmarks for telecoil and Bluetooth coupling might be
warranted, we will take appropriate action. As always, we are committed
to continuing to ensure that our wireless hearing aid compatibility
provisions keep pace with technological advances and marketplace
realities.
After the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition date
ends, handset manufacturers and service providers must ensure that 15%
of the total number of handset models in their handset model portfolios
meet our new Bluetooth coupling requirement, along with the applicable
acoustic coupling requirement. While this set of handset models may
include telecoils, they must meet the Bluetooth coupling requirement.
We will allow handset manufacturers and service providers to meet the
Bluetooth coupling requirement using either proprietary or non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards during the 48-month transition
period to a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement, as
discussed below. This decision to permit the use of proprietary
Bluetooth coupling standards during the 48-month transition period
reflects the marketplace reality that Apple and Android handset models
use the proprietary Bluetooth coupling technologies MFi and ASHA
standards, respectively, and that non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling
standards, such as Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and the related
Bluetooth Auracast, are newer standards that are now gaining market
share.
Allowing the continued use of proprietary Bluetooth coupling
standards is consistent with section 710(e) of the Communications Act,
which requires the Commission to ``ensure that [hearing aid
compatibility] regulations . . . encourage the use of currently
available technology and do not discourage or impair the development of
improved technology.'' The HAC Task Force and Accessibility Advocates
state that Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP will require some time
to be universally adopted and that, in the meantime, we should allow
the use of proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards during a transition
period to a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard. The HAC Task
Force asserts that the non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards
Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP will become widely available in
handset models in a few years. Consistent with the requirements of
section 710(e), therefore, we will allow the use of currently available
technology by allowing the use of proprietary Bluetooth coupling
standards without discouraging or impairing the development of improved
coupling technology such as Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP.
We will not require handset manufacturers and service providers to
stop offering handset models certified under the 2011 ANSI Standard or
older standards after passage of the relevant 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition periods, if these handset models were being
offered for sale or use in the United States prior to the expiration of
the relevant transition period. This approach is consistent with our
traditional grandfathering rule that allows handset models certified as
hearing aid-compatible to continue to be used to satisfy handset model
deployment benchmarks as long as the handset models were being offered
for sale or use in the United States prior to the transition date for
exclusive use of the new certification standard. We will allow handset
manufacturers and service providers to keep offering handset models
that meet this grandfathering requirement in their handset model
portfolios, and we will allow them to count these handset models for
purposes of complying with the 100% acoustic coupling requirement and
the 85% telecoil coupling requirement. We will also allow these handset
models to be counted for purposes of meeting the 15% Bluetooth coupling
requirement if these grandfathered handset models contain Bluetooth
coupling technology that meets our Bluetooth coupling requirements.
With respect to the volume control benchmark, we adopt a 100%
volume control benchmark requirement that applies to all new handset
models that handset manufacturers and service providers add to their
handset model portfolios after the passage of the relevant 100% hearing
aid compatibility transition period. The 2019 ANSI Standard is
currently the exclusive certification standard, and this standard
includes a volume control requirement. After the relevant 100% hearing
aid compatibility transition period ends, all new handset models that
handset manufacturers and service providers add to their handset model
portfolios must meet the requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard,
including the volume control requirements. By taking this approach we
allow handset manufacturers and service providers to maintain
grandfathered handset models in their handset model portfolios until
they are replaced with handset models meeting the requirements of the
2019 ANSI Standard. As these grandfathered handset models are replaced
through the natural handset model product cycle, an increasing number
of handset models in handset model portfolios will meet volume control
requirements. This result will benefit consumers by giving them more
handset model options to choose from that meet volume control
requirements.
We disagree with CTIA that it is premature to adopt a volume
control benchmark, and that we should wait until the Commission adopts
a new volume control standard before adopting a volume control
benchmark. The 2019 ANSI Standard is the exclusive certification
standard in effect at this time, and this standard includes volume
control certification requirements. In order to be certified as hearing
aid-compatible, new handset models must meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's
acoustic and telecoil certification requirements, as well as the
standard's volume control requirements as recently modified by the HAC
Waiver Order. As of now, a new handset model cannot be certified as
hearing aid-compatible without meeting volume control requirements.
Therefore, adopting a 100% volume control benchmark for all new handset
models added to handset model portfolios after passage of the relevant
100% hearing aid compatibility transition period is consistent with
current certification requirements.
We also agree with those commenters who argue that if we adopt a
volume control benchmark it should be based on the volume control
waiver standard adopted in the HAC Waiver Order. We will allow the
volume control requirements to be met using the volume control waiver
standard, as long as that standard remains in effect. Specifically, we
will allow new handset models that handset manufacturers and service
providers add to their handset model portfolios to meet the volume
control waiver standard as long as it remains in effect, as well as the
full
[[Page 89842]]
volume control standard or any new volume control standard the
Commission adopts in the future. We agree with Accessibility Advocates
that a volume control requirement is particularly important for
consumers with hearing loss who primarily rely on acoustic coupling or
who do not use hearing aids.
CTIA expresses concern that ``there is likely to be a gap between
the expiration of the current waiver and recognition by the Commission
of the new ANSI volume control standard.'' CTIA requests that the
Commission direct WTB to extend the waiver deadline as appropriate
pending adoption of the new volume control standard. We decline to take
this step at this time. The 100% HAC NPRM did not seek comment on the
issue of extending the volume control waiver deadline. We do not have a
record on which to evaluate the merits of this request and to determine
whether it is consistent with the public interest. Accessibility
Advocates have also responded to CTIA's request and asked that the
Commission conduct a thorough review of the facts and circumstances
before granting an extension to the waiver. We encourage CTIA and its
members to continue actively working towards the development of a new
volume control standard. If CTIA believes that the Commission should
extend the waiver deadline, it can file a waiver request asking the
Commission to take this step and WTB will evaluate the request based on
the waiver standard in the Commission's rules.
We will not require handset models certified under the 2011 ANSI
Standard or older standards to be recertified under the 2019 ANSI
Standard. These handset models were not designed to meet the testing
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and, in order for these handset
models to pass the 2019 ANSI Standard's testing requirements, they
might have to be physically altered. Requiring these handset models to
be physical altered would be costly and burdensome to handset
manufacturers and inconsistent with our traditional grandfathering
rule. In addition, older hearing aid-compatible handset models tend to
be lower priced than newer hearing aid-compatible handset models and
requiring them to be removed from the marketplace or physically altered
would deprive consumers of low price options.
We also emphasize that consistent with past practice, handset
manufacturers and service providers that choose to offer compliant
handset models through a central distribution point, rather than
through individual retail outlets, must do so in a timely fashion.
Specifically, the Commission has stated that it expects service
providers to make their best efforts to provide compliant handset
models to consumers that order them within 48 hours to an address
designated by the consumer. The Commission has specifically stated that
using a central distribution point does not alter a service provider's
existing obligation to provide compliant handset models in their retail
stores for consumers to test as set forth in Sec. 20.19(c)(4). To the
contrary, the central distribution point approach merely provides the
flexibility to offer compliant handset models through a central
distribution point. As a result, handset manufacturers and service
providers may not simply list a handset model as available on its
website in order to meet our handset model deployment benchmarks.
Rather, handset manufacturers and service providers must make their
best efforts to ensure that all of the handset models they offer can be
in the hands of consumers within 48 hours of the consumer ordering the
handset model. Further, all handset manufacturers and service providers
must use their best efforts to make available all hearing aid-
compatible handset models that they offer for sale or use to consumers
to test, in each retail store owned or operated by the handset
manufacturer or service provider. We take these steps to ensure that
the hearing aid-compatible handset models that handset manufacturer and
service providers indicate that they offer for sale or use are actually
available to consumers to test and purchase.
CTIA objects to handset manufacturers being required to make
available for consumers to test, in each retail store owned or operated
by the handset manufacturer, all hearing aid-compatible handset models
that they offer for sale or use. In addition, CTIA objects to handset
manufacturers and service providers being required to make their best
efforts to ensure that all of the handset models they offer can be in
the hands of consumers within 48 hours of the consumer ordering the
handset model. We note that service providers are already required to
make available for consumers to test, in each retail store owned or
operated by the service provider, all of its handset models that are
hearing aid-compatible under the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
rules. In addition, the Commission adopted the 48-hour policy in the
2003 HAC Order and handset manufacturers and service providers have
been required to abide by this requirement for over twenty years.
We acknowledge CTIA's concerns about the practical effect of the
in-store testing requirement now that 100% of handset models offered
for sale or use in the United States must be hearing aid compatible.
Given supply chain challenges, it may be difficult for service
providers and handset manufacturers to make available all of their
handset models in every retail store at all times. On the other hand,
we agree with the Accessibility Advocates on the value of in-store
testing ``so that consumers can make informed decisions about which
phones will meet their HAC needs.'' Accordingly, while we maintain an
in-store testing requirement, we will modify the rule to require
handset manufacturers and service providers to use best efforts to make
available for consumers to test, in each retail store owned or operated
by the service provider, all of its handset models that are hearing
aid-compatible under the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules.
If a handset model is not available in-store for testing, the handset
manufacturer or service provider must use its best efforts to make the
handset model available for the consumer to test within 48 hours either
by shipping the handset model to the store or to the consumer's home.
We maintain the 48-hour central distribution policy and include it in
our rules to make clear the obligation that service providers and
handset manufacturers that choose to offer compliant handsets through a
central distribution point, rather than through individual retail
outlets, must do so in a timely fashion.
We find these requirements to be reasonable because if a handset
manufacturer or service provider lists a handset model as available for
sale or use in the United States on its publicly accessible website or
counts the handset model for handset model deployment benchmark
purposes, then the handset model should be available to consumers with
hearing loss in a timely manner for testing and purchase. We also note
that the Commission's mandatory handset model disclosure language
requires handset manufacturers and service providers to notify
consumers when a handset model includes air interfaces or frequency
bands not covered by the applicable certification standard and ``to try
the different features of this phone thoroughly and in different
locations, using your hearing aid or cochlear implant, to determine if
you hear any interference noise.'' As the Commission has previously
stated, in-store testing ensures that persons with hearing aids have a
meaningful opportunity to identify and become comfortable with a
[[Page 89843]]
handset model. Further, in-store testing allows consumers to evaluate
volume and interference levels of a given handset model they are
considering for purchase and may allow consumers to avoid restocking
fees. We also continue to encourage 30-day trial periods and flexible
return policies for consumers seeking to obtain hearing aid-compatible
handset models, as well as the use of in-store call-out cards that
provide information about the compatibility of handset models.
Finally, we will allow handset manufacturers and service providers
to round down to the nearest whole number of handset models to meet the
85% telecoil benchmark requirement and to round up to the nearest whole
number of handset models to meet the 15% Bluetooth coupling
requirement. We will allow rounding in order to avoid the partial
compliance issue that would result without rounding. For instance, if a
handset manufacturer or a service provider adds three new handset
models to its handset model portfolio that already includes two handset
models, four of these five handset models would have to meet the
telecoil certification requirement and the remaining one would have to
meet the Bluetooth coupling requirement. Each of these handset models
would also have to meet the relevant acoustic coupling requirement and,
if certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard, volume control requirements.
