[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2625-2631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-801]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 10-254; DA 10-2388]


Comment Sought on 2010 Review of Hearing Aid Compatibility 
Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks comments 
on the operation and effectiveness of the Commission's rules relating 
to hearing aid compatibility of wireless handsets. On the basis of the 
evaluation, the Bureau will consider whether to recommend to the 
Commission both rule revisions and non-regulatory measures to ensure 
that persons with hearing loss will continue to have broad access to 
evolving modes of wireless communication.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before February 14, 
2011, and reply comments on or before March 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: All filings should refer to WT Docket No. 10-254. Comments 
may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS), or (2) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. 
Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for 
submitting comments. If multiple dockets or rulemaking numbers appear 
in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic 
copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in 
the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should 
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment 
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, 
filers should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the 
following words in the body of the message, ``get form [lang]your e-
mail address[rang].'' A sample form and directions will be sent in 
response.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. 
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and 
Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20554.
    One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by e-
mail or facsimile, or if delivered as paper copy, by hand or messenger 
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or 
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (according to the procedures set 
forth above for paper filings), to the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., at [email protected] or (202) 
488-5563 (facsimile).
    Copies of the public notice and any subsequently-filed documents in 
this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc. in person 
at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via 
telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at (202) 488-5563, or via e-
mail at [email protected]. The public notice and any associated documents 
are also available for public inspection and copying during normal 
reference room hours at the following Commission office: FCC Reference 
Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. The public notice is also available electronically through the 
Commission's ECFS, which may be accessed on the Commission's Internet 
Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
    To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, 
large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to 
[email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Spectrum and 
Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at 
(202) 418-1883 or by e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice in WT Docket No. 10-254 and DA 10-2388, released on December 28, 
2010. In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and 
Further NPRM released on August 5, 2010, in WT Docket No. 07-250, 75 FR 
54508 and 75 FR 54546 (Sept. 8, 2010), the

[[Page 2626]]

Commission reiterated its intention, first stated in 2008, to initiate 
a review of the hearing aid compatibility rules for digital wireless 
services and handsets in 2010. In this review, the Bureau will 
comprehensively evaluate the operation of the current hearing aid 
compatibility rules, 47 CFR 20.19, and their success in making a broad 
selection of wireless phones accessible to people who use hearing aids 
and cochlear implants, as well as in making information about those 
phones available to the public. On the basis of this evaluation, the 
Bureau will consider whether to recommend to the Commission both rule 
revisions and non-regulatory measures to ensure that persons with 
hearing loss will continue to have broad access to evolving modes of 
wireless communication, consistent with the three principles the 
Commission set forth in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and 
Order and Further NPRM to guide its hearing aid compatibility policies:
     Ensuring that developers of new technologies consider and 
plan for hearing aid compatibility at the earliest stages of the 
product design process;
     Accounting for technological feasibility and marketability 
in the Commission's rules pertaining to hearing aid compatibility, 
thereby maximizing conditions for innovation and investment; and
     Providing industry with the ability to harness innovation 
to promote inclusion by allowing the necessary flexibility for 
developing a range of solutions to meet consumers' needs while keeping 
up with the rapid pace of technological advancement.
    The Commission is required by law to ensure that persons with 
hearing loss have access to telephone service. The Hearing Aid 
Compatibility Act of 1988, 47 U.S.C. 610, required all telephones 
manufactured or imported for use in the United States to meet 
established technical standards for hearing aid compatibility, with 
certain exceptions, among them an exception for telephones used with 
mobile wireless services. To ensure that the Act kept pace with the 
evolution of telecommunications technology, Congress granted the 
Commission authority to ``revoke or otherwise limit'' the wireless 
telephone exception, based on considerations of public interest, 
adverse effect on individuals with hearing loss, technological 
feasibility, and marketability of compliant wireless telephones.
    In 2003, the Commission determined that continuation of a complete 
exemption for wireless telephones would have an adverse effect on 
individuals with hearing loss, and that limiting the exemption was 
technologically and economically feasible and in the public interest. 
Accordingly, the Commission promulgated rules to ensure that all 
manufacturers and service providers offer consumers a selection of 
wireless handsets that are compatible with hearing aids. These rules 
were later modified and strengthened in 2008 and in August 2010.
    In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and 
Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on proposed changes to the 
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules in three specific areas: (1) 
Whether to extend the hearing aid compatibility requirements beyond the 
currently covered class of commercial mobile radio services to include 
handsets used to provide wireless voice communications over any type of 
network among members of the public or a substantial portion of the 
public; (2) whether to extend the in-store testing requirement to 
include retail outlets other than those owned or operated by service 
providers; and (3) whether to generally permit a user-controlled 
reduction of power as a means to meet the hearing aid compatibility 
standard for operations over the Global System for Mobile (GSM) air 
interface in the 1900 MHz band. The Commission will address these 
matters in a Report and Order in WT Docket No. 07-250, and the Bureau 
urges commenters not to repeat their comments on these matters in 
response to this document. To the extent any comments made in the 
rulemaking docket are relevant to the questions asked in this document, 
commenters should restate those points in response to the questions 
below.
    On October 8, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Twenty-
first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 
(Communications Accessibility Act), Public Law 111-260, ensuring that 
individuals with disabilities have access to emerging Internet 
Protocol-based communications and video programming technologies in the 
21st Century. Among other provisions, the Communications Accessibility 
Act extends hearing aid compatibility requirements to customer premises 
equipment ``used with advanced communications services that is designed 
to provide 2-way voice communications via a built-in speaker intended 
to be held to the ear in a manner functionally equivalent to a 
telephone.'' The Communications Accessibility Act preserves the 
exemption of mobile handsets from the requirement that all telephones 
be hearing aid-compatible, while maintaining the Commission's authority 
to revoke or limit such exemption. The Commission will address in WT 
Docket No. 07-250 whether changes to its rules are necessary to 
effectuate the hearing aid compatibility provisions of the 
Communications Accessibility Act. Commenters should consider the 
context of the new legislation in framing their responses to this 
document.
    All parties with knowledge and interest are encouraged to file. In 
addition to written responses, the Bureau encourages submission of any 
data, charts or proposed plans that can be entered into the public 
record for purposes of building a record on this subject.
    In order to assist the Commission in evaluating the wireless 
hearing aid compatibility rules, the Bureau ask commenters specifically 
to address the questions set forth below. To the extent feasible, 
commenters may want to organize their responses alphabetically/
numerically as set forth below in order to facilitate Commission 
review.

