[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5152-5177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00414]



[[Page 5152]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 23-388; FCC 23-108; FR ID 195641]


Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(``Commission'') tentatively concludes that requiring 100% of all 
handset models to be certified as hearing aid-compatible is an 
achievable object and seeks comment on revising the definition of 
hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth connectivity technology. 
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on a number of implementation 
proposals related to this tentative conclusion.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before February 26, 
2024, and reply comments on or before March 11, 2024. Written comments 
on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection 
requirements must be submitted by the public, the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before March 26, 
2024. Written comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) in this document must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFA and must be submitted by the 
public on or before February 26, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 23-388, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Filing, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), please send an email to [email protected] or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this 
proceeding, contact Eli Johnson, [email protected], of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure Policy 
Division, (202) 418-1395. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information requirements contained in 
this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams 
at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in WT Docket No. 23-388; FCC 23-108, 
adopted December 13, 2023, and released on December 14, 2023. The full 
text of the document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-108A1.pdf. The complete text of this document 
is also available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 45 L Street NE, Room 
1.150, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 
as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact 
of the rule and policy changes contained in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments 
must be by the deadlines for comments on this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking indicated in the DATES section of this document and must 
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed in WT Docket No. 23-388.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains proposed modified 
information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. If 
the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection 
requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal 
Register inviting the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget to comment on the information collection requirements. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how it might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.
    Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, then the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex

[[Page 5153]]

parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f), or for which the Commission 
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires 
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary 
of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that 
all Americans, including those with disabilities, are able to access 
communications services on an equal basis. The recent pandemic 
highlighted just how important equal access to communications services 
is for individual well-being as well as the day-to-day functioning of 
American society. The Commission's commitment to ensuring accessibility 
for all Americans includes ensuring those with hearing loss--more than 
37.5 million Americans--have equal access to communications services as 
required by section 710 of the Communications Act. This section directs 
the Commission to facilitate compatibility between wireless handset 
models and hearing aids. In fulfilling this statutory directive, the 
Commission is committed to ensuring that its wireless hearing aid 
compatibility provisions keep pace both with the ways handset models 
couple with hearing devices and requiring all handset models to be 
hearing aid compatible. It is with these objectives in mind that the 
Commission initiates today's rulemaking.
    2. Specifically, the Commission issues this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to develop a record with respect to a proposal submitted to 
the Commission by the Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) Task Force on how 
the Commission can achieve its long held goal of a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility benchmark for all handset models offered in the United 
States or imported for use in the United States. The HAC Task Force is 
an independent organization composed of groups who represent the 
interests of people with hearing loss, wireless service providers, and 
wireless handset manufacturers that was formed for the purpose of 
reporting to the Commission on whether requiring 100% of all handset 
models to be certified as hearing aid compatible is an achievable 
objective. The Task Force's Final Report represents a consensus 
proposal for how the Commission can achieve this objective. The 
Commission proposes to adopt the Task Force's proposal with certain 
modifications in order to ensure that all handset models provide full 
accessibility for those with hearing loss while at the same time 
ensuring that its rules do not discourage or impair the development of 
improved technology.
    3. Specifically, the Commission tentatively concludes that 
requiring 100% of all handset models to be certified as hearing aid 
compatible is an achievable objective under the factors set forth in 
section 710(e) of the Communications Act. As part of this 
determination, the Commission seeks comment on adopting the more 
flexible ``forward-looking'' definition of hearing aid compatibility 
that the HAC Task Force recommends. This determination also includes a 
proposal to broaden the current definition of hearing aid compatibility 
to include Bluetooth connectivity technology and to require at least 
15% of offered handset models to connect to hearing aids through 
Bluetooth technology as an alternative to or in addition to a telecoil. 
The Commission seeks comment on the Bluetooth technology that it should 
utilize to meet this requirement and how it should incorporate this 
requirement into its wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.
    4. Further, the Commission explores ways to reach the 100% 
compatibility benchmark, and it proposes a 24-month transition period 
for handset manufacturers; a 30-month transition period for nationwide 
service providers; and a 42-month transition period for non-nationwide 
service providers to transition to a 100% hearing aid-compatible 
handset standard for all handset models offered for sale in the United 
States or imported for use in the United States. The Commission seeks 
comment on certain implementation proposals and updates to the wireless 
hearing aid compatibility rules related to these proposals. These 
proposals include requirements for hearing aid compatibility settings 
in handset models, revised website posting, labeling and disclosure 
rules, and revised reporting requirements along with seeking comment on 
renaming its Sec.  20.19 rules to better reflect what this section 
covers.
    5. The Commission's proposals are based on the results of 
collaborative efforts of members of the HAC Task Force who worked 
together over a period of years to reach a consensus proposal on how 
best to ensure that all new handset models meet the needs of those with 
hearing loss. The revisions that the Commission proposes today to its 
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules would ensure greater access to 
wireless communication services for Americans with hearing loss and the 
ability of these consumers to consider the latest and most innovative 
handset models for their needs.

II. Background

    6. Over time, the Commission has progressively increased the 
deployment benchmarks for hearing aid-compatible wireless handset 
models. In 2016, the Commission reconfirmed its commitment to pursuing 
100% hearing aid compatibility to the extent achievable. The 2016 HAC 
Order supported this objective by increasing the number of hearing aid-
compatible handset models that handset manufacturers and service 
providers were required to offer by adopting two new handset model 
deployment benchmarks. After a two-year transition for handset 
manufacturers, and with additional compliance time for service 
providers, the then-applicable handset model deployment benchmarks were 
increased to 66%. After a five-year transition period for handset 
manufacturers, and with additional compliance time for service 
providers, the 66% handset model deployment benchmarks were increased 
to 85%.
    7. In this same order, the Commission established a process for 
determining whether a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement is 
``achievable.'' The Commission stated that it wanted to continue the 
``productive collaboration between stakeholders and other interested 
parties'' that had been part of the process for enacting the two new 
handset model deployment benchmarks. The Commission noted the 
stakeholders' proposal to form a task force independent of the 
Commission to ``issue a report to the Commission helping to inform'' 
the agency ``on whether 100 percent hearing aid compatibility is 
achievable.'' Part of this process included determining whether the 
hearing aid compatibility requirements should be modified to

[[Page 5154]]

include alternative technologies such as Bluetooth. The Commission 
stated that it was deferring action on compliance processes, legacy 
models, burden reduction, the appropriate transition periods, and other 
implementation issues until after it received the HAC Task Force's 
Final Report on achievability. The Commission specified that it 
intended to decide by 2024 whether to require 100% of covered wireless 
handset models to be hearing aid compatible. The Commission indicated 
that it would make its determination as to whether this goal is 
achievable by relying on the factors identified in section 710(e) of 
the Communications Act. After the 2016 HAC Order was released, 
sstakeholders convened the independent Task Force and filed progress 
updates with the Commission.
    8. In 2018, the Commission imposed new website posting requirements 
and took steps to reduce regulatory burden on service providers by 
allowing them to file a streamlined annual certification under penalty 
of perjury stating their compliance with the Commission's hearing aid 
compatibility requirements. As part of the 2018 HAC Order, the 
Commission noted that, in the 100% hearing aid compatibility docket, it 
was considering broader changes to the hearing aid compatibility rules 
that may be appropriate in the event it required 100% of covered 
handset models to be hearing aid compatible. The Commission indicated 
that the website, record retention, and certification requirements it 
was adopting as part of the 2018 HAC Order would remain in place unless 
and until the Commission took further action in the 100% hearing aid 
compatibility docket and that its decisions did not ``prejudge any 
further steps we may take to modify our reporting rules in that 
proceeding.''
    9. In February 2021, the Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard 
for determining hearing aid compatibility. The 2019 ANSI Standard was 
to replace the existing 2011 ANSI Standard after a two-year transition 
period that was set to end on June 5, 2023. Like the 2011 ANSI 
Standard, the 2019 ANSI Standard addresses acoustic and inductive 
coupling between wireless handset models and hearing aids but uses 
heightened testing methodologies intended to ensure handset models 
offer a better listening experience for consumers. In addition, the 
2019 ANSI Standard includes for the first time a volume control 
requirement. The standard specifically references the TIA 5050 Standard 
that addresses volume control requirements for wireless handset models. 
As part of the order adopting the 2019 ANSI Standard and the related 
TIA 5050 Standard, the Commission reiterated its goal ``to continue on 
the path to making 100% of wireless handsets hearing aid compatible.''
    10. In December 2022, the HAC Task Force filed its Final Report 
with the Commission, which makes five central recommendations. The 
report recommends that the Commission: (1) adopt a more flexible, 
forward-looking definition of hearing aid compatibility; (2) adjust 
current technical standards; (3) allow for exploration of changes in 
coupling technology (e.g., by additional exploration of Bluetooth and 
alternative technologies); (4) allow reliance on information linked in 
the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse; and (5) set a 90-day shot 
clock for the resolution of petitions for waiver of the hearing aid 
compatibility requirements.
    11. The Final Report also recommends that the Commission grant the 
volume control waiver request that the Alliance for Telecommunications 
Industry Solutions (ATIS) filed the same day that the HAC Task Force 
filed its Final Report. In its waiver request, ATIS asserted that the 
testing performed by the Task Force revealed that the TIA 5050 Standard 
for volume control was fundamentally flawed because it required the use 
of a pulsed-noise signal, which ATIS claimed was insufficiently voice-
like to be compatible with many modern codecs. ATIS also stated that 
the standard's use of a pulsed-noise signal resulted in none of the 
handsets that it tested passing the standard. As a result, ATIS 
requested that the Commission allow handsets to be certified as hearing 
aid compatible using a modified volume control testing methodology.
    12. On March 23, 2023, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) 
released a Public Notice seeking comment on the HAC Task Force's Final 
Report. The Public Notice sought comment generally on the report's 
recommendations and whether they furthered the Commission's goal of 
attaining 100% hearing aid compatibility. The Public Notice also asked 
whether the report's recommendations were consistent with the policy 
goals the Commission has historically outlined in its hearing aid 
compatibility-related proceedings and with the Commission's statutory 
duties under section 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 
The Commission received three comments and three replies in response to 
the Public Notice.
    13. On April 14, 2023, WTB released an order extending the 
transition period for exclusive use of the 2019 ANSI Standard from June 
5, 2023 to December 5, 2023. WTB took this step to ensure that handset 
manufacturers could continue to certify new handset models with hearing 
aid compatibility features under the 2011 ANSI Standard while the 
Commission considered ATIS's waiver petition. WTB stated that 
continuing to allow new handset models to be certified as hearing aid 
compatible is essential as the Commission moves to its goal of all 
handset models being hearing aid compatible.
    14. On September 29, 2023, WTB conditionally granted in part ATIS's 
request for a limited waiver of the 2019 ANSI Standard's volume control 
testing requirements. Under the terms of the waiver, a handset model 
may be certified as hearing aid compatible under the 2019 ANSI Standard 
if it meets the volume control testing requirements described in the 
order as well as all other aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard. This 
waiver will remain in place for two years to allow time for the 
development of a new, full volume control standard and for its 
incorporation into the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.

III. Discussion

    15. Below, the Commission tentatively concludes that a 100% hearing 
aid compatibility requirement for wireless handset models offered in 
the United States or imported for use in the United States is an 
achievable goal. The Commission seeks comment on ways to achieve this 
goal, including seeking comment on a more flexible, forward-looking 
definition of hearing aid compatibility, as recommended by the HAC Task 
Force. In addition, consistent with the HAC Task Force's 
recommendation, the Commission proposes to broaden the definition of 
hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth connectivity technology. 
The Commission proposes to implement this revised definition by 
requiring at least 15% of offered handset models to connect to hearing 
aids through Bluetooth technology as an alternative to or in addition 
to a telecoil. The Commission also seeks comment on the Bluetooth 
technology that it should utilize to meet this requirement and how it 
should adopt this requirement into its wireless hearing aid 
compatibility rules. The Commission furthers explore ways to reach the 
100% compatibility benchmark as well as the appropriate transition 
period for reaching that benchmark. In addition, the Commission seeks 
comment on implementation of these proposals and

[[Page 5155]]

updates to the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules, including 
proposed requirements for hearing aid compatibility settings in handset 
models, updates to website posting, labeling and disclosure, and 
revised reporting requirements. Finally, the Commission seeks comment 
on renaming its hearing aid compatibility rules to reflect more 
accurately what those rules cover.