After the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period
passes, any rounding for the 85/15% split must still ensure that a
handset manufacturer or service provider's entire handset model
portfolio meets the requirement that all handset models in the
portfolio include at least two forms of coupling. In other words, all
handset models in a handset manufacturer or service provider's handset
model portfolio must meet either: (1) the relevant acoustic and
telecoil coupling requirements or (2) the relevant acoustic and
Bluetooth coupling requirements. A handset model could meet all three
coupling requirements, but it is only required to meet two of the
coupling requirements.
E. Transition Periods for 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility
We adopt the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods that
we proposed in the 100% HAC NPRM. Specifically, we adopt a 24-month
transition period for handset manufacturers to meet the 100% hearing
aid compatibility requirement, starting from the effective date of the
amended rule adopting the 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement,
and a 30-month transition period for nationwide service providers.
Further, we adopt a 42-month transition period for non-nationwide
service providers. Once the applicable transition period ends, handset
manufacturers and service providers must meet the handset model
deployment benchmarks discussed above. Handset manufacturers and
service providers must remove all non-hearing aid-compatible handset
models from their handset model portfolios without exception.
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we recognized that our proposed transition
periods were shorter than the 48-month transition period the HAC Task
Force recommends for handset manufacturers and the 60-month transition
period it recommends for service providers. The Commission noted,
however, that it has previously relied on 24-month transition periods
when transitioning to new technical standards and that the Commission
has previously found that 24-month transition periods provide the
appropriate balance between product development cycles for handset
manufacturers and the needs of consumers with hearing loss to receive
the benefits of the new technical standard. The Commission also
observed that the transition periods it was proposing for service
providers would allow these companies to make handset models certified
using the latest certification standards available to consumers faster
than would be the case if the Commission accepted the HAC Task Force's
longer 60-month transition period recommendation.
While the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods that we
are adopting are shorter than the 48- and 60-month transition periods
proposed by the HAC Task Force, we agree with Accessibility Advocates
that the transition periods are reasonable. Despite CTIA's assertion
that the 48- and 60-month transition periods were carefully negotiated
and represent a consensus position, we note that Hearing Loss
Association of America (HLAA), which was a member of the HAC Task
Force, supports our shorter transition periods. Further, contrary to
CTIA's assertion, we find our transition periods reflect real-world
realities. Our transition periods are based on handset manufacturers
being able to use: (1) the existing 2019 ANSI Standard for acoustic and
telecoil certification requirements; (2) the volume control waiver
standard adopted in the HAC Waiver Order; and (3) a Bluetooth standard
of their own choosing, including the continued use of proprietary
Bluetooth standards during a 48-month transition period to a non-
proprietary requirement, as discussed below.
The Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard in February 2021, and
it has been the exclusive hearing aid compatibility testing standard
since December 5, 2023. Further, in September 2023, WTB granted a
limited waiver of the 2019 ANSI Standard's volume control testing
requirements at the request of handset manufacturers and service
providers. Therefore, the current hearing aid compatibility testing
standards are well known to handset manufacturers and will have been in
place well before our 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods
start to run. Indeed, new handset models can only be certified as
hearing aid-compatible using the 2019 ANSI Standard and new handset
models are already being marketed as meeting the requirements of the
2019 ANSI Standard. In addition, we are allowing handset manufacturers
to satisfy our new Bluetooth coupling requirement using Bluetooth
coupling standards that they already include in their current handset
models. This allowance includes both proprietary and non-proprietary
Bluetooth coupling standards.
The vast majority of handset models currently being offered for
sale or use in the United States already meet current hearing aid
compatibility certification requirements and include some form of
Bluetooth coupling technology. By adopting our proposed transition
periods, we are ensuring that the benefits of our revised hearing aid
compatibility rules reach consumers sooner than would be the case using
the HAC Task Force's longer transition periods of 48 months for handset
manufacturers and 60 months for service providers. Further, as the
Commission has previously found when adopting new technical standards,
we find that a 24-month transition period for handset manufacturers
provides the appropriate balance between product development cycles and
ensuring that consumers with hearing loss gain the benefits of our new
standards in a timely manner. In addition, the transition periods we
adopt for nationwide and non-nationwide service providers will allow
these companies time to adjust their handset model portfolios to meet
our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement while also ensuring
faster consumer access to the latest hearing aid-compatible handset
models than would be the case using the HAC Task Force's longer 60-
month transition period recommendation.
[[Page 89844]]
F. Non-Proprietary Bluetooth Standard Benchmark and Transition Period
With respect to the Bluetooth coupling requirement, we adopt a 48-
month transition period from the effective date after which handset
manufacturers and service providers will have to ensure that 15% of the
handset models in their handset model portfolios include non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our new definition
of hearing aid compatibility and our Bluetooth functionality
requirements. After this 48-month transition period ends, we will not
allow proprietary Bluetooth coupling technologies to meet the 15%
Bluetooth coupling requirement. Only handset models with non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our new definition
of hearing aid compatibility and our Bluetooth functionality
requirements will be allowed to satisfy the 15% requirement. These
handset models may also include proprietary Bluetooth coupling
technology if technically feasible, but they must contain a non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard that is completely separate
from the proprietary standard.
The HAC Task Force recommends allowing the use of both proprietary
and non-proprietary Bluetooth standards, at least through a transition
period to a non-proprietary Bluetooth requirement. The HAC Task Force,
however, does not recommend a transition period for transitioning to a
non-proprietary Bluetooth requirement. Rather, the HAC Task Force
states that the Commission should assess whether new non-proprietary
Bluetooth specifications have become more widespread. In the 100% HAC
NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should mandate that only non-
proprietary Bluetooth standards could be used to meet our proposed new
Bluetooth coupling requirement. We further sought comment on whether we
should permit the use of proprietary Bluetooth standards on an interim
basis as the industry transitions to full use of non-proprietary
standards, such as Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and the related
Bluetooth Auracast. In response to the 100% HAC NPRM, MWF and Samsung
argue that the Commission should allow the use of proprietary Bluetooth
standards at least on an interim basis in order to allow new handset
models with non-proprietary Bluetooth standards to come to market.
Neither commenter, however, states how long of a transition period we
should allow.
As the HAC Task Force requests, we have assessed the development of
non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards and based on this
assessment, we adopt a 48-month transition period after which only non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our new definition
of hearing aid compatibility and our Bluetooth functionality
requirements may be used to satisfy the Bluetooth coupling requirement.
The HAC Task Force states that it ``anticipates that handset and
hearing device manufacturers will widely adopt the Bluetooth LE Audio
framework and HAP specification.'' In fact, the HAC Task Force cites a
report that annual Bluetooth LE Audio device shipments will reach three
billion by 2027. Further, the HAC Task Force states that Bluetooth LE
Audio and Bluetooth HAP specifications are recognized industry
standards, are non-proprietary, and will be interoperable across many
devices. Further, the HAC Task Force asserts that ``[o]ngoing
improvements to Bluetooth LE Audio add functionality that has the
potential to greatly benefit hearing device users and enhance
compatibility, namely standardized profiles for Bluetooth hearing aids,
a modern codec (LC3), and multi-stream support and broadcast audio.''
Bluetooth SIG states that Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and
the related Bluetooth Auracast coupling technologies are currently in
place and freely available. Bluetooth SIG confirms that these standards
are non-proprietary, low energy coupling standards that directly
support and will satisfy the Commission's 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement. Further, Bluetooth SIG asserts that these
coupling standards were developed with open participation from mobile
handset and hearing aid manufacturers. Bluetooth SIG states that that
these coupling standards will not impact the affordability of low-cost
handset models or adversely affect low-income consumers. Similarly,
Accessibility Advocates assert that it is anticipated that the
communications industry will adopt Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP
profiles going forward. Accessibility Advocates state that if Bluetooth
LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP are rolled out as a universal solution to
Bluetooth coupling with hearing aids, it has every reason to expect
wide consumer adoption and use of these coupling standards.
Based on the above comments, we find that adopting a non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement after a 48-month transition
period is supported by the record. Commenters indicate that Bluetooth
LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP will be widely available in handset models
over the next few years. Permitting the use of proprietary Bluetooth
coupling technology, during this 48-month transition period simply
reflects the marketplace reality that Apple and Android handsets use
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology for hearing aid coupling.
According to the HAC Task Force, 56% of the handset models that they
analyzed supported one of the proprietary Bluetooth coupling methods
and that this support was increasing over time. Further, the HAC Task
Force states that: ``All models of iPhone support Apple's MFi protocol
(available since 2013), and most recent Android handsets support the
Google ASHA protocol (available on handsets since 2018).''
While the HAC Task Force does not recommend a transition period to
a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement, it does recommend
that we adopt a 48-month transition period before we require handset
manufacturers to meet our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement.
Our 48-month transition period to a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling
requirement is consistent with this 48-month transition recommendation.
Given that the average handset model development cycle is 24 months, we
find that a 48-month transition period should provide more than enough
time for handset manufacturers to produce new handset models that
include non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology meeting our
requirements. In addition, adopting a 48-month transition period will
encourage handset manufacturers to incorporate non-proprietary
Bluetooth standards, such as Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and
Bluetooth Auracast, into their handset models. This result will benefit
consumers with hearing loss by ensuring the development of more
universal connectivity between handset models and hearing aids,
including over-the-counter hearing aids, and reduce the issue of
certain handset models only being able to pair with certain hearing
aids. Our 48-month transition period will reduce fragmentation in the
marketplace and will benefit consumers by giving them a wider selection
of handset models that will pair with their hearing aids.
At the end of the 48-month transition period, handset manufacturers
will continue to have the freedom to choose which non-proprietary
Bluetooth coupling technology they incorporate into their handset
models, as long as the technology meets our new definition of
[[Page 89845]]
hearing aid compatibility and the related Bluetooth functionality
requirements. These functionality requirements mean that after the 48-
month transition period ends, the Bluetooth coupling requirement may
only be met using Bluetooth coupling technology that: (1) utilizes a
global, low power wireless technology standard for high quality audio
voice streaming; (2) is a standalone non-proprietary implementation;
(3) is a qualified implementation that has undergone testing to verify
that the product conforms to the specifications it claims to support;
(4) offers full interoperability between hearing aids and handset
models to enable inter-network, inter-provider, inter-platform and
inter-handset manufacturer functionality; and (5) uses a design that
meets broad, generic hearing aid requirements that addresses needed
features when coupling to handset models for all forms of voice calls
and associated handset model use.
After the transition period, handset manufacturers and service
providers will be able to continue to include proprietary Bluetooth
coupling technology in their handset models, as long as 15% of their
handset models in their handset model portfolios include non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our requirements.
We will also allow handset models to include both proprietary and non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology if technically feasible, but
only non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our
requirements can be used to satisfy the 15% Bluetooth coupling
requirement. After the 48-month transition period ends, handset
manufacturers and service providers must ensure that 15% of the handset
models in their handset model portfolios include non-proprietary
Bluetooth coupling technology that complies with our requirements. We
will not allow handset manufacturers and service providers to use
handset models with only proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology to
meet our 15% non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement. If we were
to allow it, we would undercut our non-proprietary requirement and our
goal of increasing universal connectivity between handset models and
hearing aids.