Availability of Hearing Aid-Compatible Handsets

    On July 15, 2010, manufacturers of handsets were required to file 
reports detailing the hearing aid compatibility status of their handset 
offerings from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. Twenty-one 
manufacturers have filed reports pursuant to this provision identifying 
a total of 302 handset models that they offered as of June 2010. The 
hearing aid compatibility status of these handsets, sorted according to 
the air interface(s) incorporated in the handset, is summarized in the 
table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total offered by
                       June 2010                              handset         M3/M4 handsets     T3/T4 handsets
                                                           manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDMA-Only..............................................                134                133                105
CDMA/WCDMA.............................................                  1                  1                  1
GSM-Only...............................................                 60                 33                 26

[[Page 2627]]

 
GSM/CDMA...............................................                  3                  3                  3
GSM/WCDMA..............................................                 88                 44                 31
iDEN...................................................                 16                 14                  8
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................                302                228                174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this section, the Bureau seeks comment on whether hearing aid-
compatible handsets are sufficiently available to consumers in the 
current marketplace, including phones with a full range of different 
feature sets. In this regard, the Bureau seeks comment on the impact 
that the Commission's deployment benchmarks and technical standards 
have had on increasing compatibility between hearing aids and wireless 
handsets. The Bureau also seeks comment on the impact of the rules on 
smaller service providers.

1. Do the Commission's deployment benchmarks appropriately ensure that 
hearing aid-compatible handsets are available to all consumers?

