[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76944-76948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30096]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket Nos. 07-250, 10-254: DA 14-1688]


Request for Updated Information and Comment on Wireless Hearing 
Aid Compatibility Regulations

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and 
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau seek updated input to 
better understand the current consumer experience, to explore technical 
or other barriers to the provision of hearing aid compatible devices on 
new wireless technologies, and to consider changes to its rules that 
may be necessary to ensure that wireless handsets used with advanced 
communications services are accessible in light of directives contained 
in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 
(CVAA).

DATES: Effective 30 days from publication in the Federal Register. 
Reply Comments 45 days from publication in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli Johnson, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1395, email [email protected]. 
Bob Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental Affairs

[[Page 76945]]

Bureau, (202) 418-0996, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice, WT Docket Nos. 07-250, 10-254, released November 21, 2014. The 
full text of this document is available for inspection and copying 
during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it 
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at 
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; 
the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 
378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or email [email protected]. Copies of 
the Public Notice also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number WT Docket 
07-250; 10-254. Additionally, the complete item is available on the 
Federal Communications Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

I. Introduction

    1. By this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
(Wireless Bureau) and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
(CGB) request updated information to assess whether the Commission's 
hearing aid compatibility rules for wireless handsets effectively meet 
the needs of individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. Since the 
Wireless Bureau last developed the record on these issues in 2012, a 
number of developments have occurred, including the deployment of LTE 
networks and LTE only handsets, wider use of and reliance on Wi-Fi 
calling, increasing consumer demand for data-centric mobile services on 
wireless devices, and continued growth in the number of wireless-only 
households.
    2. The Wireless Bureau and CGB therefore seek updated information 
to better understand the current consumer experience, to explore 
technical or other barriers to the provision of hearing aid compatible 
devices on new wireless technologies, and to consider recommending 
changes to the Commission's rules that may be necessary to ensure that 
wireless handsets used with advanced communications services are 
accessible in light of directives contained in the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) (CVAA, Pub. L. 111-
260). The Commission seeks to refresh the record on two principal 
issues. First, should the Commission revise the hearing aid 
compatibility requirement to apply in a technologically neutral way to 
all mobile wireless devices that can be used for voice communications? 
Second, should the Commission consider moving away from the fractional 
compliance regime that exists today and implement a requirement that 
all mobile wireless devices must comply with the hearing aid 
compatibility rules?

II. Background

    3. In 2003, the Commission adopted rules to ensure that all 
wireless handset manufacturers and service providers offer consumers a 
selection of handsets that are compatible with hearing aids. Under 
these rules, which were amended in 2008, manufacturers and wireless 
service providers are currently required to meet the Commission's 
wireless hearing aid compatibility standards only to the extent that 
handsets are associated with digital CMRS networks that ``offer real-
time, two-way switched voice or data service that is interconnected 
with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching 
facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish 
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.'' These rules require mobile 
service providers and handset manufacturers to offer only a certain 
number of digital wireless handset models that are hearing aid 
compatible through reductions in radio frequency (RF) interference and 
through an internal capacity for inductive coupling with a telecoil.
    4. In the 2007 Hearing Aid Compatibility NPRM, (22 FR 292, November 
7, 2007) the Commission sought comment on whether to apply the hearing 
aid compatibility rules to wireless handsets that may fall outside the 
scope of covered CMRS, including handsets that offer voice services on 
non-cellular unlicensed Wi-Fi networks. In the 2010 Further NPRM, (75 
FR 77781, December 14, 2010) the Commission proposed to apply hearing 
aid compatibility requirements to ``all customer equipment used to 
provide wireless voice communications over any type of network among 
members of the public or a substantial portion of the public via a 
built-in speaker where the equipment is typically held to the ear, so 
long as meeting hearing aid compatibility standards is technologically 
feasible and would not increase costs to an extent that would preclude 
successful marketing.''
    5. Subsequent to the release of the 2010 Further NPRM, the CVAA 
amended the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act (HAC Act) (HAC Act, Pub. L. 
100-394) in several relevant respects. First, the CVAA defined the 
class of equipment that is generally required to be hearing aid 
compatible to include, in addition to telephones, ``all customer 
premises equipment used with advanced communications services that is 
designed to provide 2-way voice communication via a built-in speaker 
intended to be held to the ear in a manner functionally equivalent to a 
telephone.'' The CVAA defines ``[a]dvanced communications services'' to 
include, among other things, interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP 
services. Second, the CVAA defines ``telephones'' for purposes of the 
public mobile and private radio services exemptions to include 
``telephones and other customer premises equipment used in whole or in 
part with'' various wireless communications services, including 
unlicensed services that are functionally equivalent to licensed 
services. Third, Congress directed the Commission to reassess the 
appropriateness of existing exemptions using a four-part test. Finally, 
in implementing the hearing aid compatibility requirements applicable 
to customer premises equipment (CPE) used with advanced communications 
services, Congress directed the Commission to ``use appropriate 
timetables or benchmarks to the extent necessary (1) due to technical 
feasibility, or (2) to ensure the marketability or availability of new 
technologies to users.''
    6. Shortly after passage of the CVAA, the Wireless Bureau released 
a Public Notice seeking comments on the effect that the new legislation 
might have, if any, on the hearing aid compatibility rules that had 
been proposed in the 2010 Further NPRM. In December 2010, the Wireless 
Bureau issued a second Public Notice to initiate a comprehensive review 
of the wireless hearing aid compatibility regulations (2010 Review PN), 
(76 FR 2625, December 28, 2010) including reassessment of deployment 
benchmarks and consideration of whether all wireless handsets should be 
required to meet hearing aid compatibility standards. Subsequently, in 
November 2012, due to intervening market, technical, and regulatory 
developments since the 2010 Review PN, the Wireless Bureau sought 
updated and additional comment on these matters (2012 Refresh PN), (77 
FR 70407, November 26, 2012).