We are aware that proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards are
extensions of non-proprietary Bluetooth standards, such as Bluetooth
Classic. We will not allow a proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard,
however, to satisfy our non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement
on the basis that the proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard is simply
an extension of a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard.
Proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards, such as the MFi and ASHA
standards, cannot be used to satisfy our 15% non-proprietary Bluetooth
coupling requirement. After the 48-month transition period, the 15%
non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement may only be satisfied by
an exclusively non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard that meets
our new definition of hearing aid compatibility and our Bluetooth
functionality requirements.
G. Hearing Aid Compatibility Settings for Handset Models
After the expiration of the handset manufacturers' 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition period, we require that all new handset models
must come out-of-the-box with their hearing aid compatibility related
acoustic coupling and volume control functions turned on by default. We
will allow, however, secondary settings to turn on the handset model's
telecoil or Bluetooth coupling functions, depending on the secondary
capability included in a particular handset model. If one of these
secondary settings is turned on by the consumer, we will allow the
hearing aid compatibility related acoustic coupling function to be
turned off. We will also allow volume control compliance to be altered
to the extent technically necessary to meet full telecoil connectivity
requirements as long as consumers and the Commission are fully informed
of this alteration. We will not allow volume control functionality to
be altered to meet Bluetooth or acoustic coupling requirements. We
require handset manufacturers to ensure that their handset models have
settings for acoustic, telecoil, or Bluetooth coupling (depending on
the coupling functionality included) and volume control functionality
that are clearly labeled and allow consumers to easily find these
settings and to turn these functions on or off as they desire.
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we observed that our 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 handset manufacturers
to require users to turn these functions on by going into the handset
model's settings. We also observed that our 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. Further, we observed that our
rules do not address whether a handset model in telecoil mode has to
continue to fully meet acoustic and volume control requirements.
Finally, we observed that while the HAC Task Force did not address this
settings issue, the HAC Task Force recommends that the Commission adopt
an additional form of connectivity in the form of a Bluetooth coupling
requirement. This recommendation means that handset models would have
to meet acoustic coupling and volume control requirements and--
depending on the handset model--would also have to meet either a
telecoil or Bluetooth coupling requirement. As a result of these
potential alternative coupling requirements, we sought comment on the
related handset model settings issue.
Accessibility Advocates state that they ``support a requirement for
handset models to come out-of-the-box with their acoustic and telecoil
functions fully turned on as default features so long as this is
technically feasible.'' Accessibility Advocates also assert that
``[a]dditionally, phones should be in compliance with the acoustic RF
and volume control requirements right out-of-the-box.'' MWF argues that
flexibility and options are in the best interests of consumers and
states that there should be separate settings for acoustic, telecoil,
and Bluetooth coupling. MWF further argues that it does not support
Accessibility Advocates' position that handset models should come out-
of-the-box with their acoustic and telecoil functions turned on by
default. MWF expresses concern that having these functions turned on
out-of-the-box could lead to acoustic shock and to higher battery usage
than the user might anticipate. MWF believes that a better course of
action is for users to opt-in to the features offering higher volume
and telecoil operation.
After considering the record on this issue, we decide that, after
the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility transition
period ends, all handset models must come out-of-the-box with acoustic
coupling and volume control certification requirements fully turned on
by default. This decision is consistent with our proposal in the 100%
HAC NPRM. We find that having handset models come out-of-the-box with
acoustic coupling and volume control functionality turned on by default
benefits consumers with hearing loss who use hearing aids and those
consumers with hearing loss who do not use hearing aids. This
requirement will
[[Page 89846]]
improve the listening experience of consumers who have hearing loss,
and it does not impact the listening experience of consumers who do not
use hearing aids or do not have hearing loss.
Further, requiring volume control functionality to be fully turned
on by default allows all consumers, regardless of whether they have
hearing loss, to adjust the speech level of their handsets during voice
calls to their preferred, comfortable listening level. Volume control
functionality provides a range over which the level of speech can be
increased and decreased to a level that meets the needs of consumers no
matter whether they use hearing aids or have hearing loss. Further,
requiring volume control functionality to be turned on by default
benefits consumers who do not use hearing aids and, therefore, might
not know to look under a setting marked as hearing aid compatibility to
turn on the handset model's volume control functionality. While we
require handset models to come out-of-the-box with volume control
functionality turned on by default, we will allow handset models to
have a setting whereby consumers can turn this functionality off. This
requirement allays concerns with respect to acoustic shock and battery
usage. Consumers will have the ability not only to adjust the volume of
their handset models to meet their listening needs, but also to turn
this function off if they so desire.
In addition to these default out-of-the-box requirements, handset
models may have a separate setting that turns on a handset model's
hearing aid compatibility related telecoil coupling functionality if
the handset model includes telecoil coupling capability. Acoustic and
telecoil coupling represent two separate ways for handset models to
pair with hearing aids. Hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling
mode receive sounds through a microphone and then amplify all sounds
surrounding the consumer, including both desired and unwanted ambient
noise. Hearing aids operating in telecoil coupling mode turn off their
microphone to avoid amplifying unwanted ambient noise, and instead use
a telecoil to receive only audio signal-based magnetic fields generated
by telecoil coupling capable handset models. When a handset model is
paired with hearing aids using telecoils it is not necessary for the
handset's acoustic coupling function to be left on because the hearing
aids microphone has been turned off.
We will also allow a separate setting for Bluetooth coupling that
is a distinct setting from the default out-of-the-box acoustic and the
alternative telecoil settings. This approach is consistent with
allowing consumers to have a choice as to how they pair their handsets
with their hearing aids. Most consumers are already familiar with how
to connect their handsets to their hearing aids using Bluetooth
coupling and, therefore, there is less concern about consumers being
able to locate this feature as compared to the other two methods of
pairing handsets with hearing aids. Since Bluetooth coupling represents
an alternative way to pair handsets to hearing aids, we will allow
handset models in Bluetooth coupling mode to turn off acoustic and
telecoil coupling functionality. Handset models only need to pair with
hearing aids through one coupling method at a time.
As discussed above, we require new handset models to come out-of-
the-box with volume control functionality turned on by default. This
requirement means that, if a new handset model is paired to hearing
aids using acoustic, telecoil, or Bluetooth coupling technology the
handset model's volume control functionality must be turned on, unless
the consumer has turned it off. While the handset model must have a
setting that allows the consumer to turn this functionality off, the
handset model must meet volume control certification requirements in
each of these pairing modes. We are aware, however, that when a handset
model is paired to hearing aids using telecoil coupling, not all volume
control certification requirements may be met. In that situation, we
will allow a slight deviation from volume control certification
requirements only to the extent absolutely necessary to meet full
telecoil coupling requirements. Any handset model that does not meet
full volume control requirements in telecoil coupling mode must fully
disclose this information to consumers and explain how this affects the
handset model's operations in telecoil mode. A consumer must be able to
understand that the handset model in telecoil coupling mode does not
meet full volume control certification requirements and understand how
this deviation affects the handset model's operation in telecoil mode.
Further, we require that handset manufacturers disclose this
information in their handset model equipment certification
authorization application along with supporting documentation
explaining why the handset model cannot meet full volume control
functionality in telecoil coupling mode and how much of a deviation
there is from fully meeting the volume control requirement.
We are not aware of a similar issue with respect to volume control
functionality when a handset model is paired with hearing aids using
Bluetooth coupling technology. We did not receive any comments on this
issue even though the 100% HAC NPRM sought comment on the issue.
Therefore, we require handset models to meet the full volume control
standard that the handset model was certified as meeting when paired
with hearing aids using Bluetooth coupling technology. Given that
Bluetooth coupling is similar to acoustic coupling in that neither
method requires any additional equipment, as compared to telecoil
coupling, we do not anticipate any issues with handset models meeting
the full volume control requirement that the handset model was
certified as meeting when pairing with hearing aids using the Bluetooth
coupling mode.
After the handset manufacturers' 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition date ends, we require handset manufacturers to ensure that
all new handset models that they add to their handset model portfolios
have settings for each coupling method included in the handset model,
as well as a setting for volume control functionality, if the handset
model is certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard. Each of these settings
must be clearly labeled and usable. Consumers must be able to easily
find these settings without the settings being obscured or hidden by
sub-menus. The settings must allow consumers to be able to turn each of
these functions on or off as they wish in order to meet their
individual listening needs. At this time, we will not establish
standard hearing aid compatibility settings or nomenclature for each
setting. We will continue to allow handset manufacturers flexibility in
this manner as long as the settings are easy to find and allow
consumers the freedom to adjust the settings as they wish. We also note
that below we establish updated labeling and disclosure requirements,
as well as website posting requirements, for handset manufacturers and
service providers. These requirements ensure that consumers have the
information they need to understand the hearing aid compatibility
functions of their handset models and how to find and use these
compatibility features.
H. Consumer Notification Provisions
1. Labeling and Disclosure Requirements
We revise our external printed package label requirements and our
related requirements concerning
[[Page 89847]]
information that must be included within the handset model's packaging
in the form of either a printed insert or a printed handset manual. We
update these requirements to reflect our new handset model
certification standards related to our 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement. Section 20.19(f) of the Commission's rules provides that
certain handset model information must be included on a handset model's
external printed package label and additional handset model information
must be include within a handset model's packaging. In the 100% HAC
NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we would revise these requirements
to require a handset model's external printed package label to state
whether the handset model includes telecoil or Bluetooth coupling
technology or both types of coupling technology and, if the handset
model includes Bluetooth coupling technology, which Bluetooth coupling
technology the handset model includes. We also tentatively concluded
that we should revise the consumer information that must be included
within a handset model's packaging to require the printed insert or the
printed handset manual to include this same information. Further, we
tentatively concluded that, if we decided to allow handset models to
have default and secondary compatibility settings, we would modify our
internal packaging requirements to require the printed insert or
printed handset manual to include an explanation of each of these
settings, what each setting does and does not include, and how to turn
these settings on and off.
Accessibility Advocates and MWF support modifying our labeling and
disclosure requirements to include information about a handset model's
telecoil and Bluetooth coupling technology. Accessibility Advocates
argue, however, that we should modify our proposal to require the
handset model's external package label and the related internal
packaging material to indicate whether or not the handset model
includes telecoil coupling capability that meets certification
requirements. Similarly, Accessibility Advocates argue that we should
modify our proposal to require the handset model's external package
label and the related internal packaging material to indicate whether
or not the model includes Bluetooth coupling technology as a
replacement for meeting telecoil certification requirements or whether
the handset model meets both telecoil and Bluetooth coupling
requirements. Accessibility Advocates support our proposal that if we
allow handset models to have a secondary hearing aid compatibility
setting, the printed package insert or printed handset manual must
provide an explanation of each of these settings, what each setting
does and does not include, and how to turn these settings on and off.