A. Achievability of 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility Under the Section 
710(e) Factors

    16. In the 2016 HAC Order, the Commission stated that by 2024, it 
would make a determination of whether 100% hearing aid compatibility is 
achievable based on the factors identified in section 710(e) of the 
Communications Act. The Commission noted that commenters recommend that 
the Commission use a section 710 analysis (as opposed to the 
achievability requirements of sections 716 and 718) to determine 
whether a 100% standard is achievable. The Commission found that this 
approach was consistent with the analysis it undertook previously when 
adopting modifications to the then-current deployment benchmarks. The 
HAC Task Force's Final Report did not directly address achievability 
under the section 710(e) factors, and the Commission did not receive 
comments addressing these factors in response to WTB's Public Notice 
seeking comment on the HAC Task Force's Final Report.
    17. The Commission tentatively concludes that requiring 100% of all 
handset models to be certified as hearing aid compatible is an 
achievable objective under the factors in section 710(e) of the 
Communications Act. Section 710(e) requires the Commission, in 
establishing regulations to help ensure access to telecommunications 
services by those with hearing loss, to ``consider costs and benefits 
to all telephone users, including persons with and without hearing 
loss,'' and to ``ensure that regulations adopted to implement [the 
Hearing Aid Compatibility Act] encourage the use of currently available 
technology and do not discourage or impair the development of improved 
technology.'' It further directs the Commission to use appropriate 
timetables and benchmarks to the extent necessary due to technical 
feasibility or to ensure marketability or availability of new 
technologies to users.
    18. The Commission tentatively concludes that the benefits to all 
handset users of adopting a 100% compliance standard for handset models 
offered in the United States or imported for use in the United States 
would exceed the costs. The Commission anticipates that adopting a 100% 
compliance standard would provide significant benefits to those with 
hearing loss by ensuring that a greater share of handset models for 
purchase are hearing aid compatible. At the same time, the Commission 
does not expect that adopting the 100% standard would impose undue 
burdens on manufacturers or service providers, as the vast majority of 
new handset models are already hearing aid compatible today.
    19. The HAC Task Force's Final Report found that, as of August 
2022, about 93% of wireless handset models offered by manufacturers 
were already hearing aid compatible, which exceeds the benchmarks in 
the Commission's current rules. The Commission does not anticipate 
large costs for those with or without hearing loss if non-compliant 
models are discontinued, considering the overwhelming share of wireless 
handset models are already hearing aid compatible. Given the existing 
availability of hearing aid-compatible handset models, the Commission 
seeks comment on its tentative conclusion and on any specific burden or 
cost that a 100% compliance standard would impose on manufacturers and 
service providers. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to 
which a 100% compliance standard would reduce the affordability of 
lowest-cost handset models and adversely affect low-income persons.
    20. In addition, the Commission tentatively concludes that adopting 
a 100% compliance standard would encourage the use of currently 
available technology and would not discourage or impair the development 
of improved technology. Handset manufacturers, service providers, and 
consumer organizations that compose the HAC Task Force all unanimously 
support the Task Force's consensus proposal for achieving 100% 
compliance, and the Task Force's Final Report provides no indication or 
evidence that adopting the new standard would discourage the use of 
currently available technology or the development of improved 
technology. To the contrary, the Task Force's Final Report suggests 
that revising the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules to permit 
the use of Bluetooth as a coupling method would better align the 
Commission's requirements with current consumer preferences, as 
Bluetooth has become an increasingly popular method for pairing hearing 
aid devices to wireless handsets. The Commission seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion.
    21. Further, with respect to its tentative conclusion regarding the 
impact of a 100% requirement on technology, the Commission specifically 
seeks comment on whether allowing Bluetooth coupling as a way to 
achieve hearing aid compatibility or as an alternative or replacement 
for telecoil coupling would satisfy relevant statutory criteria. To 
permit the use of Bluetooth coupling as an alternative or as a 
replacement for telecoil coupling, is it sufficient for the Commission 
to find that Bluetooth coupling meets the achievability factors of 
section 710(e)? If so, commenters should explain how Bluetooth coupling 
meets the requirements of section 710(e) or why this method does not 
meet these statutory requirements. Are there other statutory 
requirements that Bluetooth coupling must meet in order for the 
Commission to allow its use as an alternative or replacement for 
telecoil coupling? If so, commenters should explain why Bluetooth 
coupling meets or does not meet these other statutory requirements.
    22. Finally, the Commission tentatively concludes that adopting a 
100% compliance standard after a reasonable transition period meets the 
requirements of section 710(e) that the Commission ``use appropriate 
timetables or benchmarks to the extent necessary (1) due to technical 
feasibility, or (2) to ensure the marketability or availability of new 
technologies to users.'' The transition periods that the Commission 
proposes below will expand access to hearing aid-compatible handset 
models while giving manufacturers and service providers sufficient 
notice and lead time to build hearing aid compatibilities into all 
future handset models rather than just a percentage of handset models. 
The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. Do 
commenters agree with the Commission's analysis and on the costs and 
benefits of its proposed finding? Given the current number of handset 
manufacturers who already include hearing aid compatibility in all of 
their handset models, would the Commission's finding adversely impact 
the ability of handset manufacturers to innovate and create new 
products? If so, how would shifting to a 100% requirement curtail 
innovation? Similarly, would requiring hearing aid compatibility in all 
handset models impose an undue burden on those handset manufacturers 
who currently do not meet this mark, or otherwise create disruptions in 
the competitive marketplace?

[[Page 5156]]

B. Definition of Wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility

    23. As a threshold question for implementing a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement, the Commission seeks comment on the 
appropriate definition of hearing aid compatibility for wireless 
handsets. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on expanding the 
definition of hearing aid compatibility to reflect changing coupling 
technologies. First, the Commission seeks comment on adopting the HAC 
Task Force's recommended ``flexible'' hearing aid compatibility 
definition. Next, the Commission proposes to expand the definition to 
include Bluetooth connectivity and to require a certain percentage of 
offered handset models to include Bluetooth connectivity technology. As 
part of that proposal, the Commission seeks comment on which Bluetooth 
technologies it should recognize and how it should adopt these 
technologies into its rules.
1. HAC Task Force Recommended Hearing Aid Compatibility Definition
    24. Background. The Commission's existing wireless hearing aid 
compatibility rules do not contain an express definition of hearing aid 
compatibility in the definitional section. Rather, the Commission's 
rules provide that a handset model is considered to be hearing aid 
compatible if it has been certified as such under a Commission-approved 
technical standard that the Commission has incorporated by reference 
into the rules through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. As of 
December 5, 2023, a new handset model can be certified as hearing aid 
compatible only if it meets the acoustic and inductive coupling 
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and applicable volume control 
requirements.
    25. The HAC Task Force recommends that the Commission define 
hearing aid compatibility in a more flexible manner than whether a 
handset model merely meets the criteria of a technical certification 
standard that the Commission has incorporated by reference into its 
rules. Specifically, the Task Force ``encourages the Commission to 
adopt a forward-looking, flexible definition'' of hearing aid 
compatibility ``that reflects changing technologies while abiding by 
Congress's direction in the statute.'' Specifically, the Task Force 
recommends that a hearing aid-compatible handset model be defined as a 
handset model that: (1) has an internal means for compatibility; (2) 
meets established technical standards for hearing aid coupling or 
compatibility; and (3) is usable.
    26. In the Public Notice, WTB sought comment on whether the Task 
Force's proposed revised definition of hearing aid compatibility would 
be consistent with the Commission's goal of ensuring that consumers 
have access to handset models that are fully hearing aid compatible. 
WTB asked whether the proposed definition would allow the Commission to 
determine hearing aid compatibility with certainty and whether a 
definition that makes general reference to ``established technical 
standards for hearing aid coupling or compatibility'' would be 
consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or other legal 
requirements. In response to the Public Notice, the Consumer Technology 
Association (CTA) expresses support for the Task Force's proposed 
definition, arguing that a more flexible approach encourages innovation 
while ensuring objective testing standards. In reply comments, the Task 
Force states that the definition of hearing aid compatibility should 
incorporate current and alternative hearing aid compatibility 
technologies.
    27. HAC Task Force Definition. The Commission seeks comment on the 
HAC Task Force proposed definition of hearing aid compatibility, 
including whether it could adopt the definition in a manner that is 
consistent with the statutory requirements of section 710(c) of the 
Communications Act. Section 710(c) provides that ``[t]he Commission 
shall establish or approve such technical standards as are required to 
enforce this section.'' Further, this section states that ``[a] 
telephone or other customer premises equipment that is compliant with 
relevant technical standards developed through a public participation 
process and in consultation with interested consumer stakeholders . . . 
will be considered hearing aid compatible for purposes of this 
section.'' It also states that ``[t]he Commission shall consult with 
the public, including people with hearing loss, in establishing or 
approving such technical standards.'' Finally, this section states that 
``[t]he Commission shall remain the final arbiter as to whether the 
standards meet the requirements of this section.''
    28. Is the more flexible definition of hearing aid compatibility 
that the Task Force proposes consistent with section 710(c)? Does 
section 710(c) require the Commission to continue to define hearing aid 
compatibility through technical standards that the Commission 
incorporates by reference into its rules or does it permit the 
Commission to recognize technical standards that industry and consumers 
are using for hearing aid compatibility without adopting those 
standards through a rulemaking process? Commenters should provide a 
detailed analysis of why their approach is consistent with statutory 
requirements, including why the commenter's proposal is more consistent 
with the public interest than the Commission's current approach. This 
analysis should also explain the costs and benefits of the commenter's 
proposed approach versus the Commission's current approach.
    29. In adopting technical standards into its hearing aid 
compatibility rules, the Commission has relied historically on 
standards that were developed by organizations composed of handset 
manufacturers, wireless service providers, and, in some cases, groups 
that represent consumers with hearing loss who, through a consensus-
driven process, create or revise technical standards. The standards 
development process does not necessarily include an opportunity for 
members of the public to participate in the initial creation of new 
technical standards. Once these technical standards bodies have 
developed a new standard, they petition the Commission to adopt the new 
standard into the hearing aid compatibility rules. The Commission 
accomplishes this task in compliance with the APA and Communications 
Act through notice and comment rulemaking that allows the Commission to 
meet public participation requirements.
    30. The HAC Task Force recommends, however, that the Commission 
adopt a more forward-looking definition of hearing aid compatibility 
that would allow for the express incorporation of alternative and 
innovative technologies that can enable compatibility between handset 
models and hearing aid devices. As stated above, the Task Force 
proposes that the Commission define a hearing aid-compatible handset 
model as a handset model that: (1) has an internal means for 
compatibility; (2) meets established technical standards for hearing 
aid coupling or compatibility; and (3) is usable. The Commission seeks 
comment on each part of the HAC Task Force's proposed definition of 
hearing aid compatibility, as discussed below.
    31. ``Internal Means of Compatibility.'' The Task Force recommends 
that the Commission define an ``internal means of compatibility'' to 
mean that ``the capability must be provided as an integral part of the 
phone, rather than through the use of add-on components that 
significantly enlarge or alter the