III. Request for Comment

A. Applying the Rules in a Technologically Neutral Manner

    7. Section 20.19 of the Commission's rules currently imposes 
hearing aid

[[Page 76946]]

compatibility requirements based on the underlying network technology, 
not on a device's functionality. Consumers, however, may focus more on 
a particular handset's functionality than on the network technology 
that it utilizes. Additionally, a technologically neutral approach may 
encourage innovation in the design of hearing aid compatible mobile 
wireless devices. The Wireless Bureau and CGB renew the Commission's 
request for comment on whether to require compatibility in a 
technologically neutral manner.
    8. To keep pace with consumer expectations and the evolution of 
wireless technologies, the Wireless Bureau and CGB seek comment on 
whether consumers are aware that the hearing aid compatibility rules 
currently apply only to digital CMRS services with certain 
functionalities and, relatedly, whether section 20.19 should apply to 
all wireless handsets, regardless of the service, frequency, or 
technology with which they are used. In other words, if a wireless 
handset includes a built-in speaker and is typically held to the ear in 
a manner functionally equivalent to a telephone, then should the 
hearing aid compatibility requirements apply? If the Commission were to 
take this course of action, how should it define ``functionally 
equivalent''? What would be the costs and benefits of revising section 
20.19 along these lines--for handset manufacturers, service providers, 
hearing aid manufacturers, and consumers? The Wireless Bureau and CGB 
seek comment on whether this approach would be more consistent with 
consumer expectations, especially the expectations of persons with 
hearing loss, and if so, why.
    9. The Wireless Bureau and CGB note that amended rules could cover, 
among other things, handsets that operate over Wi-Fi systems and 
private internal networks. In light of this potential scope, the 
Wireless Bureau and CGB seek comment on whether the Commission should 
consider applying the hearing aid compatibility rules to handsets and 
other CPE used for wireless voice communications regardless of whether 
they are interconnected with the public switched telephone network 
(PSTN). Similarly, should the rules apply to other packet-based modes 
of voice access such as Voice over LTE (VoLTE) that may not use an in-
network switching facility? How would amending the hearing aid 
compatibility rules in this manner affect a consumer's ability to use 
his or her device in a variety of situations, such as for communicating 
in a moving vehicle (which requires access to multiple base stations), 
in a Wi-Fi hot-spot, or through a satellite? Additionally, should the 
Commission expand the hearing aid compatibility rules to include 
handsets and CPE used solely over internal networks?
    10. The CVAA directs the Commission to consider technical 
feasibility, marketability, and the availability of new technologies in 
connection with its hearing aid compatibility rules. Thus, the Wireless 
Bureau and CGB seek comment on how difficult it would be for handsets 
that offer voice communication capability but may not presently be 
subject to section 20.19 to comply with a hearing aid compatibility 
technical standard, and whether devices used primarily or exclusively 
on internal networks pose unique technical challenges. Could 
manufacturers and service providers achieve compliance for these 
devices in a relatively short period of time? Are there technical 
impediments or other considerations of which the Commission should be 
aware? If there are technical impediments or other considerations, what 
are they and how long would it take for manufacturers and service 
providers to overcome them? How much lead time would manufacturers need 
in order to come into compliance and what would be the costs of 
complying?
    11. Along these same lines, do testing laboratories have the 
equipment and software needed to test the compatibility of handsets 
that offer voice communication capability but may not be presently 
subject to section 20.19? Could laboratories upgrade existing equipment 
to test devices that operate on other interfaces, or would they need to 
purchase new equipment and software? What are the costs of updating 
existing equipment and software or purchasing new equipment and 
software?
    12. Would technical impediments, testing costs, or other challenges 
support exempting certain technologies or services from the rules, 
either indefinitely or for a specified period? If so, what technologies 
or services would merit an exemption and why? What impact would 
exemptions have on people with hearing loss? What standard should the 
Commission utilize to determine if a technology or service should be 
exempted? Finally, how frequently should the Commission review such 
exemptions?