CTIA, however, states that we should reject calls to expand our
labeling requirements. CTIA argues that requiring additional, granular
information creates additional burdens without consumer benefits,
especially as the industry transitions to a 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement.
Based on our tentative conclusion and the record, we revise our
external printed package label requirements to incorporate our
tentative conclusion with modifications to address Accessibility
Advocates' comments. We require a handset model's external printed
package label to provide: (1) that the handset model is certified as
hearing aid compatible; (2) whether or not the handset model meets
telecoil or Bluetooth coupling requirements or both requirements and,
in the case of Bluetooth coupling requirements, which Bluetooth
coupling standard the handset model includes; and (3) the handset
model's actual conversational gain with and without hearing aids, if
certified under the 2019 ANSI standard, with the actual conversational
gain that is displayed being the lowest rating assigned to the handset
model for any covered air interface or frequency band.
Further, based on our tentative conclusion and the record, we
revise the information that must be included inside a handset model's
packaging, either in the form of a printed insert or a printed handset
manual (or through the use of digital labeling, as discussed below), to
include the following new information:
<bullet> An explanation of what it means that the handset model is
certified as hearing aid-compatible and which ANSI standard was used
for certification purposes;
<bullet> An explanation of what acoustic, telecoil, and Bluetooth
coupling are and which of these coupling capabilities the handset model
includes and, in the case of Bluetooth coupling, which Bluetooth
coupling standard the handset model includes;
<bullet> If the handset model was certified under the 2019 ANSI
standard, an explanation of the handset model's volume control
capabilities, an affirmative statement of the handset model's
conversational gain with and without hearing aids, and an explanation
of how to turn the handset model's volume control capabilities on and
off;
<bullet> An explanation of how to turn each of the handset model's
coupling functions on and off and an explanation that by default the
handset model comes with its acoustic and volume control functions
turned on;
<bullet> If the handset model has been certified as hearing aid-
compatible under special testing circumstances or contains operations
or frequency bands that are not certified as hearing aid-compatible, an
explanation of how this affects the handset model's operations. Under
these circumstances, the included printed package insert or printed
handset manual must include the following disclosure statement:
This phone has been tested and certified for use with hearing
aids for some of the wireless technologies that it uses. However,
there may be some newer wireless technologies used in this phone
that have not been tested yet for use with hearing aids. It is
important to try the different features of this phone thoroughly and
in different locations, using your hearing aid or cochlear implant,
to determine if you hear any interfering noise. Consult your service
provider or the handset manufacturer of this phone for information
on hearing aid compatibility. If you have questions about return or
exchange policies, consult your service provider or phone retailer.
We find that these external and internal labeling and disclosure
requirements are consistent with section 710(d) of the Communications
Act, which directs the Commission to establish requirements for
labeling ``as are needed to provide adequate information to consumers
on the compatibility between telephones and hearing aids.'' Our revised
external printed package label rule ensures that the most pertinent
handset model information appears on the handset model's printed
package label. Consumers can read the external package label and
determine the coupling technology that the handset model includes and,
if it includes Bluetooth coupling technology, which standard the
handset model incorporates. In addition, for handset models certified
as hearing aid-compatible under the 2019 ANSI Standard, consumers can
easily ascertain the conversational gain that the handset model
provides both with and without hearing aids. Consumers can use this
information to determine whether a handset model meets their listening
needs and to compare handset models when considering which handset
model to purchase. We continue to allow handset manufacturers and
service providers
[[Page 89848]]
flexibility in designing their handset model printed package labels as
long as the labels include the required information in a clear and
straight-forward fashion that consumers can easily find and understand.
Our revised internal printed package insert or printed handset
manual requirements allow consumers who are interested in more detailed
information about a handset model's hearing aid compatibility to find
this additional information in the printed package insert or the
printed handset manual--whichever the handset manufacturer or service
provider chooses to include in the handset model's packaging. Consumers
can consult the included printed insert or printed handset manual to
understand what type of coupling technology the handset model includes
and how to turn these coupling functions on and off, and, if
applicable, how to turn the volume control function on and off. In
addition, consumers will be able to determine whether the handset model
has been certified under special testing circumstances, what this means
in terms of the handset model's operations, and whether the handset
model includes frequency bands or air interfaces that are not certified
as hearing aid compatible. As with our external printed package label
requirements, we continue to require that printed inserts or printed
handset manuals included inside a handset model's packaging be written
in a clear, straight-forward fashion using plain language that
consumers can easily understand. We find all of these requirements to
be consumer friendly and, therefore, in the public interest, and
consistent with section 710(d) of the Communications Act.
We disagree with CTIA concerning our revised external and internal
package labeling content requirements. We find that these revised
content requirements are consistent with section 710(d) of the
Communications Act, which requires the Commission to establish
requirements for labeling ``as are needed to provide adequate
information to consumers on the compatibility between telephones and
hearing aids.'' The information that we are requiring handset
manufacturers and service providers to provide to consumers allows
consumers to be fully informed about a handset model's functions and
capabilities and to make informed purchasing decisions. Further, we
disagree with CTIA's statement that ``[c]onsumers today do not shop for
modern phones by picking up boxes in the store . . . .'' The HAC Task
Force specifically states that one of the ways consumers can learn
about the hearing aid compatibility of a handset model is to look at
the handset's packaging. While we require handset manufacturers to
provide hearing aid compatibility information about their handset
models through other means too, it is reasonable to assume that
consumers might read the information provided on a handset model's
external printed package label and to compare this information with the
information on a competing handset model's external printed package
label. Our labeling requirements allow us to ensure that consumers have
adequate information about the hearing aid compatibility of the handset
models they are considering for purchase.
We decide, however, to eliminate one current requirement from our
printed package insert or printed handset manual requirements. We will
no longer require the printed package insert or the printed handset
manual to provide the M/T ratings of handset models certified under the
2011 ANSI Standard or older ANSI standards or to provide an explanation
of the ANSI M/T rating system. The 2019 ANSI Standard does not use the
M/T rating system that older versions of the ANSI standard used. Under
the 2019 ANSI Standard handset models are certified without an assigned
rating. Currently, the 2019 ANSI Standard is the exclusive testing
standard for determining hearing aid compatibility. As a result, we
find the M/T rating requirements to be outdated and unnecessary, given
the fact that all new handset models must be compliant with the 2019
ANSI Standard. We are concerned that continuing to require this
outdated information to be included in printed package inserts or
printed handset manuals will confuse consumers. We eliminate this
requirement as handset manufacturers continue to certify handset models
under the 2019 ANSI Standard. By doing so, we reduce regulatory burden
on handset manufacturers and service providers and avoid confusing
consumers with outdated and unnecessary information.
Transition Period for Revised Labeling and Disclosure Requirements.
As requested by CTIA, in order to align the effective date of the
revised labeling requirements with the start of the handset
manufacturer's 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, we will make
the effective date of our revised labeling requirements the later of
either the date the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal
Register announcing that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
concluded its review of these requirements or the effective date of the
handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. We
take this step to reduce regulatory burden and consumer confusion. The
handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement will be
effective 25 months after a summary of the Report and Order is
published in the Federal Register. This delayed effective date relates
only to the revised rules that will be in Sec. 20.19(f)(1) and (2) of
the Commission's rules and does not apply to the effective date of the
other revised paperwork requirements requiring OMB review. These other
revised paperwork requirements include the new digital labeling
requirements in Sec. 20.19(f)(3) of the Commission's rules. The
digital labeling requirements will become effective with the rest of
the paperwork requirements (other than Sec. 20.19(f)(1) and (2)) once
the Commission publishes a notification in the Federal Register
announcing OMB has completed its review of these requirements.
2. Use of Digital Labeling Technology
We will continue to require the use of external printed package
labels, but will allow the handset model information that must be
included inside a handset model's packaging to be delivered using
digital labeling technology as an alternative to including either a
printed insert or printed handset manual as long as the company using
this option maintains a publicly accessible website where consumers can
easily locate the required information. Handset manufacturers and
service providers choosing this option must provide consumers with both
a Quick-Response (QR) code and the related website address where the
required handset model information can be found. The required
information must be presented in a straight-forward fashion using plain
language that is easy for consumers to understand. Handset
manufacturers and service providers choosing this option must update
the required information within 30 days of any relevant changes, and
they must ensure that they are in full compliance with our website
posting requirements.
As discussed above, Sec. 20.19(f) of the Commission's rules
requires the use of an external printed package label and either an
internal printed insert or printed handset manual. In the 100% HAC
NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should permit handset
manufacturers and service providers to use digital labeling technology,
such as QR codes, as an alternative to external printed package labels
and internal printed inserts or printed handset manuals. We noted that
the Commission previously considered whether to allow
[[Page 89849]]
the use of websites as an alternative to printed materials, but decided
not to adopt this approach because consumers may not necessarily visit
a handset manufacturer's or service provider's website before
purchasing a handset. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we proposed to reconsider
this decision and allow handset manufacturers and service providers to
meet the information requirements of Sec. 20.19(f) through the use of
digital labeling technology.
External Printed Package Labels. After considering the record in
this proceeding, we continue to require handset manufacturers and
service providers to use external printed package labels to deliver the
handset model information that we require to be on external package
labels. Accessibility Advocates agree with this decision. As we
discussed above, we require the most important handset model
information to be on external printed package labels. This approach
allows consumers with hearing loss to pick-up a handset model in its
original packaging and read its external label. This label will allow
consumers to easily ascertain whether a handset model they are
considering for purchase will meet their listening needs and to easily
compare the hearing aid compatibility features of one handset model
with another handset model by reading the information required to be on
the external labels. We continue to believe that requiring an external
printed package label serves the interest of consumers. We, therefore,
will continue to require the use of external printed package labels to
deliver the handset model information that we require to be on a
handset model's external package label. We will not allow handset
manufacturers and service providers to deliver this information to
consumers using digital labeling technology.
Internal Packaging Information. While we require the continued use
of external printed package labels, we will allow handset manufacturers
and service providers to use digital labeling technology to deliver to
consumers the information that would otherwise have to be provided
using a printed insert or printed handset manual, as long as companies
utilizing this approach maintain publicly accessible websites where
consumers can easily find the information required by our rules. The
information that handset manufacturers and service providers can
provide to consumers using digital labeling technology is the same
information that they would otherwise have to deliver to consumers
using printed package inserts or printed handset manuals. Handset
manufacturers and service providers choosing this option must provide
consumers with both a QR code and the related website address where the
required information can be found. We require both a QR code and the
related website address in order to ensure that consumers who may not
be comfortable using QR codes have another way to access the on-line
information. In addition to providing this information using QR codes
and website addresses, handset manufacturers and service providers
choosing to use this option must comply with all of our other website
posting requirements. Further, they must ensure that consumers can
easily find the required information and that the required information
is presented in a clear, straight-forward fashion using plain language
that consumers can easily understand.