[[Page 5157]]

shape or weight of the phone as compared to other phones offered by the 
manufacturer.'' The Commission seeks comment on this aspect of the HAC 
Task Force's proposed definition of hearing aid compatibility. As the 
Task Force notes, its proposed definition of ``internal means of 
compatibility'' is based on language from the 2003 HAC Order. This 
Order recognized that section 710(b)(1)(B) of the Act refers to 
providing for internal means for effective use with hearing aids. The 
Commission interpreted this to mean that the capability must be 
provided as an integral part of the handset model, rather than through 
the use of add-on components that significantly enlarge or alter the 
shape or weight of the handset model as compared to other handset 
models offered by manufacturers. Commenters supporting or opposing this 
part of the HAC Task Force's proposed definition of hearing aid 
compatibility should explain why they support or oppose this part of 
the definition and whether it is consistent with the Commission's 
recognition of a possible Bluetooth coupling standard. Is this part of 
the Task Force's proposed definition clear and can it be applied 
effectively by testing organizations? Does it include the types of 
connectivity components that are desirable to include, and exclude 
those that are undesirable to include?
    32. ``Meets Established Technical Standards.'' The Commission seeks 
comment on the ``meets established technical standards for hearing aid 
coupling or compatibility'' portion of the HAC Task Force's proposed 
definition. With respect to this portion of the definition, the Task 
Force states that ``[a]ny established technical standard for hearing 
aid coupling should be interoperable, non-proprietary, and adopted by 
industry and consumers alike.'' The HAC Task Force also ``recommends 
that the Commission consider factors such as ease-of-use, reliability, 
industry adoption, and consumer use and adoption when evaluating what 
technical standards'' would meet the proposed definition. The 
Commission seeks comment on this approach, particularly because use of 
an ``established technical standards'' definition would be in contrast 
to an approach that would seek to reference each and every possible 
technical standard within Sec.  20.19 of its rules. The Commission 
notes that incorporating multiple standards by reference may be 
particularly difficult where technology is rapidly changing, new or 
revised standards continue to be developed, and the legal requirements 
for incorporating specific technical standards by reference into 
Commission regulations may be resource intensive and would necessarily 
lag behind marketplace developments.
    33. If the Commission adopts this approach, how should it evaluate 
whether a standard is ``established'' and ``adopted by industry and 
consumers alike?'' What criteria should the Commission rely on to make 
these determinations? To be deemed ``established,'' would a given 
standard have to be adopted by all manufacturers and consumers or just 
a certain percentage of manufacturers and consumers, and how would the 
Commission measure the degree of acceptance of a standard by industry 
and consumers? How would testing bodies and the Commission's Office of 
Engineering and Technology determine compliance with such standards? 
Further, should the Commission qualify the term ``non-proprietary'' in 
the Task Force's proposed definition, to permit reliance on proprietary 
Bluetooth standards, as discussed in the next section?
    34. Further, would adopting this portion of the definition be 
consistent with the section 710(c) requirement that a wireless handset 
model is hearing aid compatible if it is compliant with relevant 
technical standards developed through a public participation process 
and in consultation with interested stakeholders, including people with 
hearing loss, as discussed above? The Commission notes that section 
710(c) appears to provide that a handset model may be deemed compatible 
by complying with a technical standard that has not yet been 
affirmatively adopted or approved by the Commission:

    The Commission shall establish or approve such technical 
standards as are required to enforce this section. A telephone or 
handset that is compliant with relevant technical standards 
developed through a public participation process and in consultation 
with interested consumer stakeholders (designated by the Commission 
for the purposes of this section) will be considered hearing aid 
compatible for purposes of this section, until such time as the 
Commission may determine otherwise. The Commission shall consult 
with the public, including people with hearing loss, in establishing 
or approving such technical standards. The Commission may delegate 
this authority to an employee pursuant to section 155(c) of this 
title. The Commission shall remain the final arbiter as to whether 
the standards meet the requirements of this section.

    35. Should the Commission interpret section 710(c) to permit 
handset models to be designated as hearing aid compatible based on a 
technical standard that has been ``developed through a public 
participation process'' and in consultation with designated consumer 
stakeholders, even if the standard has not yet been adopted or approved 
by the Commission? How should the Commission define and determine 
compliance with such a ``public participation process'' and consumer 
consultation? Would the Commission's adoption of such a procedure be 
consistent with the Commission's other section 710 obligations, the 
Administrative Procedure Act, and the U.S. Constitution?
    36. Further, would this approach be sufficiently certain for 
enforcement purposes as required by section 710(c)? If the Commission 
took this approach, how would it enforce such a standard? 
Alternatively, can the Commission adopt the Task Force's proposed 
definition, while still incorporating by reference industry-developed 
standards for hearing aid compatibility into its rules, consistent with 
its current approach?
    37. ``Is Usable.'' Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the 
third aspect of the HAC Task Force's proposed definition of hearing aid 
compatibility. The Task Force explains that it defines ``usable'' in a 
manner consistent with the Commission's accessibility requirements. 
Specifically, the Task Force states that ``usable'' refers ``to 
ensuring that an individual has adequate information on how to operate 
a product and access to the `full functionality and documentation for 
the product, including instructions, product information (including 
accessible feature information), documentation, bills and technical 
support which is provided to individuals without disabilities.' '' The 
Commission seeks comment on incorporating this aspect of the proposed 
definition into its rules. What does this aspect of the HAC Task 
Force's proposed definition add to the Commission's hearing aid 
compatibility rules that its rules do not already cover? Does 
``usable'' mean anything more than complying with Commission 
regulations and practicing good consumer relations?
    38. Office of the Federal Register Regulations. The Commission also 
seeks comment on the HAC Task Force's proposed definition in light of 
the Office of the Federal Register incorporation by reference 
regulations. When the Commission incorporates by reference a new 
hearing aid compatibility standard into its rules, it must request 
approval from the Director of the Federal Register by submitting a 
request for approval that complies with Office of the Federal

[[Page 5158]]

Register incorporation by reference requirements. Among other 
requirements, the Office of the Federal Register rules state that 
``[i]ncorporation by reference of a publication is limited to the 
edition of the publication that is approved'' and ``[f]uture amendments 
or revisions of the publication are not included.'' Further, the Office 
of the Federal Register requires that the Commission ``[e]nsure that a 
copy of the incorporated material is on file at the Office of Federal 
Register.'' The Commission also makes the document being incorporated 
by reference available for inspection in the Commission's public 
reference room.
    39. As a result, when the Commission requests Director of the 
Federal Register's approval, it must ensure that the standard that it 
asks to be incorporated by reference is limited to the approved edition 
and make clear that future updates to the standard are not incorporated 
by reference without going through notice and comment rulemaking. 
Further, to ensure that any technical standard is ``reasonably 
available'' to affected parties, the Commission would ensure that a 
copy of the incorporated standard is on file at the Office of Federal 
Register and make a copy of the standard available for public 
inspection in its reference room. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether there is a way for it to continue to incorporate by reference 
ANSI standards for hearing aid compatibility into its rules, while 
allowing for a more flexible approach for alternative technologies, 
such as Bluetooth technologies. Is there a way to distinguish 
alternative coupling technologies, such as Bluetooth technologies, from 
the traditional ANSI coupling capabilities?
    40. The Commission also seeks comment on how the Commission could 
comply with the Office of the Federal Register incorporation by 
reference regulations if it adopted a specific Bluetooth standard, such 
as the non-proprietary Bluetooth Low Energy Audio (Bluetooth LE Audio) 
and the Bluetooth Hearing Access Profile (Bluetooth HAP) standards. 
Could the Commission submit a copy of the Bluetooth LE Audio and 
Bluetooth HAP standards to the Director of the Federal Register with 
its request for incorporation by reference permission and then make a 
copy of these standards available for public inspection in the 
Commission's reference room? Further, how would the Commission address 
updates to these standards given that the Commission can only 
incorporate by reference an approved edition of a standard? Is there 
another way consistent with statutory requirements that would allow the 
Commission to recognize these standards without following the 
traditional incorporation by reference process and that would allow the 
standards to be updated as industry releases revised versions of these 
standards?
2. Expanding the Definition of Hearing Aid Compatibility To Include 
Bluetooth Connectivity
    41. As part of the 2016 HAC Order, the Commission requested that 
the HAC Task Force consider whether the 100% hearing aid compatibility 
goal could be achieved in part or in whole by relying on alternative 
hearing aid compatibility technologies, such as Bluetooth, bearing in 
mind the importance of ensuring interoperability between hearing aids 
and alternative technologies. The Task Force's Final Report recommends 
that the Commission move to a hearing aid compatibility standard that 
requires a handset model to be able to couple with hearing aids using 
two of three possible methods. All handset models would have to be 
capable of coupling using acoustic coupling and these handset models 
would also have to be capable of coupling through either a telecoil 
that meets certification standards or through Bluetooth connectivity. 
In response to WTB's Public Notice seeking comment on the Task Force's 
recommendation, most commenters expressed support for the Task Force's 
proposal to permit Bluetooth connectivity to be used as an alternative 
coupling method to telecoils, noting that most consumers are already 
using hearing aids that come with Bluetooth connectivity.
    42. In light of the record, the Commission proposes to expand the 
definition of hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth 
connectivity, and it seeks comment on the best way to accomplish this 
objective. Below, the Commission proposes to require handset models to 
connect to hearing aids through Bluetooth connectivity as an 
alternative to telecoil coupling on a limited basis as it continues to 
study this issue, as long as both types of handset models also meet 
applicable acoustic coupling and volume control standards. As part of 
its proposal, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should take a 
``market based'' approach to Bluetooth technology whereby the 
Commission would not explicitly adopt or incorporate by reference a 
single Bluetooth connectivity technology but would allow market forces 
to continue to determine which Bluetooth technology handset models use 
to pair with hearing aids. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment 
on an approach whereby the Commission would broaden the current 
definition of hearing aid compatibility by explicitly incorporating by 
reference one or more non-proprietary Bluetooth connectivity standards, 
such as Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP, into the wireless hearing 
aid compatibility rules, the use of which would be required on a non-
exclusive basis.
a. Requiring Bluetooth Connectivity as an Alternative Coupling Method 
to Telecoil Coupling
    43. Background. The HAC Task Force states that based on a survey 
that it conducted, most consumers prefer to use Bluetooth connectivity 
for pairing hearing aid devices with wireless handsets, as compared to 
acoustic and telecoil coupling methods. Further, it explains that 
unlike telecoils, Bluetooth audio transmission methods are expressly 
designed to transmit and facilitate audio. According to the HAC Task 
Force, consumers are increasingly using--and are increasingly finding a 
satisfying listening experience with using--Bluetooth connectivity. 
Bluetooth technology is an umbrella term for related technical 
standards that enable devices to communicate wirelessly. Some of these 
standards are proprietary standards, such as Apple's Made-for-iPhone 
(MFi) and Google's Audio Streaming for Hearing Aids (ASHA) standards 
and other standards are non-proprietary standards, such as LE Audio and 
Bluetooth HAP standards. The Task Force indicates that variations of 
these Bluetooth standards can be found in many of today's handset 
models. In fact, the HAC Task Force states that ``[t]he vast majority 
of wireless handsets now include at least some type of Bluetooth audio 
technology, without a regulatory mandate . . . .'' The Task Force 
expects even greater use of Bluetooth connectivity in the coming years.
    44. The vast majority of commenters support the Task Force's 
findings with respect to Bluetooth coupling between wireless handset 
models and hearing aids. Bluetooth Special Interest Group, Inc. 
(Bluetooth SIG) states that more than 80% of hearing aids today use 
some form of Bluetooth technology, and that the Commission should adopt 
Bluetooth as a primary coupling method. CTA states that nine out of ten 
consumers own smartphones with Bluetooth and two-thirds report that 
their hearing device includes satisfactory direct Bluetooth audio 
streaming. Samsung expresses support for the consensus recommendation 
on coupling requirements and notes that

[[Page 5159]]