    a. The Commission's rules currently require handset manufacturers, 
other than those subject to the de minimis exception, to meet at least 
an M3 rating for radio frequency (RF) interference reduction for at 
least one-third of their models (rounded down) over each air interface, 
with a minimum of two models, and to meet a T3 rating for inductive 
coupling capability for at least 25 percent of their models (rounded 
down) over each air interface, with a minimum of two models. The 
percentage benchmark for inductive coupling capability will increase to 
one-third on February 15, 2011. Service providers must meet an M3 
rating for at least 50 percent of their models or 10 models over each 
air interface, and must meet a T3 rating for at least one-third of 
their models or seven models over each air interface. The numerical 
benchmark for inductive coupling capability will increase to 10 models 
in 2011. Under these benchmarks, has a selection of hearing aid-
compatible handsets become readily available to all consumers across 
the various air interfaces, including third-generation (3G) air 
interfaces? Should the benchmarks be increased in future years or 
restructured in any way? In particular, should the T3 benchmark be 
increased to equal the M3 benchmark, given the growing number of 
consumers using hearing aids with telecoils? Commenters should consider 
the cost to manufacturers and service providers of complying with any 
changed benchmarks and any effects on innovation as well as the 
benefits to consumers with hearing loss.
    b. In enacting the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act, Congress found 
that people with hearing loss should have access to the 
telecommunications network ``to the fullest extent made possible by 
technology and medical science.'' In light of this policy, should the 
Commission be moving toward a goal of ensuring that all wireless 
handsets meet hearing aid compatibility standards? If the Commission 
were to institute a 100% compatibility requirement, what would be the 
effects on investment and innovation?
    c. Should the Commission consider applying different benchmarks to 
different technologies in light of the circumstances surrounding each 
technology? For example, should higher benchmarks apply to future 
technologies in order to encourage consideration of hearing aid 
compatibility in the early stages of product development? Should lower 
benchmarks be kept in place for the legacy GSM air interface in 
recognition of the technical challenges to achieving hearing aid 
compatibility using that technology, as well as the likelihood that it 
will be phased out over the next several years? The Bureau notes that 
the ANSI C63.19 standard revision that is under consideration, by 
measuring RF interference potential directly, would eliminate the need 
for certain conservative assumptions and make it approximately 2.2dB 
easier for GSM phone to achieve an M3 rating. Should different 
benchmarks be adopted for CDMA than for GSM?
    d. Are hearing aid-compatible handsets widely available across all 
market segments, including the prepaid phone market? The Bureau notes 
that under the current rules, service providers must meet the hearing 
aid compatibility benchmarks across their entire product line, and are 
not required separately to account for the phones offered to different 
market segments, such as prepaid versus postpaid. Is there a need for 
rules specifically addressing the prepaid market or any other segment, 
and what would be the effects of any such rules on manufacturers or 
service providers?

2. Are hearing aid-compatible phones available to consumers with a full 
range of different feature sets?

    a. The Commission's rules require manufacturers to ``refresh'' 
their hearing aid-compatible products by ensuring, in most instances, 
that at least half their required minimum number of M3-rated phones is 
met by models introduced within a given calendar year. Service 
providers must offer hearing aid-compatible models with different 
levels of functionality. The Bureau seeks comment on whether these 
rules have succeeded in making hearing aid-compatible handsets 
available to consumers with different feature sets? For example, do 
consumers with hearing loss have access comparable to the general 
population both to handsets with the most advanced features, including 
smartphones, and to basic models? Is there a concentration of hearing 
aid-compatible handsets in a particular feature set? Commenters should 
note any differences in variety specific to particular air interfaces 
or market segments. Are any additional rules needed to ensure 
availability of a full range of hearing aid-compatible models?
    b. At the same time, are the refresh and level of functionality 
rules necessary? Given the usual product cycles for wireless handsets, 
would manufacturers produce and service providers offer hearing aid 
compatibility in many of the newest models in the absence of these 
rules simply to meet the benchmarks? What paperwork or other burdens do 
these rules impose, and are these burdens outweighed by the benefits to 
consumers? Do these rules remain necessary in the CDMA air interface, 
given that nearly all CDMA phones produced today meet hearing aid 
compatibility standards? Should the rules be modified or eliminated for 
some or all handset lines?

3. Do the rules appropriately account for the challenges facing smaller 
service providers?

    a. When the Commission adopted the current handset deployment

[[Page 2628]]