When the Commission previously determined not to allow the use of
digital labeling technology, the Commission based its decision on
finding that consumers may not necessarily visit the websites of
handset manufacturers or service providers before going to the
company's store and purchasing a hearing aid-compatible handset. We
find in this final rule, however, that digital labeling is ubiquitous
and can be found on many consumer products, including electronic
products. Further, the use of digital labeling technology allows
consumers to visit a company's publicly accessible website and access
the required information at the point-of-sale while consumers are in
stores making purchasing decisions. We agree with commenters that
consumers are now more familiar with digital labeling and accessing a
company's website using their handsets. QR codes are easy to use and
merely require hovering a handset's camera over the QR code and tapping
the website that appears or, under our digital labeling rule, consumers
can type the required website link into their handset's web browser.
We agree with the commenters who state that digital labeling is a
more consumer friendly way to deliver the information that is required
to be included in a printed insert or printed handset manual. Digital
labeling allows consumers to get up-to-date product information and
embedded website links can be used to provide additional information or
to define terms. For instance, companies can use embedded links to
define terms such as ``air interface,'' ``ANSI standards,'' ``codecs,''
``conversational gain,'' ``frequency bands,'' and values such as ``MHz/
GHz,'' and ``dBm.'' By using embedded links to define legal and
technical terms and to provide additional information, handset
manufacturers and service providers can use plain and clear language to
meet their disclosure requirements. In addition, digital labeling
allows consumers to use the accessibility features on their handsets to
review hearing aid compatibility information. Printed package inserts
and printed handset manuals tend to be small, use tiny print, and be
difficult to read. Allowing the use of digital labeling will allow
consumers, especially older consumers, to use their handsets to enlarge
the print online. Further, consumers often throw away or misplace
package inserts and handset manuals, and are used to using a company's
website to look up information when necessary.
Accessibility Advocates caution the Commission that older people
may not be comfortable or familiar with using QR codes, and that it is
concerned that if QR codes are the only means of acquiring information
that some people will not be able to independently access needed
information. We find, however, that just as consumers are familiar with
Bluetooth coupling as they age into hearing loss they will also be
familiar with QR codes and searching handset manufacturers' and service
providers' publicly accessible websites for handset model hearing aid
compatibility information. Further, we find that digital labeling will
help senior citizens who might find the size and print of printed
inserts and printed handset manuals difficult to read. Senior citizens
will be able to use their handsets to enlarge print to make it easier
to read, or they could use the type-to-speech function of their
handsets to have the information read to them. To the extent that a
senior citizen or a consumer has difficulty using digital labeling or
does not possess a smartphone, a store employee at the point-of-sale
can help the senior citizen or the consumer with the process.
Alternatively, senior citizens or consumers can directly contact
handset manufacturers or service providers using our new point-of-
contact information to have their hearing aid compatibility questions
answered. This new contact information requirement includes a texting
option that Accessibility Advocates requested that we adopt to help
ensure that those who may have difficultly hearing a phone conversation
can contact a company by texting the company. We find, therefore, that
electronic labeling will help consumers access handset model hearing
aid compatibility information, and that we are providing multiply
[[Page 89850]]
ways for consumers to access handset model hearing aid compatibility
information.
Our decision to allow the use of digital labeling as an alternative
to printed inserts or printed handset manuals is consistent with our
revised website posting requirements. Consumers can go to handset
manufacturers' and service providers' publicly accessible websites to
find hearing aid compatibility information about each handset model
that these companies offer for sale or use in the United States.
Further, digital labeling is less burdensome on handset manufacturers
since they do not have to align testing, certification, and printing
schedules, and it saves paper, making it a more environmentally
friendly way of providing information. We will not require handset
manufacturers and service provides who choose to use this digital
labeling option to also continue to include a printed insert or printed
handset manual within the handset model's packaging. Such an approach
would be duplicative and would undercut our findings concerning the
benefits of allowing digital labeling to be used to deliver the
information required to be included within a handset model's packaging.
We remind handset manufacturers and service providers, however, that
our rules require these companies to ensure access to information and
documentation it provides to its customers, if readily achievable. Our
rules also require handset manufacturers to provide end-user product
documentation, including accessibility and compatibility information,
in alternate formats or alternate modes upon request at no additional
charge, if readily achievable. We also encourage handset manufacturers
and service providers who use digital labeling to provide the required
information in languages in addition to English, such as Spanish.
3. Handset Model Number Designation Requirements
We determine that in cases where a handset manufacturer or service
provider recertifies a handset model using an updated certification
standard, the company does not need to assign the handset model a new
model number designation, unless the handset model has been physically
altered to meet the requirements of the new standard. Currently, Sec.
20.19(g) of the Commission's rules provides that ``[w]here 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 100% HAC NPRM sought 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. MWF, the only party to comment on this issue,
states that handset models that are recertified under updated
certification standards should not be required to have a new model
number as long as there is no physical change to the handset model.
Instead, MWF states that consumers can be notified of this
certification change by updating the handset model's labeling, and that
it is not necessary to also update the handset model number
designation.
We agree with MWF that, unless the handset model is physically
altered to meet the updated certification standard, there is no need to
give the recertified handset model a new model number designation.
Consistent with established Commission precedent, we will continue to
define a physical change to a handset model to be a change in the
handset model's hardware or software that causes a variation in the
form, features, or capabilities of the handset model. As long as the
handset manufacturer or service provider does not physically alter the
handset model through a hardware or software change that causes a
variation in the form, features, or capabilities of the handset model,
the handset manufacturer or service provider does not need to assign
the handset model a new model number designation. While we will not
require the handset model to be assigned a new model number
designation, we do require that the handset manufacturer or the service
provider update the handset model's labeling, disclosures, and website
posting information to reflect the handset model's updated
certification and to explain how this updated certification affects the
handset model's operations. We agree with MWF that our consumer
notification provisions are sufficient under these circumstances to
notify consumers of the certification change and that there is no need
to also assign the handset model a new model number designation.
While handset manufacturers and service providers do not have to
assign unaltered handset models new model number designations, they may
assign handset models new designation numbers if they choose to for
business reasons. We are aware that handset manufacturers and service
providers sometimes assign handset models different model number
designations to distinguish units sold to different service providers,
or for other reasons that are not related to the handset model's form,
features, or capabilities. If, under these circumstances, a handset
manufacturer or a service provider chooses for its own business reasons
to assign a handset model multiple model number designations, the
company may only count the handset model once for purposes of our
handset model deployment benchmarks. As the Commission has previously
found, ``for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules, a
manufacturer may not characterize as separate models any devices that
do not in fact possess any distinguishing variation in form, features,
or capabilities.'' As a result, unless the handset models are
distinguishable in form, features, or capabilities, the handset model
can only be counted once for purposes of our handset model deployment
benchmarks.
While we allow hearing aid-compatible handset models to be
recertified under updated certification standards, we note that handset
models may not be certified as hearing aid-compatible using parts of
two different ANSI standards. A handset model must meet all aspects of
the updated certification standard in order to be certified as hearing
aid-compatible under the updated standard. We also note that hearing
aid-compatible handset models cannot be modified through a software
push that results in the handset model no longer meeting hearing aid
compatibility certification standards. Consumers purchase hearing aid-
compatible handset models with the understanding that the handset model
meets certain hearing aid compatibility certification standards, and
handset manufacturers and service providers may not modify handset
models through a software push that results in the handset model no
longer meeting hearing aid compatibility certification standards after
the software push is installed. We also emphasize that if a software
push adds operations or frequency bands that are not covered by the
applicable ANSI standard and, therefore, these new operations or
frequency bands do not meet hearing aid compatibility certification
standards, handset manufacturers and service providers must inform
consumers of this fact before they choose to update their handset
model's software.
Finally, handset manufacturers and service providers may not lower
a handset model's conversational gain
[[Page 89851]]
through a software push, subject to a de minimis exception as described
below. Just as consumers purchase hearing aid-compatible handset models
with the expectation that the handsets meet certain certification
standards, consumers purchase handsets with the understanding that the
handsets provide a certain level of conversational gain. This
expectation may be especially true for consumers with hearing loss who
do not use hearing aids. CTIA suggests that the Commission should allow
software pushes that lower a handset model's conversational gain in
ways that are ``immaterial'' or ``imperceptible.'' CTIA, however, does
not define or explain what handset manufacturers or service providers
might consider as an immaterial or imperceptible reduction in a handset
model's conversational gain or whether such a reduction would be
permissible under the Commission's permissive change rules. In
addition, Accessibility Advocacy and Research Organizations ``oppose
any changes that would allow software updates to alter the model's HAC
rating, certification, or capability.'' We are concerned that
perceptibly lowering the conversational gain of handset models through
software pushes could frustrate the expectations of consumers who may
have purchased a specific handset model because it provides a certain
level of conversational gain, including representations of that level
on the handset model's printed external package label or
representations of that level on a handset manufacturer's or service
provider's publicly accessible website. At the same time, we recognize
CTIA's concerns that there may be necessary software pushes that have a
minimal impact on volume control. Given these facts, we conclude that
our rule should prohibit handset manufacturers or service providers
from lowering a handset model's conversational gain through a software
push, except for software pushes that would have a de minimis impact on
the handset model's conversational gain. We seek to minimize the impact
on consumers with hearing loss while also avoiding unnecessary impacts
on the flexibility of manufacturers and service providers to deploy
software updates. We will closely monitor the experiences of consumers,
manufacturers, and service providers in implementing this rule.
We delegate authority to WTB, in coordination with the Office of
Engineering and Technology, to further define the scope of the de
minimis exception as needed, including through modifications to the
rule after notice and comment.
I. Website Posting, Record Retention, and Reporting Requirements
1. Website Posting and Record Retention Requirements
We revise our website posting and record retention requirements to
ensure handset manufacturer and service provider compliance with our
100% hearing aid compatibility requirement and to ensure that consumers
have access to the information that they need to make informed
purchasing decisions. Section 20.19(h) of the Commission's rules
requires handset manufacturers and service providers to post on their
publicly accessible websites certain information and to maintain
certain records related to the handset models that they offer. In the
100% HAC NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should revise these
requirements to require handset manufacturers and service providers to
identify on their publicly accessible websites those handset models in
their handset model portfolios that meet telecoil certification
requirements. For those handset models that do not meet telecoil
certification requirements, we tentatively concluded that handset
manufacturers and service providers must affirmatively state that the
handset model does not meet telecoil certification requirements and
identify which Bluetooth coupling technology the handset model meets
instead. We also tentatively concluded 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 that was certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard.
In addition to seeking comment on these revisions to our website
posting requirements, we sought comment on ways to streamline our
website posting and record retention requirements.
After reviewing the record, we update and streamline our existing
website posting requirements by adopting our tentative conclusions. As
a result, once the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition
period passes, handset manufacturers and service providers are required
to provide the following information on their publicly accessible
websites: (1) a list of all currently offered handset models, including
each model's marketing name/number(s) and the FCC ID number, along with
the ANSI standard used to certify the handset model as hearing aid-
compatible; (2) for each handset model, an affirmative statement of
whether or not the handset model meets telecoil certification
requirements; (3) for each handset model, an affirmative statement of
whether or not the handset model includes Bluetooth coupling technology
and, if so, which Bluetooth coupling technology the handset model
includes; (4) for each handset model certified under the 2019 ANSI
standard, an affirmative statement of the handset model's
conversational gain with and without hearing aids with the actual
conversational gain that is displayed being the lowest rating assigned
to the handset model for any covered air interface or frequency band;
(5) if a handset model has been certified as hearing aid-compatible
under special testing circumstances or contains operations or frequency
bands that are not certified as hearing aid-compatible, an explanation
of how this affects the handset model's operations; and (6) a link to
the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility web page.