Bluetooth is among the top three most frequently mentioned features 
included in hearing devices desired by consumers. The Mobile & Wireless 
Form (MWF) states that Bluetooth is a dominant wireless technology and 
used in over-the-counter hearing aids.
    45. The Task Force's Final Report notes, however, that there is a 
subset of consumers that continue to use telecoils and that these 
consumers find telecoils to be an important feature in wireless handset 
models. This finding is consistent with a comment arguing that telecoil 
coupling facilitates interoperability, is more reliable than Bluetooth, 
is consistent across devices, and does not require replacing hearing 
aids or a handset when the other is updated. This commenter states that 
through its HAC rules, the Commission is helping to maintain the 
availability of telecoils and urges the Commission to have a 100% 
telecoil requirement.
    46. Discussion. The Commission proposes to require some handset 
models to connect to hearing aids through Bluetooth connectivity as an 
alternative to telecoil coupling on a limited basis as it continues to 
study this issue. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The 
record indicates that Bluetooth coupling is presently being widely 
utilized by consumers to couple handsets with hearing aids and 
achieving positive results. Under its proposal, the Commission will 
maintain a telecoil requirement but require a certain percentage of 
handset models to use Bluetooth connectivity as an alternative to 
telecoil coupling as long as both types of handset models also meet 
applicable acoustic coupling and volume control requirements, as 
discussed in more detail below.
    47. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how Bluetooth 
coupling compares with telecoil coupling as far as interoperability 
between handsets and hearing aids. Is a handset model that meets 
telecoil certification requirements more expensive to manufacture then 
a handset model that substitutes Bluetooth connectivity for a telecoil? 
Does one type of coupling have better sound quality or maintain its 
connection better than the other type of coupling? Is it easier to 
connect a handset to a hearing aid with a telecoil connection versus a 
Bluetooth connection? What are the costs and benefits of allowing 
Bluetooth coupling on a limited basis as an alternative to telecoil 
coupling? Would a gradual transition from telecoil coupling to 
Bluetooth coupling serve the public interest? As Bluetooth coupling 
becomes more accepted by consumers, will telecoil coupling become a 
less favorable way of connecting handsets to hearing aids as the HAC 
Task Force suggests?
    48. The Commission is concerned with the cost to consumers of 
Bluetooth connectivity versus telecoil coupling. When using Bluetooth 
connectivity as an alternative to telecoil coupling, how frequently do 
consumers need to replace hearing aids or a handset when the other is 
updated? Similarly, does telecoil technology evolve over time, or is it 
a stable technology that does not change in the way Bluetooth standards 
are updated and therefore does not require a handset to be replaced 
when a consumer purchases a new hearing device with telecoil 
connectivity? In general, do lower priced hearing devices include 
telecoil or Bluetooth connectivity? Are new over-the-counter hearing 
aids more likely to include telecoil or Bluetooth connectivity? If they 
are more likely to include Bluetooth connectivity, what type of 
Bluetooth technology are they likely to include? How can the Commission 
ensure that its hearing aid compatibility rules allow consumers to have 
access to reasonably priced hearing aid-compatible handset models?
    49. The Commission also seeks comment on the future of telecoil 
coupling. Is the HAC Task Force's observation that Bluetooth coupling 
has been steadily increasing over time while telecoil coupling has been 
stagnating an accurate reflection of consumer preferences and trends? 
Is telecoil coupling being replaced with Bluetooth connectivity in the 
marketplace? Would allowing market conditions to control the 
replacement of telecoil coupling with Bluetooth connectivity 
technologies in handset models protect the interests of all consumers? 
Will relying on market conditions--which may lead to fewer handset 
models with telecoil coupling--leave behind the needs of consumers who 
may not be able to update to the newest handset models or hearing aids 
or who find that telecoil coupling better meets their needs?
b. Alternative Approaches to Adopting a Bluetooth Connectivity 
Requirement
    50. Given its proposal to require Bluetooth coupling in a certain 
percentage of handset models (either as an alternative to or in place 
of telecoil)--and in light of the various Bluetooth technologies 
currently in use in the market--the Commission seeks comment on how to 
implement Bluetooth coupling into its rules. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on two alternative approaches to adopting such 
a requirement: (1) requiring a certain percentage of handset models to 
meet a Bluetooth technical standard (either proprietary or non-
proprietary) without incorporating by reference any particular standard 
into its rules; or (2) requiring a certain percentage of handset models 
to meet a (non-proprietary) Bluetooth standard that has been 
specifically incorporated by reference into its rules. In considering 
these approaches, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a 
need for it to approve and incorporate by reference particular 
Bluetooth technical standards into its rules for hearing aid 
compatibility certification or whether the Commission can adopt a 
Bluetooth connectivity requirement without incorporating by reference a 
particular standard into the rules.
    51. Market Based Approach to a Bluetooth Requirement. Given the 
variety of Bluetooth standards that exist today--both proprietary and 
non-proprietary--the Commission seeks comment on an approach to 
implementing a Bluetooth requirement that does not mandate a particular 
Bluetooth connectivity technology. Under this approach, the Commission 
would not explicitly adopt or endorse a particular Bluetooth 
connectivity technology or standard but would allow manufacturers and 
service providers to determine which Bluetooth technology to use to 
satisfy the required percentage of Bluetooth-compatible handset models 
(e.g., the proposed 15% requirement, as detailed below).
    52. Would this approach be in the public interest? How would such 
an approach impact the development of Bluetooth technology in handset 
models? This approach appears to be consistent with the 2003 HAC Order, 
where the Commission noted that Congress expressly avoided technology 
mandates so as not to ``inhibit future development'' of handset models, 
provided they are compatible with hearing aids. Further, under this 
approach, the Commission could continue to monitor the development of 
Bluetooth connectivity between wireless handset models and hearing aids 
as it has been doing since the release of the 2016 HAC Order. If an 
issue develops in the future, the Commission could take action at that 
time to resolve the problem. The Commission seeks comment on this 
analysis.
    53. The Commission also seeks comment on whether this approach is 
consistent with the Commission's obligations under section 710(c). 
Section 710(c) of the Act states that

[[Page 5160]]

``[t]he Commission shall establish or approve such technical standards 
as are required to enforce this section.'' If the Commission does not 
establish or approve a specific Bluetooth standard, how can the 
Commission enforce a Bluetooth connectivity requirement? For the 
purposes of implementing section 710(c), can a distinction be drawn 
between the industry-developed standards for the more traditional 
coupling technologies (i.e., acoustic and inductive) and volume control 
on the one hand, and the standards developed for Bluetooth technology 
on the other hand? For example, should the fact that industry has 
already developed and implemented a variety of proprietary and non-
proprietary standards for Bluetooth coupling impact how the Commission 
evaluates the need for it to adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement 
into its rules? Should the Commission rely on the fact that handset 
manufacturers have already been including various forms of Bluetooth 
connectivity in their handset models without the Commission's 
involvement, and more recently have been including updated versions of 
this form of connectivity that permit lower battery usage and can allow 
a user to connect to assistive listening devices in movie theaters, 
convention centers, public transit vehicles, and other ventures?
    54. Along these same lines, how would an approach that may allow 
manufacturers and service providers to meet Bluetooth benchmarks using 
proprietary standards, be consistent with the ``established technical 
standard for hearing aid coupling compatibility'' portion of the HAC 
Task Force's proposed definition for hearing aid compatibility? As 
noted above, the Task Force proposes that ``[a]ny established technical 
standard for hearing aid coupling should be interoperable, non-
proprietary, and adopted by industry and consumers alike.'' If the 
Commission adopts this proposed definition, should it limit the 
permissible Bluetooth standards to non-proprietary standards? Even if 
the Commission does not adopt a specific Bluetooth standard, should it 
nevertheless stipulate that any Bluetooth standard that a manufacturer 
chooses to use in a handset model must at least incorporate LE Audio 
technology given the efficiency and quality advantages of that 
technology? Under a market-based approach, could the Commission 
encourage use of the latest non-proprietary Bluetooth standards, such 
as the Bluetooth LE Audio and HAP Profile?
    55. Incorporation by Reference of a Non-Proprietary Bluetooth 
Connectivity Standard. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on 
requiring a handset model to meet a Bluetooth standard that it has 
incorporated by reference into its rules in order to meet a Bluetooth 
requirement. Under this approach, the Commission would broaden the 
current definition of hearing aid compatibility by explicitly 
incorporating by reference non-proprietary Bluetooth connectivity 
standards whose use would be required on a non-exclusive basis. 
Specifically, the Commission would explicitly incorporate by reference 
the non-proprietary Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP standards into 
its hearing aid compatibility rules and require their use instead of a 
telecoil in a manner consistent with the proposed Bluetooth 
requirement.
    56. Under this approach, handset models could come with other 
Bluetooth connectivity options, such as Apple's MFi and Google's ASHA 
proprietary standards, but the handset models also would have to 
include a non-proprietary Bluetooth standard, such as Bluetooth LE 
Audio and Bluetooth HAP coupling abilities, in order to satisfy the 
Commission's certification rules. Handset models that include other 
Bluetooth technologies rather than the Commission endorsed 
technologies, such as proprietary technologies, could not be used to 
satisfy the Bluetooth benchmark, unless the Commission decides to allow 
interim use of other Bluetooth technologies to meet the Bluetooth 
benchmark as a means of transitioning to full utilization of the 
Commission endorsed Bluetooth technology. The Commission seeks comment 
on this approach.
    57. The HAC Task Force's Final Report states that Bluetooth LE 
Audio is an industry standard and that handset models with Bluetooth LE 
Audio are likely to increase interoperability with hearing devices 
entering the marketplace. Further, the Final Report states that 
Bluetooth HAP, which extends the Bluetooth LE Audio standard, is likely 
to increase Bluetooth technology's popularity as a coupling method for 
hearing devices and wireless handsets. The Final Report states, 
however, that Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP are relatively new 
standards and that to ensure a seamless transition to full 
interoperability the Commission should allow the use of well-
established standards, such as Bluetooth Classic, ASHA, and MFi in the 
near term.
    58. As an initial matter, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
it is required by section 710(c) to incorporate specific Bluetooth 
standards by reference into its rules in order to implement a Bluetooth 
requirement (e.g., the proposed 15% requirement, as detailed below), or 
whether it can interpret section 710(c) to allow a handset model to 
meet a standard that has not been affirmatively adopted or incorporated 
by reference into the Commission's rules. Further, what are the costs 
and benefits of this approach relative to the more flexible market-
based approach discussed above? Does this approach balance the need to 
adopt specific Bluetooth standards into the Commission's rules with the 
need to avoid excluding other standards, the loss of which might force 
consumers to replace their hearing aids prematurely to avoid 
connectivity issues with a new handset? How would this approach affect 
the availability of proprietary Bluetooth standards? Do proprietary 
Bluetooth technologies provide superior connectivity that would be 
sacrificed under this approach? What are the quality differences, if 
any, between the various Bluetooth standards with regard to the 
consumer experience in coupling and utilizing such Bluetooth 
technology? Would this approach be feasible in view of the pace at 
which Bluetooth technologies change and develop? Would one of these 
approaches better protect the interests of consumers with hearing loss 
and the ability of handset manufacturers to innovate?
    59. If the Commission adopts a specific non-proprietary Bluetooth 
standard, would the Commission run the risk of tipping the marketplace 
in favor of Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP rather than another 
non-proprietary Bluetooth connectivity standard? In addition to 
Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP, are there other non-proprietary 
Bluetooth connectivity standards that the Commission should consider 
incorporating by reference into the wireless hearing aid compatibility 
rules? Are there other non-proprietary Bluetooth standards in the 
development stage? How can the Commission ensure that its choice of a 
non-proprietary Bluetooth standard is best suited to meet the needs of 
consumers with hearing loss?
    60. Transitional Use of Proprietary Bluetooth Standards. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether it should permit the use of 
other Bluetooth standards, such as proprietary standards, to satisfy 
its certification requirements on an interim basis as the industry 
transitions to full use of the Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP. In 
its Final Report, the HAC Task Force