benchmarks, it provided service providers other than commercial mobile 
radio service providers with nationwide footprints (Tier I carriers) 
with an additional three months to meet each benchmark. In addition, 
businesses that are small entities as defined by the U.S. Small 
Business Administration, unlike larger manufacturers and service 
providers, are exempt from offering hearing aid-compatible phones over 
an air interface indefinitely so long as they offer no more than two 
models. The Bureau requests comment on whether these provisions 
appropriately accommodate the difficulties faced by smaller service 
providers in offering hearing aid-compatible handsets.
    b. The Bureau seeks information on the burden that hearing aid 
compatibility requirements impose on smaller service providers. Is 
there a significant difference in the cost of rule compliance between 
Tier I carriers and non-Tier I carriers? To what extent are smaller 
service providers delayed in their ability to obtain new and desirable 
handsets, or are they able to obtain these handsets at all? Does the 
extent of any additional costs or delays depend on the size of the 
service provider, for example, as between a small local company and a 
sizable regional carrier? Are resellers differently situated than small 
facilities-based providers?
    c. In light of these burdens, is it appropriate to modify the 
Commission's rules with respect to smaller service providers? For 
example, would smaller providers need more than three months additional 
time to meet any future benchmarks the Commission may adopt, or is no 
additional time warranted? Are the current benchmarks appropriate for 
non-Tier I carriers, or should they be reduced? Should different rules 
apply to different tiers of non-Tier I service providers, and if so, on 
what criteria should these tiers be based? Commenters should address 
the effect of any such potential rule changes on the customers of 
smaller service providers, and how their access to hearing aid-
compatible handsets can be protected.
    d. Similarly, should the Commission consider amending the de 
minimis rule to exempt some small entities from requirements to offer 
hearing aid-compatible handset models, even if they offer more than two 
models per air interface? For example, an exception could be based on a 
service provider's monthly sales. Would such a rule better reflect 
market realities, under which small service providers may have access 
only to small lots of multiple different handset models? Would 
customers of small carriers, particularly in the most rural areas, 
still have access to a selection of hearing aid-compatible handsets?
    e. Are smaller service providers and manufacturers, particularly 
new entrants, adequately informed about their obligations under the 
hearing aid compatibility rules? Is there anything the Commission can 
and should do to improve communications with these entities?

4. Do the M3 and T3 technical standards appropriately ensure 
compatibility with hearing aids?

    a. The Commission's rules consider a handset to be hearing aid-
compatible for RF interference reduction if it meets at least an M3 
rating under ANSI Standard C63.19-2007, and for inductive coupling 
capability if it meets at least a T3 rating. Are these requirements 
appropriate to ensure that users of hearing aids and cochlear implants 
will be able to access wireless communications? Would any other 
standards be more appropriate? Should there be any requirements to 
offer handsets that meet M4 and/or T4 ratings? On the other hand, do 
handsets that are rated less than M3 or T3 provide effective 
compatibility for some users of hearing aids and cochlear implants, and 
if so should the Commission's rules recognize their performance?
    b. Under the 2007 revision of ANSI Standard C63.19, a handset must 
meet an acceptable rating for RF interference reduction--i.e., an M3 or 
M4 rating under the Commission's rules--in order to be rated T3 or T4 
for inductive coupling capability. Would there be benefits to wearers 
of hearing aids with telecoils if the minimum RF noise threshold 
requirement to achieve a T3 rating were relaxed? Is there evidence to 
support such a change that ANSI Accredited Standards Committee 
C63[reg] (ANSI ASC C63[reg]) should consider?

Sufficiency of Information

    The hearing aid compatibility rules include several provisions to 
ensure that device manufacturers and service providers share 
information on their hearing aid-compatible handset offerings with the 
Commission and with the public. In this section, the Bureau seeks 
comment on the value and any negative effects of the information 
disclosures required in reports to the Commission, on manufacturers' 
and service providers' Web sites, at the point of sale, and in 
packaging materials. The Bureau also seeks comment on the in-store 
testing requirement and on measures that could be taken to improve the 
availability of information to consumers who purchase their phones from 
sources other than their service provider.

5. Is the reporting system collecting appropriate information in an 
efficient way, and is the Commission making this information available 
to the public in an accessible and easily manipulable manner?

    a. The wireless hearing aid compatibility rules require handset 
manufacturers and service providers to submit annual reports to the 
Commission on the status of their compliance. In June 2009, the Bureau 
introduced the electronic FCC Form 655 as the mandatory form for filing 
these reports, and since that time both service providers and 
manufacturers have filed reports using the electronic system. The 
Bureau seeks comment on the functioning of this system.
    b. Does Form 655 collect the necessary information on hearing aid-
compatible handset offerings? Is any unnecessary information being 
collected? Do third-party sources provide information about hearing 
aid-compatible handsets that may diminish the need for reporting to the 
Commission? Even if information about hearing aid-compatible handsets 
is available from other sources, is reporting to the Commission still 
necessary to ensure compliance with the rules?
    c. Is the electronic Form 655 an efficient means of collecting 
information? What burdens does the reporting impose on device 
manufacturers and service providers? What changes to the system might 
improve its operation?
    d. Does the reporting requirement impose special burdens on small 
device manufacturers and service providers? In light of any such 
burdens, should smaller entities be exempt from some or all reporting 
requirements? If so, what should be the threshold for such an 
exemption? What effects would an exemption of smaller entities have on 
the availability of information to consumers?
    e. Is the information collected by the Commission on Form 655 made 
accessible to the public in an easily usable manner at http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac? What changes might the Commission make to its Web 
site to improve the accessibility of this information? Are there 
measures the Commission could take that would facilitate use of this 
information by application developers to provide richer information 
products? Would it be helpful to collect and post the information in 
XML or any other format? Should the Commission