All of this information must be easy for consumers to locate on
handset manufacturers' and service providers' publicly accessible
websites and not hidden behind hard to locate links. Further, this
information must be presented to consumers using plain straightforward
language that consumers can easily understand. We also require handset
manufacturers and service providers who choose to utilize digital
labeling technology as an alternative to printed package inserts or
printed handset manuals to post the information that is required to be
included within a handset model's packaging on their publicly
accessible websites, as discussed above. Further, handset manufacturers
and service providers must post on their publicly accessible websites
the company point-of-contact information that we adopt below. The
digital labeling information and company point-of-contact information
must be presented to consumers in the same fashion as we require other
website posting information to be presented to consumers. This
information must be easy for consumers to locate and displayed in an
easy to understand straightforward manner using plain language, and we
encourage handset manufacturers and service providers to provide this
information in languages in addition to English, such as Spanish.
Consistent with current website posting requirements, handset
manufacturers and service providers must update their websites within
30 days of any relevant changes, and date stamp their website pages.
This date stamp requirement allows consumers to
[[Page 89852]]
see how current the information is that they are viewing.
Along with the revisions to our website posting requirements, we
eliminate the following website posting requirements: (1) handset
manufacturers and service providers will no longer be required to list
a handset model's M/T ratings for handset models certified using the
2011 ANSI Standard or older ANSI standards or provide an explanation of
the M/T rating system; (2) service providers will no longer be required
to post a list of all the non-hearing aid-compatible handset models
that they offer, including the marketing model name/number(s) and FCC
ID number, or a list of all hearing aid-compatible handset models that
they offered in the past 24 months but no longer offer; and (3) service
providers will no longer be required to post a link to a third-party
website as designated by the Commission or the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, with information regarding hearing aid-
compatible and non-hearing aid-compatible handset models.
Additionally, we eliminate our record retention requirement that
requires service providers to retain certain information about handset
models they no longer offer for sale or use in the United States.
Specifically, we will no longer require service providers to retain
internal records for discontinued handset models, and the associated
information that they presently have to make available to the
Commission upon request. This handset model information includes: (1)
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 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. The Commission adopted these
requirements to ensure that ``service providers meet numerical and
percentage-based handset deployment obligations.'' Under our 100%
hearing aid compatibility requirement, however, removing a handset
model from a service provider's handset model portfolio will not impact
the service provider's compliance with the 100% handset model
deployment benchmark the way it might with respect to the current 85%
benchmark. All of the remaining handset models will be hearing aid-
compatible and to the extent there is an issue with the telecoil and
Bluetooth coupling requirement, Commission staff can review the FCC ID
numbers of the remaining handset models to ensure compliance with these
requirements. Further, as the Commission has previously stated, the
date that a handset model is first offered and the date that it is
discontinued is the type of information that service providers would
retain as part of normal businesses operations independent of the
Commission's requirements.
We find that these revisions and modifications to our website
posting and record retention requirements reduce regulatory burden
while ensuring that consumers have access to the information that they
need to make informed handset model purchasing decisions. We are
updating our website posting requirements to reflect the certification
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and our new Bluetooth coupling
requirement. Consumers will be able to consult a handset manufacturer's
or service provider's publicly accessible website and learn which
handset models that they offer include telecoil connectivity and which
do not; which ones include Bluetooth coupling technology and which do
not; and for those that do include Bluetooth coupling technology, the
type of Bluetooth coupling technology that is included. Consumers will
also be able to review the conversational gain that handset models
certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard offer. In addition, consumers
will be able to use company point-of-contact information posted on
handset manufacturers' and service providers' publicly accessible
websites to contact these companies directly about the hearing aid
compatibility of the handset models that they offer. Further, our
revisions ensure that handset manufacturers and service providers only
have to post pertinent information and not outdated information.
We eliminate the posting and record retention requirements related
to non-hearing aid-compatible handset models, as well as information
about handset models that are no longer offered. Since all handset
models will be hearing aid-compatible, the website posting and record
retention requirements related to non-hearing aid-compatible handset
models will no longer be relevant. Going forward, the Commission will
be able to review a handset manufacturer's or a service provider's
publicly accessible website to determine whether a company is currently
in compliance with our handset model deployment benchmarks. The
Commission will also be able to rely on the annual certifications that
handset manufacturers and service providers will be filing to ensure
compliance with our hearing aid compatibility rules for the previous
calendar year. To the extent that consumers have questions about
handset models that are no longer offered, they can use the handset
manufacturer and service provider point-of-contact information to
contact these companies to have their questions answered. Our website
posting and record retention revisions ensure that consumers have the
relevant information that they need to make informed purchasing
decisions while also streamlining these requirements to reduce
regulatory burden and cost on handset manufacturers and service
providers.
2. FCC Forms 655 and 855 Annual Reporting and Certification
Requirements
After the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition period ends, we will eliminate FCC Form 655 that handset
manufacturers currently must file for reporting purposes and instead
require handset manufacturers to file FCC Form 855 annually for
compliance purposes. FCC Form 655 is the form handset manufacturers
file containing information about the hearing aid compatibility status
of each handset model offered, functionalities and labeling of hearing-
aid compatible handsets, and the filing company's consumer outreach
efforts. FCC Form 855 is the form that service providers presently file
to certify compliance with our hearing aid compatibility requirements,
and we will require service providers to continue to file this form
after the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period
ends. Further, after the expiration of the manufacturer 100% hearing
aid compatibility transition period, we will change the reporting
deadline for handset manufacturers from July 31 each year to January 31
each year and change the handset manufacturer reporting period to cover
the period of January 1 to December 31 of the previously calendar year,
instead of the current period of July 1 of the previous year to June 30
of the current year. These changes will align the reporting deadline
and reporting period for handset manufacturers with the reporting
deadline and reporting period for service providers. We will also
update FCC Form 855 to reflect our 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement and related requirements.
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we sought comment on our tentative
conclusions to move handset manufacturers from FCC Form 655 to FCC Form
855 after the passing of the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition period and to align the filing
[[Page 89853]]
deadline and reporting period for handset manufacturers with the filing
deadline and reporting period used for service providers. We noted that
Sec. 20.19(i) of the Commission's rules requires handset manufacturers
to file FCC Form 655 reports each year and service providers to file
FCC Form 855 certifications each year to demonstrate compliance with
the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements. The 100% HAC
NPRM set forth the information that each form collects and summarized
the information that handset manufacturers and service providers must
provide to the Commission in order to demonstrate compliance with our
hearing aid compatibility rules. With respect to FCC Form 855, we
specifically noted that our rules require a knowledgeable executive of
the service provider to sign the form and to certify under penalty of
perjury the service provider's compliance with the Commission's hearing
aid compatibility requirements for the relevant reporting period.
Further, in the 100% HAC NPRM, we noted that prior to the 2018 HAC
Order the Commission required service providers to demonstrate
compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules by
filing FCC Form 655, but in order to reduce regulatory burden on
service providers the Commission moved service providers to FCC Form
855. We further noted that the Commission stated in the 2018 HAC Order
that this action would streamline ``the Commission's collection of
information while continuing to fulfill the underlying purposes of the
current reporting regime.'' Finally, we noted that in the 2018 HAC
Order the Commission stated that it might take further steps to reduce
regulatory burden, including modify the reporting rules, if it
determined to adopt a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement.
Commenters support moving handset manufacturers from FCC Form 655
to FCC Form 855 for reporting purposes. We agree with these commenters
and find that moving handset manufacturers from FCC Form 655 to FCC
Form 855 after the manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition period ends will eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden.
With the expiration of the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition period, it will no longer be necessary to
collect the detailed handset model information that FCC Form 655
collects. Under our revised website posting requirements, handset
manufacturers will be required to post on their publicly accessible
websites all relevant handset model information for the handset models
that they offer for sale or use in the United States. Further, the
handset model information that FCC Form 655 collects can be found in
the Commission's Equipment Authorization System.
We find that moving handset manufacturers to the streamlined FCC
Form 855 will reduce regulatory burden and cost. The Commission
estimates that it takes 30 minutes to complete FCC Form 855 as compared
to two and half hours to complete FCC Form 655. Therefore, contrary to
CTIA's assertion, moving handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855 will
reduce regulatory burden for handset manufacturers and not increase
regulatory burden for service providers. As discussed below, we will
revise FCC Form 855 to reflect the 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement and to streamline the information that the form will
collect and to remove outdated questions. The revised form will only
collect information that is necessary to ensure handset manufacturers'
and service providers' compliance with our hearing aid compatibility
rules. In this regard, FCC Form 855 will continue to require a
knowledgeable company executive to certify under penalty of perjury
that the company on whose behalf the executive is filing is in full
compliance with all of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility
rules, including handset model deployment benchmarks, labeling and
disclosure requirements, as well as website posting requirements. The
Commission can rely on these certifications for enforcement purposes,
if the need arises.
Accessibility Advocates argue that if the Commission moves handset
manufacturers to FCC Form 855, the Commission should require handset
manufacturers to post their handset model information on their publicly
accessible web pages in order to ensure handset manufacturers are in
compliance with the Commission's handset model deployment benchmarks.
We agree with Accessibility Advocates and, as discussed above, we are
revising our website posting requirements to include this requirement.
We will be able to review a handset manufacturer's publicly accessible
website and determine if the manufacturer is in compliance with our
handset model deployment benchmarks and coupling requirements. We will
also be able to review these postings to ensure handset manufacturer
compliance with the 85/15% split between telecoil and Bluetooth
coupling and, if Bluetooth coupling technology is included in a handset
model, what kind of Bluetooth coupling technology is included.
Accessibility Advocates acknowledge that our revised website posting
and certification requirements address their concerns.
Further, we note that we continue to require handset manufacturers,
as well as service providers, to update their web pages within 30 days
of any relevant changes and to date stamp their web pages with the date
of the update. As Accessibility Advocates observe, these requirements
will ensure that the information that is displayed is current. Finally,
we note that the Commission is adopting a new company point-of-contact
requirement below that will allow consumers to directly contact handset
manufacturers and service providers to ask questions about the hearing
aid compatibility of the handset models that these companies offer for
sale or use in the United States.