B. Fractional Deployment Benchmarks

    13. In enacting the HAC Act, Congress found that individuals with 
hearing loss should have access to the telecommunications network ``to 
the fullest extent made possible by technology and medical science.'' 
Likewise, the CVAA directs the Commission to adopt rules that expand 
consumer access to hearing aid compatible handsets in line with 
advanced communication technologies. The Commission's existing hearing 
aid compatibility rules, however, require covered handset manufacturers 
and service providers to achieve compliance only for a percentage of 
the total number of handset models that they offer. These fractional 
deployment benchmarks have been in place for a number of years and they 
have remained static, despite significant progress among certain 
manufacturers in achieving compliance. Moreover, the Wireless Bureau 
and CGB note the increasing trend among consumers to reside in wireless 
only households and rely exclusively on wireless services for 
communications. In such households, wireless handsets may be the only 
way for consumers to contact essential services, such as 911 emergency 
services. Given the evolution in wireless technology and handset 
manufacturing, and evolving consumer expectations and use, the Wireless 
Bureau and CGB seek comment on whether the current fractional 
deployment approach effectively meets the communication needs of people 
with hearing loss.
    14. The Wireless Bureau and CGB renew the Commission's request for 
comment on how consumers with hearing loss would benefit if all newly 
manufactured handsets were hearing aid compatible--i.e., have ratings 
of M3 and T3 or better. For example, to what extent would this improve 
the ability of consumers to select phones that meet their communication 
needs and reduce consumer confusion when shopping at retail 
establishments? To the extent that consumers currently have difficulty 
finding handsets that work effectively with their hearing aids or 
implants, would this change meaningfully address the difficulty? Or, by 
contrast, are consumers able to find hearing aid compatible devices 
(i.e., devices with ratings of M3 and T3 or better) without difficulty, 
but are discovering that many devices do not work effectively with 
hearing aids or implants notwithstanding compliance with the 
Commission's rules?
    15. To what extent would requiring compliance for all handsets make 
it easier for consumers with hearing loss to purchase handsets not just 
from manufacturers and service providers but from distributors, third-
party vendors, kiosks, and Web sites? The Wireless Bureau and CGB note 
that, in the past, consumers have requested an in-store

[[Page 76947]]

testing requirement for independent retailers. Would expanding the 
hearing aid compatibility requirement to all handsets render this 
request moot? Given the increasing number of wireless-only households, 
to what extent would this change improve access to emergency services 
for individuals with hearing loss? The Wireless Bureau and CGB seek 
comment on these issues and on other ways consumers with hearing loss 
could benefit if all future handsets were hearing aid compatible.
    16. The Wireless Bureau and CGB also seek comment on challenges 
that may be associated with ensuring that all future handsets are 
compliant. Are there any technologies for which this would be 
technically infeasible? How much lead time would manufacturers need to 
achieve this, while ensuring the marketability and availability of 
their new technologies? Does the transition away from GSM and towards 
VoLTE remove some technological hurdles that slowed progress towards 
making all handsets hearing aid compatible? Commenters advocating 
maintaining the existing benchmarks should clearly explain why their 
position is consistent with the HAC Act and the CVAA, and also why this 
decision would not adversely impact persons who are deaf or hard of 
hearing. Are there some wireless technologies for which the Commission 
should grant exemptions from an all-inclusive rule, because of their 
nascent status or for other reasons? Commenters advocating specific 
exemptions should clearly state the basis for any exemption, its 
expected impact on the affected population, whether it should be 
temporary or permanent, and if temporary, whether and how frequently it 
should be reevaluated by the Commission.
    17. Finally, the Wireless Bureau and CGB seek comment on the costs 
and benefits associated with requiring all handsets to be hearing aid 
compatible. In particular, would this change eliminate the need for a 
number of the compliance requirements associated with the present 
fractional approach, such as annual status reports on hearing aid 
compatibility, the product refresh rule, and the ``different levels of 
functionality'' rule? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of 
discontinuing these requirements for manufacturers, service providers 
and consumers? Are there other compliance requirements that could be 
discontinued? Would the potential reduction in compliance burdens 
provide a particular benefit or cost to discrete segments of the 
industry, such as smaller wireless providers? Would smaller providers 
benefit from the availability of a wider variety of the latest handset 
models? The Wireless Bureau and CGB note that some manufacturers now 
deploy hearing aid compatible handsets in a higher percentage than is 
required under the rules. What economies of scale and other benefits 
would accrue to manufacturers who design all of their handsets to be 
hearing aid compatible? The Wireless Bureau and CGB generally seek 
comment on other ways covered handset manufacturers and service 
providers could benefit if all wireless handsets were hearing aid 
compatible, as well as any obstacles to achieving this result.

IV. Procedural Matters

    18. Interested parties may file comments within 30 days of the 
publication of this document in the Federal Register and reply comments 
within 45 days of the publication of this Public Notice in the Federal 
Register. All filings should refer to WT Docket Nos. 07-250 and 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 email. To get filing instructions for email comments, 
filers should send an email to [email protected], and should include the 
following words in the body of the message, ``get form your email 
address.'' 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.
    19. 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 the Commission continues 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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.
    20. One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by 
email 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 for paper filings), to the Commission's duplicating contractor, 
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., at [email protected] or (202) 488-5563 
(facsimile).
    21. Copies of the document 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 
email 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.
    22. To request information in accessible formats (computer 
diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to 
[email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).


[[Page 76948]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Chad Breckinridge,
Associate Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2014-30096 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P