[[Page 2629]]

incorporate the information it receives on Form 655 into the 
clearinghouse of information on the availability of accessible products 
and services and accessibility solutions that it is establishing 
pursuant to new Section 717(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 
618(d)?

6. Are manufacturers' and service providers' Web sites providing useful 
information in an accessible manner?

    a. The rules require that each handset manufacturer and service 
provider make available on its Web site a list of its hearing aid-
compatible handset models, the hearing aid compatibility ratings of 
those models, and an explanation of the rating system. Service 
providers also must include the levels of functionality of their 
hearing aid-compatible phones and an explanation of their methodology 
for determining levels of functionality. Do these Web sites contain the 
required information? Is it posted in a manner that is easily 
accessible to and understandable by consumers? Would it be helpful to 
develop best practices or other guidance to promote the most user-
friendly approaches? If so, should this guidance be promulgated by the 
Commission or developed through collaboration among industry and 
consumer representatives?
    b. Is there any additional information that consumers or other 
stakeholders would find helpful to have posted on manufacturers' or 
service providers' Web sites? Should the posting of any such 
information be required by the Commission or should it be voluntary?

7. Are the point-of-sale and packaging disclosures appropriately 
informing consumers?

    a. The rules require that manufacturers and service providers 
clearly display the hearing aid compatibility ratings on the packaging 
material of a hearing aid-compatible handset, and that they include an 
explanation of the rating system in the device's user manual or as a 
packaging insert. Are manufacturers and service providers supplying 
this information, and are they doing so in a manner that is clear and 
helpful to consumers? Are consumers able to understand the hearing aid 
compatibility rating system? If not, are there any measures the 
Commission can and should take to improve the disclosures? Should such 
measures take the form of a rule or voluntary guidance?
    b. The rules further require that, for handsets that include 
operations over an air interface or frequency band for which hearing 
aid compatibility technical standards do not currently exist, each 
manufacturer and service provider must disclose to consumers by clear 
and effective means that such handset has not been rated for hearing 
aid compatibility with respect to that operation. Effective March 8, 
2011, manufacturers and service providers will be required to use 
specific prescribed language in making this disclosure. The Bureau 
notes that ANSI ASC C63[reg] is developing a revision of the C63.19 
technical standard that would be independent of air interface and cover 
a broad range of frequency bands. Until such time as the promulgation 
and adoption of a revised technical standard renders this disclosure 
unnecessary, is the disclosure effective and should any changes be 
made?
    c. Are consumers adequately informed of the need to activate the 
hearing aid compatibility functions in their phones, particularly when 
used with hearing aids containing a telecoil? If not, what actions 
might the Commission take to promote more effective dissemination of 
this information?
    d. Is there any additional information that should be made 
available to users of hearing aids or cochlear implants at the point of 
sale or in product manuals? How should any such additional disclosure 
be achieved?

8. Is the rule that requires phones to be made available for in-store 
testing effective?

    The current rules require that service providers offer in-store 
testing of hearing aid-compatible handset models in each retail store 
they own or operate. Is the testing offered under this rule effective 
in helping consumers choose a hearing aid-compatible phone? What 
challenges have service providers encountered in offering effective in-
store testing? Are there any rule changes or other Commission action 
that would make the testing more effective or efficient?

9. What actions might the Commission take to provide better information 
to consumers with hearing loss who obtain phones from sources other 
than their service provider?

    In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and 
Further NPRM, the Commission asked whether the in-store testing 
requirement should be extended to independent retailer outlets not 
owned or operated by service providers, and whether independent 
retailers should be required to offer a customer with hearing loss a 
flexible return policy to ensure that a handset is compatible with the 
customer's hearing aid. Are there any other measures the Commission 
might take to assist consumers who purchase their phones from 
independent retailers in obtaining hearing aid-compatible phones? For 
example, is there a need for disclosure of hearing aid compatibility 
information by third-party online vendors? Commenters should address 
the Commission's authority to adopt these measures and the burdens 
imposed on retailers as well as the benefits for consumers.