[[Page 5161]]

states that the Commission should consider incorporating Bluetooth 
technology such as Apple's MFi and Google's ASHA into the Commission's 
rules for a period of transition. The Task Force states that Bluetooth 
LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP represent a long-term goal and current 
``widespread use'' of these other Bluetooth standards ``indicates that 
these methods should be considered to ensure a seamless transition 
toward full interoperability.''
    61. Recently, the HAC Task Force reiterated its commitment to 
continuing to explore the development and inclusion of Bluetooth LE 
Audio and Bluetooth HAP in new handset models. How likely is it that 
handset manufacturers will replace proprietary Bluetooth connectivity 
in their handset models with non-proprietary standards and over what 
time period? If the Commission allows the use of proprietary Bluetooth 
standards to meet the Bluetooth benchmark before transitioning to 
exclusive use of Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP, how long should 
the transition period be? What are the costs and benefits of allowing 
the use of proprietary standards for a period of time while the 
marketplace transitions to full use of Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth 
HAP?
    62. Other Approaches to Adopting Bluetooth Standards. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
establish a Bluetooth safe harbor or allow WTB to use its delegated 
authority to approve new Bluetooth connectivity standards or new 
editions of currently adopted standards that meet certain requirements.
    63. Under the safe harbor approach, the Commission would require a 
certain percentage of handset models to include Bluetooth LE Audio and 
Bluetooth HAP connectivity technologies, but the Commission would not 
require compliance with a certain edition or version of these 
technologies by referencing those editions or versions in its rules. As 
long as the handset model included some edition or version of the 
technologies, the handset model would meet certification requirements 
in terms of the proposal to require a certain percentage of handset 
models to meet Bluetooth connectivity requirements. Is the 
establishment of a Bluetooth safe harbor consistent with the 
requirements of section 710(c)? Under the safe harbor approach, how 
would the Commission enforce compliance with these technologies if it 
does not require compliance with a specific edition or version of the 
technologies?
    64. Along these same lines, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
WTB could use its delegated authority under Sec.  20.19(k) to adopt new 
Bluetooth connectivity technologies into the hearing aid compatibility 
rules or use this authority to revise the edition that could be used 
for certification purposes. Under this approach, the Commission could 
establish criteria that should guide the Bureau when making the 
determination of whether to approve a new Bluetooth connectivity 
standard or new edition of a currently approved standard. 
Alternatively, the Commission could adopt the Bluetooth connectivity 
standard and allow WTB to use its delegated authority to approve new 
editions of the Commission's adopted standard. WTB could make a list of 
approved standards publicly available that handset manufacturers could 
use for certification purposes.
    65. If the Commission adopted this approach, would WTB be required 
to use notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures or could WTB release a 
Public Notice authorizing the use of a new Bluetooth connectivity 
standard or the use of a new edition of a currently approved standard? 
Would such an approach be consistent with section 710(c) of the Act and 
other statutory requirements, such as notice and comment rulemaking 
procedures? Would the Commission need to differentiate the process of 
adopting new ANSI standards from the processes of adopting new 
Bluetooth connectivity standards or editions? If the Commission needed 
to differentiate the two processes, how would the Commission make this 
distinction? Would the Commission need to adjust or supplement WTB's 
delegated authority under Sec.  20.19(k) if it determine to use this 
approach?
    66. Bluetooth Compliance Requirements. Finally, the Commission 
seeks comment on how it could ensure a handset model is in compliance 
with the Bluetooth standards permitted by any of the above approaches. 
How could the Commission ensure that a handset model complies with the 
Bluetooth connectivity standard that the manufacturer indicates that it 
meets, and how can it ensure that this standard meets minimum consumer 
requirements for a quality wireless connection with a hearing device?
    67. The HAC Task Force suggests that a handset manufacturer should 
be required to submit a Bluetooth attestation as part of its FCC 
equipment certification application. The Commission seeks comment on 
this suggestion. Would the submission of an attestation be sufficient 
to meet statutory requirements? How could the Commission ensure that a 
handset model submitted with an attestation actually meets the 
Bluetooth connectivity standards that the manufacturer indicates is 
embedded within the handset model? What kind of testing does a handset 
model undergo in order to receive such an attestation? Should the 
Commission rely on the Bluetooth standard party's own testing process 
such that an attestation is sufficient to satisfy that process 
including any interoperability concerns? Even if a handset model 
receives an attestation, how can the Commission ensure that the 
standard that is incorporated into the handset model is robust enough 
to meet the minimum consumer needs with respect to establishing a 
quality connection between the handset model and a hearing device?
    68. Bluetooth SIG has indicated that it has its own qualification 
process, which involves testing at the product level for 
interoperability. If the Commission adopts Bluetooth LE Audio and 
Bluetooth HAP standards, should the Commission rely on the Bluetooth 
SIG's own testing process such that an attestation is sufficient to 
satisfy that process including any interoperability concerns? Is there 
reason to believe that some Bluetooth standards bodies provide more 
robust testing then other standards bodies?

C. Compliance Benchmarks

    69. Background. The Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules 
require that 85% of the total number of handset models that 
manufacturers and service providers offer must be certified as hearing 
aid compatible. The Commission's rules, however, do not impose separate 
benchmarks for the three components of the 2019 ANSI Standard (acoustic 
coupling, inductive coupling, and volume control). That is, in order 
for a handset model to be certified as hearing aid compatible under 
this standard, the handset model must meet all aspects of the standard 
and not just certain parts of the standard. Further, the Commission's 
rules allow handset manufacturers and service providers to grandfather 
existing hearing aid-compatible handset models for benchmark purposes 
as long as the handset models are still offered to the public.
    70. Under the HAC Task Force's 100% proposal, after the applicable 
transition period passes, all of the handset models that manufacturers 
and service providers offer in their handset portfolios would have to 
be certified as hearing aid compatible. The Task Force

[[Page 5162]]

proposes, however, that a portion of handset models could be certified 
as hearing aid compatible by meeting only certain aspects of the 2019 
ANSI Standard's requirements rather than all of the requirements as 
presently required. Specifically, the Task Force proposes that to meet 
the 100% compatibility requirement, all handset models would have to 
meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's acoustic coupling requirements, but only 
85% of these handset models would have to continue to meet the 2019 
ANSI standard's telecoil coupling requirements. The remaining 15% of 
these handset models would have to meet a new Bluetooth connectivity 
requirement. To the extent the handset model ``does not pass the 
telecoil test, it would have to support Bluetooth, and vice-versa.'' 
While the Task Force's Final Report does not contain a specific volume 
control benchmark proposal, recently members of the Task Force 
reiterated their commitment to working towards the goal that all new 
handset models will meet hearing aid compatibility requirements and 
that this will include an applicable volume control requirement.
    71. As discussed above, the HAC Task Force has recommended that the 
Commission consider a ``more forward-looking'' definition of HAC. The 
Task Force asserts that its proposed 85/15% split between telecoil and 
Bluetooth coupling requirements is an appropriate way to reflect the 
popularity of Bluetooth connectivity for pairing hearing aid devices to 
handsets. According to a survey that it conducted, most consumers 
prefer to use Bluetooth connectivity for pairing hearing aid devices 
with wireless handsets, as compared to acoustic and telecoil coupling 
methods. Further, the Task Force states that unlike telecoils, 
Bluetooth audio transmission methods are expressly designed to transmit 
and facilitate audio. By contrast, the HAC Task Force explains, 
telecoils are a ``by-product'' of certain 1940s-era phone designs that 
later proved useful to couple to a similarly coiled piece of copper in 
a hearing aid. Noting that consumers are already familiar with 
Bluetooth technology, the Task Force reports that the vast majority of 
wireless handset models now include at least some type of Bluetooth 
audio technology. The Task Force expects even greater use of Bluetooth 
connectivity in the coming years and that consumers will prefer 
Bluetooth applications over acoustic and inductive coupling.
    72. The Task Force's Final Report appears to recommend that at the 
end of its proposed four-year transition period for manufacturers and 
five-year transition period for service providers, all handset models 
in a manufacturer's or service provider's overall handset portfolio 
would have to be certified as hearing aid compatible under the 2019 
ANSI Standard, subject to the percentages detailed above. The Final 
Report, though, is ambiguous regarding the grandfathering of existing 
handset models that have been certified as hearing aid compatible under 
older technical standards and are still being offered to the public. 
While the body of the Final Report does not discuss this issue, it does 
suggest in its Model Rule section that the current grandfathering rule 
be kept in place but given a new subparagraph designation. The Final 
Report does not explain how the grandfathering rule would operate with 
respect to the overall composition of a handset manufacturer's or 
service provider's handset portfolio after the end of the relevant 
transition periods.
    73. In response to WTB's Public Notice seeking comment on the Task 
Force's Final Report, CTA, MWF, and Samsung state that they support the 
HAC Task Force's consensus recommendations that provide a path to 100% 
hearing aid compatibility. Further, CTA and Samsung state that they 
support the Task Force's recommendation regarding the 85% benchmark for 
telecoil coupling and the 15% benchmark for Bluetooth coupling. Samsung 
also states that the Commission should adopt a benchmark for the volume 
control requirement, but it does not propose a benchmark for this 
requirement. The HAC Task Force states that the Commission should adopt 
a new Bluetooth connectivity benchmark, and Bluetooth SIG states that 
the use of a Bluetooth coupling requirement will help the Commission 
achieve its 100% hearing aid compatibility objective. As noted above, 
however, an individual commenter argues that the Commission should 
adopt a 100% telecoil requirement. This commenter states that telecoil 
coupling facilitates interoperability, is more reliable than Bluetooth, 
is consistent across devices, and does not require replacing hearing 
aids or a handset when the other is updated. Further, this commenter 
states that the Commission ``is helping to maintain the availability of 
telecoils'' and that the Commission ``should require telecoil 
technology in 100% of all mobile devices . . . and mandate a timeline 
for compliance.''
    74. 100% Benchmark. Consistent with its tentative conclusion 
regarding achievability, the Commission proposes that after the 
expiration of the relevant transition periods, 100% of the handset 
models that manufacturers and service providers offer or import for use 
in the United States must be certified as hearing aid compatible. As 
part of this requirement, the Commission proposes to require all 
handset models offered or imported for use in the United States to have 
at least two forms of coupling, as proposed by the HAC Task Force: (1) 
100% of handset models would be required to meet an acoustic coupling 
requirement; and (2) 100% of handset models would be required to meet 
either a telecoil or a Bluetooth coupling requirement. Specifically, at 
least 85% of handset models would be required to meet a telecoil 
requirement and at least 15% of handset models would be required to 
meet a Bluetooth requirement. Any handset models not meeting a telecoil 
requirement would be required to meet a Bluetooth requirement, and any 
handset models not meeting a Bluetooth requirement would be required to 
meet a telecoil requirement. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal in more detail below and throughout this NPRM. These handset 
models would have to be certified as hearing aid compatible under the 
requirements of part 2 subpart J--Equipment Authorization Procedures of 
the Commission's rules, and include the relevant test reports showing 
compliance with these rules and the Commission's Sec.  20.19 hearing 
aid compatibility testing requirements for mobile handset models. All 
of these procedures must be complied with in full for a handset model 
to be labeled as hearing aid compatible and offered in the United 
States or imported for use in the United States. Once the relevant 
transition period ends, handset manufacturers and service providers 
will no longer be able to offer handset models that are not certified 
as hearing aid compatible.
    75. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to require all 
handset models that manufacturers and service providers offer in the 
United States or imported for use in the United States to be hearing 
aid compatible after the end of the applicable transition periods. 
Since the Commission has tentatively concluded above that 100% is 
achievable, and no commenters opposed or found issue with some form of 
a 100% requirement when WTB sought comment on the HAC Task Force's 
Final Report, any commenter objecting to the Commission's proposal 
should explain why this objective is not achievable using the statutory 
criteria outlined above.
    76. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment below on a 
proposal--as