As part of our decision to move handset manufacturers to FCC Form
855 after the handset manufacturer's 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition date ends, we will update the form to ensure it collects
pertinent compliance information for both handset manufacturers and
service providers. Nationwide service providers will begin filing this
revised FCC Form 855 after their 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition period ends and, likewise, non-nationwide service providers
will begin filing the revised form after their 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition period ends. Revised FCC Form 855 will require
the following information to be provided:
<bullet> An affirmative statement as to whether the filer is a
handset manufacturer, a nationwide service provider, or a non-
nationwide service provider;
<bullet> In the case of a handset manufacturer, an affirmative
statement as to whether the filer ceased offering handset models during
the reporting period or, in the case of a service provider, the filer
ceased offering wireless service during the reporting period;
<bullet> An affirmative statement that the filer did not offer for
sale or use in the United States non-hearing aid-compatible handset
models for the reporting period as required Sec. 20.19(c)(2), (4), or
(6), as applicable to the filer;
<bullet> The total number of hearing aid-compatible handset models
the filer offered for sale or use in the United States for the
reporting period;
<bullet> The number of these handset models that met applicable
telecoil requirements;
<bullet> The number of these handset models that met the applicable
Bluetooth coupling requirement and a
[[Page 89854]]
statement as to whether the Bluetooth coupling technology was a
proprietary or non-proprietary implementation, the name of the
Bluetooth coupling technology, and a statement as to whether the
Bluetooth technology met the requirements of Sec. 20.19(b)(3)(ii);
<bullet> An affirmative statement that all new handset models added
during the reporting period met volume control certification
requirements as required by Sec. 20.19(c)(2), (4), or (6), as
applicable to the filer;
<bullet> An affirmative statement that the filer was in full
compliance with the labeling and disclosure requirements in Sec.
20.19(f);
<bullet> A statement as to whether the filer used digital labeling
technology to deliver to consumers the information required by Sec.
20.19(f)(2), as an alternative to including a printed insert or printed
handset manual;
<bullet> If the filer maintains a publicly accessible website, the
filer must include a link to the website showing compliance with Sec.
20.19(h) or, if the filer does not maintain a publicly accessible
website, an affirmative statement that the filer does not maintain a
publicly accessible website and has included an attachment with its
filing showing the information required by Sec. 20.19(h)(1);
<bullet> The name of the signing executive and contact information;
<bullet> The company(ies) covered by the certification;
<bullet> The FCC Registration Number (FRN); and
<bullet> 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 reporting period with the Commission's wireless hearing
aid compatibility 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.
<bullet> If the company selected that it was not in full compliance
with this section, an explanation of which wireless hearing aid
compatibility requirements it was not in compliance with, when the non-
compliance began and (if applicable) ended with respect to each
requirement.
Collecting this information will aid the Commission in ensuring
that handset manufacturers and service providers are in full compliance
with our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, the related
handset model deployment benchmarks, and the labeling, disclosure and
website posting requirements. By moving handset manufacturers from FCC
Form 655 to FCC Form 855, we reduce regulatory burden and cost for
handset manufacturers. Handset manufacturers will spend less time and
resources filing FCC Form 855. The information that the form collects
is pertinent to ensuring compliance with our 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement and should be readily available to handset
manufacturers and service providers.
With respect to handset manufacturers and service providers who do
not maintain publicly accessible websites, we require these companies
to include an attachment with their FCC Form 855 certification filings
that contains all of the handset model information that they would
otherwise have to post on their publicly accessible websites. This
requirement includes the following information: (1) a list of all
currently offered handset models, including each handset model's
marketing name/number(s) and the FCC ID number, along with the ANSI
standard used to certify the handset model as hearing aid-compatible;
(2) for each handset model, an affirmative statement of whether or not
the handset model meets telecoil certification requirements; (3) for
each handset model, an affirmative statement of whether or not the
handset model includes Bluetooth coupling technology and, if so, which
Bluetooth coupling technology the handset model includes; (4) for each
handset model certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard, an affirmative
statement of the handset model's conversational gain with and without
hearing aids with the actual conversational gain that is displayed
being the lowest rating assigned to the handset model for any covered
air interface or frequency band; and (5) if a handset model has been
certified as hearing aid-compatible under special testing circumstances
or contains operations or frequency bands that are not certified as
hearing aid-compatible, an explanation of how this affects the handset
model's operations. This attachment requirement will allow the
Commission to review the compliance of handset manufacturers and
service providers with our hearing aid compatibility rules who do not
maintain publicly accessible websites.
Along with transferring handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855 after
the passing of the handset manufacturer's 100% hearing aid
compatibility transition period, we align the handset manufacturer
filing deadline and reporting period with the service provider filing
deadline and reporting period. 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 provider compliance
filings are due by January 31 of each year and cover the previous
calendar year from January 1 through December 31. By aligning the
handset manufacturer filing deadline and reporting period with the
current service provider filing deadline and reporting period, we avoid
confusion that might develop if we maintained two separate filing
deadlines and reporting periods for FCC Form 855.
We are aware that the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement will begin during a reporting period. Rather
than having these companies file FCC Form 655 to cover part of one
reporting period and FCC Form 855 to cover part of another reporting
period, we will require handset manufacturers to file FCC Form 855 to
cover the entire calendar year that the 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement becomes effective. Likewise, we are aware that this same
issue will arise with nationwide and non-nationwide service providers.
We will require these companies to file revised FCC Form 855 to cover
the entire reporting period that the 100% hearing aid compatibility
requirement becomes effective rather than filing the existing FCC Form
855 for part of the reporting period and revised FCC Form 855 for the
remaining part of the reporting period. We take these steps to ensure
an orderly transition to the new compliance filing requirements. When
reviewing the first FCC Form 855 filings by handset manufacturers and
the first revised FCC Form 855 by service providers we will recognize
the transitional nature of these first certification filings and to the
extent we have questions about the filings we will check the filing
company's publicly accessible website or attachment to ensure current
compliance with the 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement.
Finally, we delegate authority to WTB to revise the information
that FCC Form 855 collects, as well as other forms and certifications
under this rule section, to ensure that these forms and
[[Page 89855]]
certifications collect relevant information from handset manufacturers
and service providers that allows WTB to confirm compliance with the
hearing aid compatibility rules. These revisions must be consistent
with existing hearing aid compatibility requirements as reflected in
the rules and the form and certification modifications must not impose
new obligations other than the information that must be provided. Any
revisions to FCC Form 855 will be done in accordance with Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) requirements. These requirements include
notification requirements. Therefore, the public will have notice of
any proposed changes to FCC Form 855 and an opportunity to comment on
these proposed changes before the changes become effective. Further,
WTB will post revised FCC Form 855 to its wireless hearing aid
compatibility website once the Office of Management and Budget
completes its review of the form's revisions.
3. Reliance on Accessibility Clearinghouse Information
We decline to adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendation that we
permit service providers to legally rely on the information reported in
the Global Accessibility Reporting Initiative (GARI) database, which is
linked to on the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse website.
Specifically, the HAC Task Force argues that we should allow service
providers to rely on this information as a legal safe harbor for
purposes of meeting handset model deployment benchmarks. The HAC Task
Force asserts that the GARI database provides a more up-to-date
snapshot of hearing aid-compatible handset models than the annual FCC
Form 655 reports that handset manufacturers file. Presently, the
Commission allows service providers to rely on the information found in
FCC Form 655 reports as a legal safe harbor for handset model
deployment purposes.
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we proposed to decline the HAC Task Force's
recommendation with respect to the GARI database. The Commission
expressed concern about the accuracy of the information in the GARI
database and the fact that the Commission does not maintain the
database. Further, we proposed to decline the HAC 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. In addition, we sought
comment on whether our 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 once the
relevant 100% transition period ends.
In response to the 100% HAC NPRM, we received comments from MWF,
who is the developer and administrator of the GARI database, and CTIA.
MWF and CTIA argue that we should allow service providers to rely on
information in the GARI database because the database provides more up-
to-date information than FCC Form 655 reports that handset
manufacturers file each year. MWF argues that the GARI database is more
user-friendly than FCC Form 655 reports and provides a more complete
overview of a handset model's accessibility features than FCC Form 655
reports. MWF also states that it is willing to discuss with the
Commission ways to address the Commission's reservations concerning the
accuracy of the database.
We find this issue to be moot given our decisions above. After the
handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period
ends, handset manufacturers will no longer be able to offer non-hearing
aid-compatible handset models. Service providers who continue to offer
non-hearing aid-compatible handset models will already have the
information they need about these models and further will have to stop
offering these models once their 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition date ends. With respect to hearing aid-compatible handset
models, service providers will be able to locate the information that
they need from handset manufacturers' publicly accessible websites or
from the handset model's package label. Further, the information on
handset manufacturers' publicly accessible websites will be current
because we require handset manufacturers to update this information
within 30 days of any relevant changes and to date stamp their web
pages to show the date of the last update.
Further, as we stated in the 100% HAC NPRM, 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.
Moreover, the Commission already allows service providers to rely on
the information from a handset manufacturer's FCC Form 655 report as a
safe harbor, and we find it unnecessary to create a second safe harbor
that may contain inaccurate information. For these reasons, we decline
the HAC Task Force's request that we allow service providers to rely on
the information in the GARI database for the purpose of determining
handset model deployment compliance.
During the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility
transition period, handset manufacturers will continue to file FCC Form
655 reports and service providers can continue to rely on the
information in these reports as a safer harbor. The Commission will
continue to post these reports on the Commission's wireless hearing aid
compatibility website and service providers and members of the public
can review these reports at this website. Further, the Commission's
Accessibility Clearinghouse website links to the Commission's wireless
hearing aid compatibility website where the FCC Form 655 reports are
posted. As a result, there is no need for the Commission to separately
post these reports on the Accessibility Clearinghouse website. Finally,
the Commission will post handset manufacturer FCC Form 855
certifications on the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility
website just as it presently posts handset manufacturer FCC Form 655
reports and service provider FCC Form 855 certifications. Members of
the public, as well as handset manufacturers and service providers,
will be able to review these certifications after the Commission posts
them.
Finally, as discussed above, we will no longer 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. Service
providers will be required to post all relevant hearing aid
compatibility information about the handset models they offer on their
publicly accessible websites where members of the public can review
this information. Members of the public will also be able to contact
handset manufacturers and service providers directly with questions
that they might have about the handset models that these companies
offer using the point-of-contact information that we adopt below.
4. Company Point-of-Contact Information for Consumer Use
We require handset manufacturers and service providers to post on
their publicly accessible websites point-of-contact information that
consumers can
[[Page 89856]]
use to contact knowledgeable company employees with questions they
might have about the hearing aid compatibility of handset models that
these companies offer or to resolve pairing issues they are having with
one of the company's handset models. Specifically, along with the other
information that we require these companies to post to their publicly
accessible websites, we require handset manufacturers and service
providers to post: (1) the name of a department or a division that is
staffed with employees knowledgeable about the hearing aid
compatibility of the handset models that they offer; and (2) an email
address, mailing address, text number, and a toll free number that
consumers can use to contact these employees. We also require handset
manufacturers and service providers to respond to these inquires in a
timely fashion and in a manner consistent with CTIA's Consumer Code for
Wireless Service.