Technical Issues

    In this section, the Bureau seeks comment on questions relating to 
technical issues affecting hearing aid compatibility. In particular, 
the Bureau asks about the need for additional measures to facilitate 
acoustic coupling compatibility, as well as the effects of display 
screens, wireless headsets, and simultaneous transmission capabilities 
in handsets. The Bureau also seeks comment on what the Commission can 
do to facilitate better operation of hearing aids and cochlear implants 
with wireless handsets.

10. Are measures needed to facilitate acoustic coupling between 
wireless handsets and hearing aids?

    a. ANSI Standard C63.19 and the Commission's existing wireless 
hearing aid compatibility rules address the compatibility of wireless 
handsets with hearing aids in two respects: (1) RF interference with 
hearing aids operating in acoustic mode and (2) inductive coupling 
capability with hearing aids containing a telecoil. However, other 
obstacles to acoustic coupling compatibility may exist. In particular, 
a Working Group of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry 
Solutions (ATIS), WG-11, is studying issues involving volume control 
and acoustic coupling. The Bureau seeks comment on any measures the 
Commission should take, in addition to the rules regarding RF 
interference reduction, to promote acoustic coupling capability between 
wireless handsets and hearing aids or cochlear implants.
    b. Wireline and cordless phones are subject to technical standards 
and rules regarding volume levels and controls, 47 CFR 68.4. Are 
similar rules feasible and necessary to ensure that wireless phones 
will operate at appropriate volumes to achieve acoustic coupling 
compatibility? If so, what should these rules require? What burdens 
would these requirements impose on manufacturers and service providers?
    c. Is adequate information currently available to consumers and 
hearing aid manufacturers regarding wireless

[[Page 2630]]

phones' volume settings and sound quality? What challenges exist to 
providing such information? For example, to what extent are volume and 
sound quality affected by the network rather than the consumer device? 
Is information about volume and sound quality proprietary to the 
handset manufacturer or service provider? What actions can and should 
the Commission take to promote greater availability of this 
information?
    d. Are there any other measures the Commission should take to 
facilitate acoustic coupling compatibility? For example, wireline 
phones typically emit a magnetic field that may be sensed by some 
hearing aids to trigger an acoustic coupling telephone mode. Wireless 
phones, however, may not emit a magnetic field of similar strength. Do 
differences between wireline and wireless technology mean that certain 
hearing aids are not receiving effective signals to activate special 
acoustic coupling modes for telephone use? If so, are there actions the 
Commission might take to enable such signaling? What would be the costs 
of such measures?

11. Are measures needed to address the effect of display screens on 
hearing aid compatibility?

    In earlier proceedings, concerns have been expressed that the 
display screens on smart phones emit electromagnetic energy that may 
interfere with the operation of hearing aids. In light of ongoing 
experience, are measures needed to address the effects of display 
screens on hearing aid compatibility? Do the measurement procedures 
specified in ANSI Standard C63.19 appropriately account for these 
effects? Might these effects be ameliorated by, for example, 
programming a handset so that the backlighting fades when it is held 
close to an object such as the human ear? The Bureau seeks comment on 
the benefits and costs of regulatory or non-regulatory measures that 
might be appropriate to promote this and other potential technical 
solutions.

12. Do wireless headsets create special issues for hearing aid 
compatibility?

    Consumers are increasingly using Bluetooth and other headset or 
earpiece technologies to communicate over their wireless phones. Does 
the use of these technologies pose special challenges for users of 
hearing aids and cochlear implants? For example, might the headset or 
earpiece create RF interference with the hearing assistance device? Are 
there physical difficulties using a headset or earpiece with certain 
types of hearing aids? What regulatory or non-regulatory measures might 
be appropriate to address these concerns?

13. Are measures needed to address handsets that can transmit 
simultaneously over multiple air interfaces or frequency bands?

    The 2007 revision of ANSI Standard C63.19 does not include a 
detailed method for testing RF interference when a handset is 
simultaneously transmitting over more than one air interface or 
frequency band. Current Commission guidance requires handsets with such 
capability to be tested over each air interface or frequency band 
separately. Until a protocol for testing in these situations has been 
developed, are there other actions the Commission should take?