[[Page 5163]]

well as an alternative approach--for meeting the 100% hearing aid-
compatible handset portfolio requirement, including its proposed 85/15% 
split for telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity. Under the Commission's 
proposal, manufacturers and service providers could meet the 100% 
requirement by including grandfathered handset models that have been 
certified as hearing aid compatible in their overall handset portfolios 
as long as the handset models are still being offered in the United 
States or imported for use in the United States, as the Commission's 
current rule allows. Manufacturers and service providers could meet the 
85/15% telecoil/Bluetooth requirement using new or grandfathered 
handset models. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on an 
approach where it would discontinue its grandfathering rule and not 
allow handset manufacturers and service providers to count 
grandfathered handset models certified under older certification 
standards towards the benchmark. Under this alternative, 100% of the 
handset models in a manufacturer's or service provider's handset 
portfolio would have to be certified as hearing aid compatible using 
the 2019 ANSI Standard's requirements, as modified by a possible 
telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity split.
    77. Grandfathering Proposal to Reach 100%. Consistent with its 
existing rules, the Commission proposes to allow manufacturers and 
service providers to continue to offer handset models that are already 
certified as hearing aid compatible under older technical standards 
after the end of the relevant transition periods. These handset models 
would be grandfathered, and manufacturers and service providers could 
include these handset models as part of their 100% handset portfolios 
as long as the handset models are still being offered. Under this 
proposal, 100% of handset models would have to meet an acoustic 
coupling requirement, and could meet this requirement with handset 
models certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard or with grandfathered 
handset models (i.e., handset models previously certified using a pre-
2019 ANSI Standard). Further, all handset models would have to meet a 
telecoil or Bluetooth requirement, with at least 85% meeting a telecoil 
requirement--which could be met using handset models certified under 
the 2019 ANSI Standard or grandfathered handset models--and with at 
least 15% meeting a Bluetooth requirement. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal.
    78. Under the Commission's grandfathering proposal, handset 
manufacturers and service providers would have in their handset 
portfolios handset models that have been certified under different 
certification standards. For instance, manufacturer and service 
provider handset portfolios might include handset models certified as 
hearing aid compatible using the 2011 ANSI Standard and other handset 
models certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard. With respect to handset 
models certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard, some of these handset 
models might be certified as hearing aid compatible under the 
conditions of WTB's volume control waiver order or, depending on 
timing, under a new volume control standard that the Commission has 
adopted. Further, if the Commission adopts the Task Force's proposal 
regarding the 85/15% split between telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity, 
manufacturer and service provider handset portfolios might include 
these types of handset models as well. All of these handset models 
could be part of a manufacturer's or service provider's 100% hearing 
aid-compatible handset portfolio as long as the handset models are 
still being offered.
    79. If the Commission adopts this proposal, should it modify its 
grandfathering rule to allow only a certain percentage of a handset 
portfolio to include handset models certified under older certification 
standards or older volume control requirements (e.g., the volume 
control waiver standard)? Should the Commission modify the 
grandfathering rule if it adopts a new volume control requirement to 
replace the waiver condition standard? How would such an approach work 
and would it require that certified handset models be taken out of a 
handset portfolio prior to the end of a handset model's product cycle? 
What would be the costs and benefits of such a rule and how would such 
a rule impact consumers, manufacturers, and service providers? Would 
removal of handset models certified under prior standards adversely 
affect consumers by prematurely removing from the market handset models 
that are relatively low-priced or that offer special features relied 
upon by certain groups of customers?
    80. If the Commission adopts the Task Force's proposed 85/15% split 
between telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity, but allows grandfathered 
handset models to count towards these benchmarks, how should the 
Commission count handset models certified under pre-2019 ANSI Standards 
towards this split? Under a grandfathering approach to the 85/15% 
split, would handset manufacturers and service providers be likely to 
offer fewer new handset models with telecoil connectivity? Or are 
market incentives sufficient to ensure that manufacturers and service 
providers would continue to offer new handset models with telecoil 
coupling technology? What percentage of handset models have both 
Bluetooth connectivity and telecoil capabilities? If the Commission 
adopts its grandfathering proposal, should it impose a requirement on 
service providers that they have to offer a certain percentage of new 
handset models that meet telecoil requirements and the rest would have 
to meet Bluetooth connectivity requirements? If so, what percentage 
should the Commission impose and how would this percentage work with 
small or rural service providers that may only add one or two new 
handset models over a period of years? Alternatively, does the fact 
that a consumer can purchase a handset directly from a manufacturer and 
bring the handset to the service provider's network solve this problem? 
What are the costs and benefits to consumers to having to purchase a 
handset from a manufacturer and bring it to the service provider for 
service? What impact does this approach have on manufacturers and 
service providers?
    81. Alternative Approach to Reach 100%. Alternatively, instead of 
allowing grandfathering, should the Commission require 100% of all 
handset models offered in the United States or imported for use in the 
United States to meet the 2019 ANSI Standard (or any future ANSI 
standards), with 100% of handset models meeting the acoustic coupling 
portion of the 2019 ANSI standard, at least 85% of all handsets models 
meeting the telecoil portion of the 2019 ANSI standard, and at least 
15% meeting a Bluetooth component? Under this approach, manufacturers 
and service providers would no longer be able to offer handset models 
certified as hearing aid compatible under earlier (pre-2019) versions 
of the ANSI standard and would either have to remove these handset 
models from their handset portfolios or recertify these handset models 
under the 2019 ANSI Standard. The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach, as opposed to its proposal above to allow handset models to 
meet the 100% benchmark using grandfathered handset models. What are 
the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach? Would an approach that 
requires service providers and manufacturers either to retire older 
handset models or certify those handset

[[Page 5164]]

models under the 2019 ANSI Standard lead to better options available in 
the market for consumers with hearing loss? Given the pace of 
technology advancement, would such an approach be feasible for 
manufacturers and service providers? Would it be more straightforward 
and thus (i) easier for manufacturers and service providers to 
implement; (ii) easier for consumers to understand; and (iii) easier 
for the Commission to enforce?
    82. The Commission seeks comment on the differences between its 
grandfathering proposal and this alternative approach, including the 
costs and benefits of each option, and how either approach might impact 
transition time. Should the Commission consider a hybrid of the two, 
such as a phased approach that would enable it to reach a 100% 
benchmark using grandfathered handset models within a shorter period of 
time, with the ultimate goal of 100% of handset models meeting the 2019 
ANSI Standard (or newer ANSI standards as they are developed)? For 
example, after one year, 75% of handset models could be grandfathered; 
after two years, 50%; after three years, 25%; and after four years, no 
grandfathered handset models could be counted towards the 100% 
benchmark.
    83. Volume Control Benchmark. Under either the Commission's 
grandfathering proposal or the alternative 100% 2019 ANSI Standard 
approach, how should the Commission incorporate the volume control 
requirement into its benchmarks? As noted above, under the Commission's 
current rules, as of December 5, 2023, handset models can no longer be 
certified as hearing aid-compatible using the older 2011 ANSI Standard 
that does not include a volume control requirement. After this date, 
handset models can only be certified as hearing aid-compatible if they 
meet the requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and the related TIA 
5050 Standard that sets forth volume control requirements for wireless 
handset models. The recently issued HAC Waiver Order, however, modified 
these requirements by allowing handset models to be certified as 
hearing aid-compatible if the handset model meets the limited volume 
control standard set out in that order and all other aspects of the 
2019 ANSI Standard. This waiver remains in effect for a two-year period 
that ends on September 29, 2025.
    84. If the Commission adopts an approach where all handset models 
must be certified as hearing aid-compatible using the 2019 ANSI 
Standard, as modified by the HAC Waiver Order, should it include a 100% 
volume control requirement at the end of the transition period? On the 
other hand, if the Commission allows manufacturers and service 
providers to meet the 100% requirement using grandfathered handset 
models, as it proposes above, should it impose a requirement that a 
certain percentage of handset models must meet the volume control 
portion of the 2019 ANSI Standard, as modified by the HAC Waiver Order? 
Or should the Commission limit the volume control requirement to all 
new handset models certified as hearing aid compatible using the 2019 
ANSI Standard, as modified by the HAC Waiver Order, without setting an 
overall volume control benchmark for the portfolio? How would the 
grandfathering approach--which means that not all available handset 
models would meet a volume control requirement--impact consumers with 
hearing loss?
    85. How should the Commission handle the volume control requirement 
if the Commission adopts a new volume control standard to replace the 
TIA 5050 Standard, as modified by the HAC Waiver Order? Under these 
circumstances, should the Commission allow a limited grandfathering of 
handset models that meet the HAC Waiver Order's volume control standard 
and all other aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard, but not the 
requirements of the new volume control standard? Should the Commission 
impose a requirement that these types of handset models should be 
eliminated from handset portfolios over a certain time period, such as 
two years from the effective date of the new volume control standard? 
Alternatively, should the Commission just allow these types of handset 
models to be phased-out over the handset model's normal product life 
cycle? What are the costs and benefits to consumers and manufacturers 
of permitting these types of handset models to be grandfathered?
    86. Telecoil/Bluetooth Benchmarks. The Commission also seeks 
comment on implementing its proposed 85/15% split between telecoil and 
Bluetooth connectivity under the two alternatives discussed above 
(i.e., its grandfathering proposal and the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard 
approach), as well as some alternative approaches to setting benchmarks 
for telecoil and Bluetooth coupling. In this regard, the Commission 
notes that members of the HAC Task Force have recently reiterated their 
commitment to working towards the goal of including Bluetooth 
connectivity as an alternative to telecoil coupling in a certain 
percentage of handset models as described in the HAC Task Force's Final 
Report. Under either approach, how does the Commission enforce a 
requirement that at least 85% of handset models must meet telecoil 
requirements and at least 15% must meet a Bluetooth connectivity 
standard? Should the Commission allow a handset model that meets 
telecoil certification requirements and Bluetooth connectivity 
requirements to be counted as meeting both the telecoil and Bluetooth 
connectivity requirements? Should the Commission allow for some 
fluctuation within a range close to an 85/15% split, or should it 
strictly enforce that number? For example, should the Commission 
require that a manufacturer or service provider offer at least 85% of 
handset models that meet the telecoil requirements and the rest of the 
handset models offered meet a Bluetooth connectivity standard, without 
imposing a 15% minimum? If a manufacturer releases one new handset 
model a year, how many years after the transition date will it take for 
the 85/15% split to be reached?
    87. Instead of its proposed 85/15% split between telecoil and 
Bluetooth connectivity, the Commission seeks comment on a number of 
alternative approaches to establishing a telecoil and Bluetooth 
coupling benchmark.
     Under the first alternative, instead of the Commission's 
proposed 85/15% split, should it continue to require all handset models 
to meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's telecoil requirements? This approach 
would require 100% compliance with all three aspects of the 2019 ANSI 
Standard (acoustic coupling, telecoil coupling, and volume control) and 
would ensure that consumers who use telecoils in their hearing aids 
could purchase any new handset model on the market without having their 
selection of handset models reduced by an 85% benchmark. This approach 
would not require a certain percentage of handsets to meet a Bluetooth 
connectivity requirement.
     Under the second alternative, should the Commission 
require 100% of new handset models to meet all three aspects of the 
2019 ANSI Standard and impose an additional requirement that 15% of 
these handset models must also meet a Bluetooth connectivity 
requirement?
     Under the third alternative, should the Commission set a 
deadline for 50% or more of handset models to incorporate Bluetooth 
connectivity technology, while retaining an 85% telecoil requirement? 
This alternative reflects the fact that Bluetooth connectivity is 
popular among consumers with hearing loss and that 56% of handset 
models already support

[[Page 5165]]

some form of Bluetooth connectivity. Would this approach create 
redundancy in coupling requirements or provide consumers with hearing 
loss much needed flexibility to connect with hearing devices?
     Under the fourth alternative, instead of an 85/15% split, 
should the Commission impose a different telecoil/Bluetooth split such 
as a 75/25% or 60/40% split or should the Commission's rules provide 
for a gradual change in the split over a period of years that results 
in a more even split between the telecoil and Bluetooth coupling 
requirements?
     Under the fifth alternative, should the Commission avoid 
imposing a precise percentage and give manufacturers and service 
providers more flexibility to follow market demands and determine the 
percentage of handset models that they offer that meet either telecoil 
or Bluetooth connectivity requirements? Would such a flexible approach 
benefit or harm consumers with hearing loss and how would the 
Commission monitor and evaluate whether the split that develops is 
appropriate or harmful to consumers with hearing loss?
    88. The Commission seeks comment on these alternative approaches. 
Is there a significant additional cost to incorporating both forms of 
connectivity in a single handset model (even though most new handsets 
today offer both technologies)? Would any of these approaches impede 
the development or improvement of handset model technology, either for 
consumers in general or for consumers with hearing loss? The Commission 
seeks comment on this issue in light of the Task Force's statement that 
consumers prefer Bluetooth coupling over telecoil coupling. Is one of 
these approaches more in the interest of consumers while allowing more 
opportunity for handset manufacturers to innovate? What are the costs 
and benefits of each of these approaches or an approach that gradually 
evens the split between telecoil and Bluetooth coupling requirements 
over a period of years and what should the period of years be?