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should
require this point-of-contact information on handset manufacturers' and
service providers' publicly accessible websites. As part of our
tentative conclusion, we stated we would require handset manufacturers
and service providers to 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
use to contact these employees. We stated that the purpose of this
point-of-contact information was to give consumers a way of contacting
handset manufacturers and service providers about the hearing aid
compatibility of the handset models that they offer and to have their
handset model pairing issues resolved. We also stated that we would
expect handset manufacturers and service providers to be responsive to
consumer questions and to interact with consumers in a manner
consistent with the Consumer Code for Wireless Service that can be
found on CTIA's website. As an alternative to requiring company point-
of-contact information to be posted on company websites, we sought
comment on whether we should require handset manufacturers and service
providers to enter the required contact information in a Commission-
maintained database.
Accessibility Advocates were the only commenter to address our
tentative conclusion, and they urge us to adopt our main proposal. They
state that point-of-contact information will help consumers, and that
it may also help store employees by giving them a resource to assist
them in better answering consumer questions about the hearing aid
compatibility of the handset models that their company offers.
Accessibility Advocates recommend that we modify our proposal to
include not only a phone requirement, but also a text requirement
(e.g., text, email, or chat). They argue that adding this additional
contact information will aid those consumers who have difficulty
hearing over the phone.
We find that adopting our tentative conclusion is consistent with
section 710(a) of the Communications Act that requires the Commission
to ``establish such regulations as are necessary to ensure reasonable
access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing.'' We
determine that requiring handset manufacturers and service providers to
post point-of-contact information on their publicly accessible websites
is consistent with ensuring that consumers with hearing loss have
reasonable access to telephone service. Consumers with hearing loss
will be able to use this contact information to ask knowledgeable
company employees about the hearing aid compatibility of the handset
models that their company offers and which of these models might best
meet their listening needs. These consumers will also be able to use
this contact information to ask knowledgeable company employees about
pairing issues that they might be having with one of the company's
hearing aid-compatible handset models and their hearing aids. In
addition, our point-of-contact requirement may help handset
manufacturers and service providers reduce consumer frustration and
help these companies to sell handsets and wireless services.
We therefore require handset manufacturers and service providers to
post on their publicly accessible websites the information that we
tentatively concluded that they should post, as well as the additional
contact information suggested by Accessibility Advocates. As a result,
handset manufacturers and service providers must post on their publicly
accessible websites the name of a department or a division within the
company that is staffed with knowledgeable employees who can answer
consumer questions about the hearing aid compatibility of the handset
models that the company offers and related coupling questions. Handset
manufacturers and service providers must also post on their publicly
accessible websites an email address, a mailing address, a text number,
and a toll free phone number that consumers can use to contact these
employees. This information must be posted in a manner that is easy for
consumers to locate and in a straight-forward, easy to understand
fashion using plain language. Further, consistent with our current
website posting requirements, we require that handset manufacturers and
service providers update this point-of-contact information within 30
days of any relevant changes, and that they date stamp their web pages.
We also adopt our proposal that consumer inquires must be responded to
in a timely fashion and in a manner consistent with CTIA's Consumer
Code for Wireless Service.
We disagree with CTIA that we should limit the required contact
information to only one ``text-based option'' and allow handset
manufacturers and service providers to implement options ``based on
their business such as text, telephone, email, or chatting.'' Some
consumers with hearing loss may be more comfortable texting rather than
emailing or using a chat function. We believe that requiring a broad
array of ways for consumers with hearing loss to contact handset
manufacturers and service providers is consistent with the public
interest. We also note that CTIA's Consumer Code for Wireless Service
provides that companies should provide customers with a mailing
address, a toll-free telephone number, an internet method, or through
other means of communication. In short, providing a broad array of ways
to contact knowledgeable company employees is in the best interest of
consumers.
We will not require handset manufacturers and service providers to
enter their point-of-contact information in a Commission-maintained
database. We find that this approach would duplicate our website
posting requirement and would be burdensome and unnecessary. Further,
we find that our website posting approach is more consumer friendly
then creating a Commission-maintained database. Consumers naturally
expect to find point-of-contact information on handset manufacturer and
service provider publicly accessible websites and would not intuitively
look for this contact information in a Commission-maintained database.
In addition, when looking at handset manufacturer or service provider
publicly accessible websites, consumers may find the answer to their
questions on the website without having to contact the company. Our
revised website posting requirements will ensure handset manufacturers
and service providers post all relevant information about the handset
models that they offer,
[[Page 89857]]
including coupling information. A Commission-maintained database would
not contain specific handset model hearing aid compatibility
information. We did not receive comments asking us to create a
Commission-maintained database where handset manufacturer and service
provider point-of-contact information could be found.
Finally, we determine to maintain the last sentence of Sec.
20.19(j) which provides that for enforcement purposes, if a state does
not provide for enforcement, the procedures set forth in part 68,
subpart E of the Commission's rules should be followed. In the 100% HAC
NPRM, we proposed to delete this sentence, and we did not receive any
comments opposing this change. We are concerned, however, that removing
this sentence could harm consumers if a state declines to provide for
enforcement of our hearing aid compatibility rules with respect to a
consumer complaint. Under these circumstances, the procedures in part
68, subpart E, of the Commission's rules would apply. The Commission
has recognized and continues to recognize the essential role consumers
play in detecting non-compliance with our hearing aid compatibility
rules. As a result, we determine to maintain the last sentence of Sec.
20.19(j). The rules contained in part 68, subpart E, explain the
procedures consumers must follow to initiate a complaint and explains
the obligations of parties named in those complaints. The deadlines
contained in those rules ensure that consumers' complaints will be
addressed in an expeditious manner.
J. Sunsetting the Hearing Aid Compatibility De Minimis Exception
We eliminate the de minimis exception in our hearing aid
compatibility rules using a three step process that is consistent with
the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods we adopted above.
Section 20.19(e) of the Commission's rules contains an exception to the
handset model deployment benchmarks based on the number of handset
models handset manufacturers and service providers offer for sale or
use in the United States. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we tentatively
concluded that we should eliminate the de minimis exception because
maintaining the exception would be inconsistent with our objective of
adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. Specifically, we
tentatively concluded that we should eliminate the exception based on
the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods for
handset manufacturers and service providers. We did not receive any
comments objecting to our proposal to eliminate the de minimis
exception or arguing that we should eliminate the exception in a manner
different than basing it on the expiration of the relevant 100% hearing
aid compatibility transition periods.
We find that eliminating the de minimis exception in Sec. 20.19(e)
of the Commission's rules is consistent with our adoption of a 100%
hearing aid compatibility requirement. If we were to maintain the
exception, this would undercut our decision to adopt a 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement. Maintaining the de minimis exception or some
part of the exception would mean that handset manufacturers and service
providers who only offer for sale or use in the United States a limited
number of handset models would be able to offer handset models that
were not certified as hearing aid compatible. This result would be
inconsistent with our decision to require all handset models to be
hearing aid compatible. Further, given the number of handset models
that are already certified as hearing aid-compatible and the transition
periods that we adopted above, there is no reason to believe that our
handset model deployment benchmarks will have a disproportionate impact
on handset manufacturers or service providers who only offer a limited
number of handset models for sale or use in the United States.
Additionally, we have not received anything in the record that
contradicts our findings.
In addition, we find that it is unnecessary to maintain a de
minimis exception for new entrants who may only offer a limited number
of handset models for sale or use in the United States. With respect to
new entrant handset manufacturers, after the effective date of the
Commission's 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, these
companies could not offer for sale or use in the United States handset
models that do not meet the certification requirements of the 2019 ANSI
Standard and the related volume control requirements. To allow new
entrant handset manufacturers to offer non-hearing aid-compatible
handset models would be inconsistent and undercut our 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement. Further, new entrant service providers can
only offer new handset models certified as hearing aid-compatible using
the 2019 ANSI Standard and the related volume control standard. The
2019 ANSI Standard and the related volume control standard are the only
currently effective hearing aid compatibility certification standards
in place for certifying new handset models as hearing aid compatible.
With respect to new entrant service providers, once the relevant
100% hearing aid compatibility transition period ends, these companies
can only offer for sale or use in the United States handset models
certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard, including the related volume
control standard. Similar to new entrant handset manufacturers, it
would be inconsistent with the Commission's 100% hearing aid
compatibility requirement to allow these companies to offer non-hearing
aid-compatible handset models after the effective date of the new
standard. Further, allowing new entrant service providers to offer for
sale or use in the United States handset models certified under the
2011 ANSI Standard or older ANSI standards after the passing of the
relevant transition date would slow the transition of all handset
models offered for sale or use in the United States meeting the latest
certification requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and our adoption
of a 100% volume control standard. This finding is consistent with our
decision that existing service providers can only add new handset
models to their handset model portfolios after the passing of the
relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility transition date that meet the
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and the related volume control
requirements. We note, however, that a consumer could purchase a
grandfathered hearing aid-compatible handset model from a handset
manufacturer and bring it to the new entrant's wireless network as long
as the handset model is compatible with new entrant's wireless network.
This ability to purchase grandfathered hearing aid-compatible handset
models ensures that consumers will have the ability to purchase lower
cost hearing aid-compatible handset models as long as the handset
models are compatible with new entrant's wireless network. For all of
the above reasons, we find it in the best interest of consumers with
hearing loss to completely eliminate the de minimis exception in our
hearing aid compatibility rules.
As a result, we will sunset the de minimis exception in Sec.
20.19(e) of the Commission's rules using the three-step process that we
proposed. Specifically, we will eliminate the exception based on the
100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods that we adopted
above. After the 24-month transition period ends for handset
manufacturers, the de minimis exception for handset manufacturers will
end. Likewise, after
[[Page 89858]]
the 30-month transition period ends for nationwide service providers,
the de minimis exception for nationwide service providers will end.
Finally, after the 42-month transition period for non-nationwide
service providers ends, the de minimis exception for non-nationwide
service providers will end too. Once the non-nationwide service
provider transition period ends, the de minimis exception in Sec.
20.19(e) of the Commission's rules will be eliminated for all handset
manufacturers and service providers and these companies will no longer
be able to claim de minimis status.
K. 90-Day Shot Clock for Resolving Hearing Aid Compatibility Waiver
Requests
We decline to adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendation that we
establish a 90-day shot clock for resolving hearing aid compatibility
waiver requests. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we proposed to decline the HAC
Task Force's recommendation because we did not anticipate that
establishing a shot clock would be necessary to ensure the timely
resolution of potential future waiver requests or to ensure the timely
deployment of new hearing aid compatibility technologies. We noted that
section 710(f) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to
periodically review the regulations established pursuant to the Act,
and that this statutory obligation curtails the need for waiver
requests.
CTIA, the only party to file comments on this issue, supports the
HAC Task Force's recommendation. CTIA argues that handset manufacturers
need prompt answers to whether their waiver requests will be granted
and that ``90 days properly balances (i) expected low number of
expected petitions, and, relatedly, the burden on FCC staff, (ii) an
opportunity for public notice and comment, with (iii) the need for
timely resolution of petitions to ensure the deployment of new
technologies is not unduly delayed.''
We disagree with CTIA. We do not believe that the establishment of
a shot clock is necessary to ensure the timely resolution of potential
future waiver requests or to ensure that the deployment of new
techno
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on November 13, 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.