14. What actions might the Commission take to facilitate better 
interoperability of hearing aids and cochlear implants with handsets?

    a. Interoperability between wireless handsets, on the one hand, and 
hearing aids and cochlear implants on the other involves the 
functioning of two different devices in a single operating system. In 
order to help the Bureau best to understand this system, the Bureau 
encourages commenters to provide information regarding the technical 
operation of hearing aids and cochlear implants. In particular, the 
Bureau seeks information on new and emerging technical advances that 
may affect how hearing aids and cochlear implants interoperate with 
wireless phones.
    b. The Bureau invites public comment on how effectively different 
types of hearing assistance devices operate with wireless handsets. Do 
they generally function as anticipated, or is there a substantial 
amount of uncertainty? Is the functioning different for different types 
of hearing aids? Are cochlear implants different from hearing aids in 
this regard?
    c. Are there actions that the Commission, in coordination with the 
Food and Drug Administration, could take to facilitate the 
dissemination of information about hearing aids and cochlear implants 
to wireless handset manufacturers, service providers, and consumers of 
wireless service?

Innovation, Investment, and Competition

15. What is the state of innovation in solutions to enable people with 
hearing loss to access wireless technology, and do the Commission's 
rules appropriately facilitate and encourage such innovation?

    a. As the number and types of features embedded in smartphones and 
other wireless handsets continue to evolve, new challenges may be posed 
for hearing aid compatibility. For example, as noted above, 
simultaneous transmission capabilities pose challenges for measuring RF 
interference. Are there other emerging or anticipated technological 
developments that may create similar issues? Do the Commission's rules 
create appropriate incentives to consider hearing aid compatibility 
early in the product development cycle, when any concerns can be most 
efficiently addressed? Are there measures the Commission could take 
that would better ensure the early consideration of such issues?
    b. The Commission's rules assume that wireless handsets will 
achieve hearing aid compatibility by meeting an M3 and/or T3 rating 
through features that are built into the handset. Are there other means 
of achieving hearing aid compatibility, either existing or under 
development, that may be more efficient or effective? For example, 
could hearing aid compatibility be achieved through a downloaded 
application? Do the Commission's rules in any way inhibit development 
of such innovative solutions? If so, how might the rules be modified to 
address this without compromising their effectiveness?
    c. Are there other technologies, either in existence or on the 
horizon, that may assist people with hearing loss in using wireless 
technology? Are there technical developments that may create new 
obstacles for people with hearing loss?

16. Do the Commission's rules successfully promote investment and 
competition with respect to hearing aid-compatible wireless handset 
offerings?

    a. What is the nature and extent of competition among device 
manufacturers and service providers with respect to hearing aid-
compatible phones? Is it similar to competition in the handset and 
service markets generally? Is the incentive to invest in features for 
hearing aid-compatible phones comparable to that in the broader handset 
market?
    b. Do the Commission's rules appropriately assign responsibility 
for hearing aid compatibility compliance in cases of joint ventures and 
other complex market arrangements? Is there any need for clarification 
in this regard?

[[Page 2631]]

Ongoing Collaboration

17. What actions should the Commission take to promote ongoing 
collaboration among consumers with hearing loss, the communications 
industry, and the hearing aid industry?

    a. In July 2003, the ATIS Incubator Solutions Program 4 
(AISP.4) (Incubator), was created to investigate methods of enhancing 
interoperability and usability between hearing aids and wireless 
handsets. The Incubator has performed invaluable work in bringing 
together wireless device manufacturers, service providers, and 
consumers to discuss and develop solutions to hearing aid compatibility 
problems and in proposing to the Commission consensus plans to best 
meet the needs of both the industry and consumers with hearing loss. 
The Bureau understands that this body is now approaching the end of its 
institutional life. In the absence of the Incubator, how can the 
Commission best ensure that the industry and consumers will continue 
collaborating to address new technological and market developments in a 
timely manner. Could the Commission's Accessibility and Innovation 
Initiative, described at http://www.broadband.gov/accessibilityandinnovation/, provide support for such collaboration?
    b. The Bureau also seeks comment on how best to promote increased 
collaboration between the communications and hearing aid industries. 
Could the Accessibility and Innovation Initiative be an appropriate 
venue for these conversations as well?

Federal Communications Commission.
Ruth Milkman,
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2011-801 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P