D. Transition Periods for 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility

    89. The Commission proposes to establish a 24-month transition 
period for handset manufacturers to meet the 100% benchmark, running 
from the effective date of an amended rule adopting the 100% 
requirement, and a 30-month transition period for nationwide service 
providers. Further, the Commission proposes a 42-month transition 
period for non-nationwide service providers. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal.
    90. While the Commission's proposed transition periods are shorter 
than the four-year transition period the HAC Task Force recommends for 
handset manufacturers and the five-year transition period it recommends 
for service providers, the Commission previously has relied on a two-
year transition period when transitioning to new technical standards 
and the Commission proposes that establishing a two-year transition 
period again would be appropriate to balance the product development 
cycles for manufacturers and service providers with the needs of 
consumers with hearing loss. The longer transition periods the 
Commission proposes for service providers will allow new handset models 
certified using the latest certification standards to flow downstream 
and be available for providers to offer for sale.
    91. Given that the Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard in 
February 2021 and that WTB has conditionally granted ATIS's volume 
control waiver request, the Commission believes that these transition 
periods are reasonable. Handset manufacturers have been on notice since 
February 2021 of the requirements of the new standard and WTB granted 
ATIS's request to adjust the volume control testing requirements by 
waiver, based on the conditions set out in the ATIS Ex Parte Letter. Is 
there any reason why handset manufacturers cannot meet a two-year 
transition requirement assuming that the volume control testing 
requirements are those recently approved by WTB and the Commission does 
not adopt a new volume control standard before the end of the 
manufacturer transition period? Since the current volume control 
testing requirements are based on ATIS's request, is there a reason why 
manufacturers cannot meet ATIS's requested testing methodology by the 
end of a two-year transition period?
    92. In order to meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's requirements and 
related volume control requirements, is it simply a matter of testing 
existing hearing aid-compatible handset models under the new standards 
or is there reason to believe that handset models need to be redesigned 
to meet the new standards? If handset models have to be redesigned to 
meet the new standards, would this process already be underway? The 
Commission notes that the Task Force indicates that part of the reason 
it is supporting the 85/15% split is because the 2019 ANSI Standard's 
telecoil testing requirements are ``more difficult'' to meet than the 
2011 ANSI Standard's telecoil requirements. Given that the Task Force 
is accounting for the new telecoil testing standards in its proposed 
85/15% split, why does this not support a two-year transition period 
for manufacturers? Commenters arguing that the new telecoil testing 
standard requires a longer transition period should explain why 
adjusting the split downward is not a better solution then drawing out 
the transition period.
    93. The Commission seeks comment on whether manufacturers and 
service providers can achieve compliance with a 100% requirement within 
the proposed timeframes, and if not, about potential alternative 
timeframes. The Commission seeks comment on the steps manufacturers and 
service providers must take to meet a 100% compliance standard and the 
scope and timeline of any necessary changes. What, if any, obstacles do 
manufacturers or service providers anticipate facing? Given the 
significant public interest in moving quickly to achieve 100% 
compliance as well as the current extensive availability of hearing 
aid-compatible handset models, any commenters proposing longer 
transition periods should provide specific information about why more 
time is needed.
    94. The Commission seeks comment on how the two alternatives 
outlined above for reaching 100% compatibility (i.e., the 
grandfathering proposal or the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach) would 
impact transition times. Would the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach 
require a longer transition period to 100% hearing aid compatibility 
than its grandfathering proposal? What impact would that longer period 
have on consumers with hearing loss? If the Commission requires 100% of 
handset models to meet only certain aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard 
(or future ANSI standards adopted by the Commission), is a 24-month 
transition period for manufacturers and a 30-month or 42-month 
transition period for service providers feasible? Alternatively, if the 
Commission adopts the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach, should it 
impose the transition period proposed by the Task Force--four years for 
manufacturers and five years for service providers? Instead of a single 
timeline, should the Commission develop separate timelines for reaching 
different aspects of hearing aid compatibility, such as 100% compliance 
on acoustic coupling, as compared to reaching 100% compliance for 
``magnetic/wireless coupling'' (i.e., the 85/15% proposal for telecoil 
coupling and Bluetooth connectivity), and another

[[Page 5166]]

timeline for reaching 100% for volume control?

E. Handset Settings for Hearing Aid Compatibility

    95. The Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules do 
not address whether a handset model by default must come out-of-the-box 
with its hearing aid compatibility functions fully turned on, or 
whether it is permissible for a manufacturer to require a consumer to 
turn these functions on by going into the handset's settings. Further, 
the Commission's rules do not address whether a handset model can have 
two different settings: one setting that turns on acoustic coupling and 
volume control, but not telecoil coupling, and a second separate 
setting that turns on the handset model's telecoil coupling 
capabilities. In addition, the Commission's rules do not address 
whether a handset model in telecoil mode has to continue to fully meet 
acoustic and volume control requirements.
    96. While the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules do not 
address this issue, staff has informally advised handset manufacturers 
that handset models cannot have separate selections for volume control 
compliance and another for RF interference and telecoil compliance. 
Staff has stated that only one hearing aid compatibility selection is 
permitted and multiple selections are not permitted. Recently, staff 
has been asked whether this informal advice could be modified to allow 
two hearing aid compatibility modes of operation in a handset model and 
whether a handset model in telecoil mode must continue to fully meet 
acoustic coupling and volume control requirements.
    97. The HAC Task Force's Final Report does not address this hearing 
aid compatibility handset model setting issue. The Task Force does 
recommend, however, that the Commission require acoustic coupling in 
all handset models and adopt a Bluetooth connectivity requirement as an 
alternative coupling method to telecoil coupling in a certain 
percentage of handset models. If the Commission adopts this Bluetooth 
proposal, then a handset model certified as hearing aid compatible 
under the 2019 ANSI Standard would have to meet at least three hearing 
aid compatibility requirements. The handset model would have to meet 
acoustic coupling and volume control requirements and--depending on the 
handset model--would also have to meet either a telecoil coupling or 
Bluetooth connectivity requirement. It is also conceivable that a 
handset model might meet acoustic, telecoil, and Bluetooth coupling 
requirements as well as the volume control requirements that WTB 
recently addressed.
    98. Given these potential alternative coupling methods and informal 
manufacturer requests that the Commission allow more than one mode of 
operation for hearing aid compatibility in a handset model and detail 
what each mode of operation must include, the Commission believes 
stakeholders would benefit from the establishment of a rule, and it 
seeks comment on this issue. The Commission proposes that after the 
expiration of the manufacturer transition period, all handset models 
must by default come out-of-the-box with acoustic coupling and volume 
control certification requirements fully turned on. The Commission 
further proposes to permit handset models to have a specific setting 
that turns on the handset model's telecoil or Bluetooth coupling 
function, depending on the secondary capability included in a 
particular handset model. The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposals as well as whether a handset model operating in telecoil or 
Bluetooth coupling mode must also continue to meet acoustic coupling 
and volume control requirements or some aspects of these requirements.
    99. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is 
necessary for a handset model in telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode to 
continue to fully meet acoustic and volume control requirements. Should 
the Commission allow handset models operating in telecoil or Bluetooth 
coupling mode to automatically turn off acoustic coupling or the volume 
control function, or should it require these functions to remain on or 
some portion of these functions to remain on? Is it technically 
feasible for a handset model in telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode to 
meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's acoustic and volume control requirements 
in full or even necessary from a consumer's perspective for a handset 
model in telecoil mode or Bluetooth coupling mode to meet these 
requirements? Should a handset model that meets all four hearing aid 
compatibility requirements be required to meet all aspects of acoustic 
and volume control requirements or only some part of those requirements 
when it is operating in telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode? If it is 
technically feasible for a handset model to operate with telecoil and/
or Bluetooth coupling at the same time as meeting the acoustic coupling 
and volume control requirements, should the Commission require all 
available coupling options to be turned on in the handset model's 
default mode?
    100. If the Commission determines to allow more than one hearing 
aid compatibility mode of operation, it is concerned with how difficult 
it might be for consumers to discover these features and to understand 
their functionality. In this regard, should the Commission establish 
standard hearing aid compatibility settings that would be consistent 
across all hearing aid-compatible handset models? Would it be helpful 
if the Commission were to establish uniform, industry-wide nomenclature 
for compatibility modes in handset models? If the Commission allows a 
handset model to have two compatibility modes, what should it call 
these modes? Should the default mode be called HAC mode and the second 
mode be called Telecoil or Bluetooth mode, depending on the handset 
model? What if a handset model meets all four hearing aid compatibility 
requirements? Under these circumstances, should it allow three 
different modes of compatibility and, if so, what should the Commission 
require each of these modes to be called, and what hearing aid 
compatibility functions should it require to be included in each mode?
    101. Commenters should fully explain why they support or oppose the 
Commission's proposals for different modes of operations and why the 
Commission's proposals are in the public interest or not in the public 
interest. What are the costs and benefits of each of the Commission's 
proposals? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of the 
Commission's proposals in terms of their impact on handset 
manufacturers and consumers?

F. Consumer Notification Provisions

1. Labeling and Disclosure Requirements
    102. The Commission seeks comment on whether to revise the labeling 
and disclosure requirements in Sec.  20.19(f). As stated above, the 
Commission proposes that, after the expiration of the applicable 
transition period for handset manufacturers, all handset models must be 
certified as hearing aid compatible. Further, the Commission proposes 
that at least 85% of these handset models must meet a telecoil coupling 
requirement and that at least 15% of these handset models must meet the 
Commission's new Bluetooth coupling requirement. The Commission 
proposes using either its grandfathering proposal or a 100% 2019 ANSI 
Standard alternative. Under either approach, the Commission proposes 
that all new handset models must be certified using

[[Page 5167]]

the 2019 ANSI Standard's acoustic coupling requirements and the related 
volume control requirements, and that all new handset models must meet 
either the standard's telecoil coupling requirement or a Bluetooth 
requirement. If the Commission adopts these proposed changes, it 
tentatively conclude that it should revise the package labeling 
provisions in Sec.  20.19(f)(1) of the Commission's rules to reflect 
these changes. Specifically, it tentatively concludes that the handset 
model's package label must state whether the handset model includes 
telecoil coupling capability that meets certification requirements; 
includes Bluetooth connectivity as a replacement for meeting telecoil 
certification requirements; or includes both. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether revising the package labeling rule in this way would 
be sufficient to ensure that consumers can easily determine from 
looking at a handset model's package label whether the handset model 
has the coupling ability that meets their needs.
    103. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it should make 
a corresponding change to the package insert and handset user manual 
requirements in Sec.  20.19(f)(2) to require information in a package 
insert or user manual about whether a handset model meets telecoil 
certification requirements; replaces this requirement with Bluetooth 
coupling ability; or includes both. Section 20.19(f)(2) establishes 
labeling and disclosure requirements for manufacturers and service 
providers and requires them to include certain information about the 
hearing aid compatibility of each handset model in a package insert or 
user manual for the handset. For new handset models that use Bluetooth 
coupling rather than telecoil coupling to meet Commission requirements, 
the Commission proposes to require that the package insert or handset 
model user manual explain that the handset model does not meet telecoil 
certification requirements and instead couples with hearing aids using 
a Bluetooth standard and provide the name of that Bluetooth standard. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether revising the rule in this way 
would provide sufficient information for consumers.
    104. Further, if the Commission allows handset models to have 
default and secondary hearing aid compatibility modes of operation, it 
tentatively concludes that it should modify its handset package insert 
and user manual requirements to require an explanation of each of these 
modes, what each mode does and does not include, and how to turn these 
settings on and off. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. How 
can the Commission ensure that consumers can easily understand these 
modes of operation and what each mode of operation includes and does 
not include? Besides the name of the mode, how does the Commission 
ensure that consumers can easily find these modes in a handset model's 
setting and that the modes are not buried in subheadings? Commenters 
supporting this modification should provide examples of what the 
package insert or user manual rule should state. Commenters supporting 
or opposing this change should explain why this change is or is not in 
the public interest and why this change is consistent or inconsistent 
with section 710(d) of the Act.
2. Digital Labeling Technology
    105. As an additional proposed change to Sec.  20.19(f)(2), the 
Commission proposes to permit manufacturers and service providers to 
provide the information required under this section to consumers 
through the use of digital labeling technology (e.g., quick response 
(QR) codes) on handset boxes rather than through a package insert or 
user manual. A QR code is a type of barcode that can be read easily by 
a digital device, such as a handset with a camera, and is typically 
used for storing Uniform Resource Locator (URL) information. Companies 
often use QR codes to link consumers to a company's web page in order 
to provide consumers with additional information on a company product.
    106. When the Commission adopted the requirement for package 
inserts, it considered requests from industry to give manufacturers and 
service providers more flexibility in the methods used to convey 
information on a handset model's hearing aid compatibility and volume 
control capabilities, including providing this information online 
rather than in the packaging insert or user manual. The Commission 
found, however, that consumers may not necessarily visit service 
provider websites before going to a service provider's store and 
purchasing a hearing aid-compatible handset. Therefore, the Commission 
required that package inserts and user manuals be provided with hearing 
aid-compatible handset models and that this information not just be 
provided online.
    107. The Commission proposes to reconsider its determination and 
allow manufacturers and service providers to meet the requirements of 
Sec.  20.19(f)(2) through the use of digital labeling technology such 
as QR codes on handset boxes, or other accessible formats. When the 
Commission required manufacturers and service providers to include this 
information in package inserts or user manuals and declined to permit 
this information to be provided online, it based its decision on its 
finding that consumers may not necessarily visit service provider 
websites before going to a service provider's store and purchasing a 
hearing aid-compatible handset. By contrast, permitting service 
providers and manufacturers to include QR codes on handset packaging 
would not require consumers to visit a website before purchasing a 
handset and instead would provide consumers with access to relevant 
information at the point of sale while consumers are in stores making 
purchasing decisions. Further, permitting manufacturers and service 
providers to use QR codes on a handset model's package as an 
alternative to including a paper insert or user manual with the 
required hearing aid compatibility information could help ensure that 
consumers receive more up to date information, while saving paper and 
helping to streamline packaging.
    108. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and whether 
permitting the use of QR codes would be an effective alternative 
approach for ensuring that consumers with hearing loss receive relevant 
hearing aid compatibility information when purchasing their mobile 
devices. Would allowing the use of QR codes provide a more consumer 
friendly approach then continuing to require the use of paper inserts 
and user manuals? How familiar are consumers with QR codes? Are there 
enough consumers that are not familiar with QR codes that the 
Commission should continue to require the use of paper inserts and user 
manuals in addition to allowing the use of QR codes? Do consumers have 
the ability to scan a QR code before purchasing a handset, or would 
they have to rely on store employees to scan the code for them so that 
they could read the information?
    109. Do paper inserts and user manuals have benefits that QR codes 
cannot provide? If so, what are these benefits? Along these same lines, 
are there other types of digital labeling technology that the 
Commission should consider permitting as either an alternative to or in 
conjunction with the use of QR codes? What are these other digital 
labeling technologies? Further, if the Commission allows the use of 
digital labeling technology as an alternative to paper inserts and user 
manuals, how can it ensure that these methods of labeling do not become 
obsolete before it can update the labeling rules? Finally, what are the 
costs and benefits of

[[Page 5168]]

permitting the use of QR codes or other types of digital labeling as an 
alternative to continuing to require the use of paper inserts and user 
manuals?
3. Handset Model Number Designation
    110. The Commission seeks comment on whether to update its rule on 
handset model number designations. Section 20.19(g) of the Commission's 
rules requires that ``where a manufacturer has made physical changes to 
a handset that result in a change in the hearing aid compatibility 
rating under the 2011 ANSI standard or an earlier version of the 
standard, the altered handset must be given a model designation 
distinct from that of the handset prior to its alteration.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on how this rule should apply in cases where a 
handset model that has passed the 2011 ANSI Standard and has an 
assigned model number subsequently passes the 2019 ANSI Standard. Under 
the current rule, if there have been no physical changes to the handset 
model (i.e., no changes in hardware or software) a new model number 
would not be required, but the handset manufacturer may issue the 
handset model a new model number if it chooses to.
    111. In these cases, where a handset model that is already 
certified as hearing aid compatible is re-certified under an updated 
ANSI standard, the Commission seeks comment on whether to revise the 
rule to require a manufacturer to issue a new model number even if 
there is no physical change to the handset model. Would revising the 
rule to require manufacturers to issue a new model number for such 
handset models benefit consumers with hearing loss by making it easier 
for them to identify the handset models that have been certified under 
updated standards? How would consumers be able to discern which models 
have been certified under updated standards otherwise? Would the costs 
or other burdens associated with such an approach be significant enough 
to outweigh the potential benefits for consumers?

G. Website, Record Retention, and Reporting Requirements

1. Website and Record Retention Requirements
    112. After the end of the applicable transition periods, the 
Commission tentatively concludes that it should require handset 
manufacturers and service providers to identify on their publicly 
accessible websites which handset models in their handset portfolios 
meet telecoil certification requirements. For those handset models that 
do not meet telecoil certification requirements, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that handset manufacturers and service providers 
must affirmatively state that the handset model does not meet telecoil 
certification requirements and identify which Bluetooth connectivity 
standards the handset model meets instead. The Commission also 
tentatively concludes that handset manufacturers and service providers 
must identify on their publicly accessible websites the conversational 
gain with and without hearing aids for each handset model that they 
offer regardless of whether the handset model meets telecoil 
certification standards or includes Bluetooth connectivity instead. The 
posting of a handset model's conversational gain with and without 
hearing aids is consistent with the Commission's current handset model 
package label rule. The Commission believes that all of this 
information is essential for consumers to have access to in order to 
purchase handset models that meet their individual needs.
    113. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative conclusions. 
Commenters opposing these tentative conclusions should clearly explain 
why these tentative conclusions are not in the public interest. What 
are the costs and benefits of these tentative conclusions? The 
Commission notes that if it allows the use of QR codes or other digital 
labeling technology as an alternative to paper inserts or user manuals, 
this may be the only way a consumer might be able to access some of 
this information. Further, consumers might research this information 
online before going to a store or may actually buy the handset online 
without going to the store. Commenters should provide a detailed 
explanation as to why they support or oppose these tentative 
conclusions.
    114. Further, if the Commission adopts a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement, it seeks comment on whether to streamline 
other components of the website and record retention requirements in 
the Commission's rules. In 2018, the Commission imposed new website 
posting requirements for service providers and required providers to 
retain information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 
Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility rules. Under these 
requirements, each manufacturer and service provider that operates a 
publicly-accessible website must make available on its website a list 
of all hearing aid-compatible handset models currently offered, the 
ANSI standard used to evaluate hearing aid compatibility, the ratings 
of those handset models under the relevant ANSI standard, if 
applicable, and an explanation of the rating system. In addition, 
service providers must post on their websites: a list of all non-
hearing aid-compatible handset models currently offered, as well as a 
link to the current FCC web page containing information about the 
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules and service providers' 
obligations. Each service provider must also include the marketing 
model name/number(s) and FCC ID number of each hearing aid-compatible 
and non-hearing aid-compatible handset model currently offered.
    115. Service providers must also retain on their website a link to 
a third-party website as designated by the Commission or WTB, with 
information regarding hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-
compatible handset models or, alternatively, a clearly marked list of 
hearing aid-compatible handset models that have been offered in the 
past 24 months but are no longer offered by that provider. The rules 
also require that the information on a manufacturer's or service 
provider's website must be updated within 30 days of any relevant 
changes, and any website pages containing information so updated must 
indicate the day on which the update occurred.
    116. Further, the rules require service providers to retain 
internal records for discontinued handset models, to be made available 
upon Commission request of: (1) handset model information, including 
the month year/each hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-
compatible handset model was first offered; and (2) the month/year each 
hearing aid-compatible handset model and non-hearing aid-compatible 
handset model was last offered for all discontinued handset models 
until a period of 24 months has passed from that date.
    117. The Commission seeks comment on whether to streamline these 
requirements by eliminating the requirement to post or retain 
information about non hearing aid-compatible handset models. If the 
Commission requires that 100% of handset models be hearing aid 
compatible, it does not anticipate that there would continue to be a 
need for providers to post information about non hearing aid-compatible 
handset models on their websites. Do commenters disagree? Should the 
Commission continue to require service providers to post information 
and keep records about the non-hearing aid-compatible handset

[[Page 5169]]

models they offered previously? Would doing so provide useful 
information for consumers? If the Commission adopts the 100% compliance 
standard, would the website and record retention rules continue to be 
necessary to help ensure compliance with the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements?
2. FCC Form 655 and 855
    118. In this section, the Commission tentatively concludes that 
after the handset manufacturer 100% transition period ends, it will 
revise the handset manufacturer annual reporting requirement by 
eliminating the requirement that a manufacturer use FCC Form 655 for 
reporting purposes and instead replace this requirement with the 
requirement that it use FCC Form 855 for reporting purposes. FCC Form 
855 is the same form that service providers presently file to show 
compliance with the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility 
provisions. The Commission also tentatively concludes that after the 
expiration of the manufacturer transition period, it will change the 
reporting deadline for handset manufacturers from July 31 each year to 
January 31 each year. Along with requiring handset manufacturers to 
file the same form as service providers, this change would align the 
filing deadline for handset manufacturers with the current filing 
deadline for service providers. The Commission seeks comment on these 
tentative conclusions below.
    119. Background. Under Sec.  20.19(i), handset manufacturers are 
presently required to submit FCC Form 655 reports on their compliance 
with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements each year. 
FCC Form 655 requires manufacturers to provide information on: (i) 
handset models tested since the most recent report, for compliance with 
the applicable hearing aid compatibility technical ratings; (ii) 
compliant handset models offered to service providers since the most 
recent report, identifying each model by marketing model name/number(s) 
and FCC ID number; (iii) for each compliant model, the air interface(s) 
and frequency band(s) over which it operates, the hearing aid 
compatibility ratings for each frequency band and air interface under 
the ANSI standard (if applicable), the ANSI standard version used, and 
the months in which the model was available to service providers since 
the most recent report; (iv) non-compliant models offered to service 
providers since the most recent report, identifying each model by 
marketing model name/number(s) and FCC ID number; (v) for each non-
compliant model, the air interface(s) over which it operates and the 
months in which the model was available to service providers since the 
most recent report; (vi) total numbers of compliant and non-compliant 
models offered to service providers for each air interface as of the 
time of the report; (vii) any instance, as of the date of the report or 
since the most recent report, in which multiple compliant or non-
compliant devices were marketed under separate model name/numbers but 
constitute a single model for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility 
rules, identifying each device by marketing model name/number and FCC 
ID number; (viii) status of product labeling; (ix) outreach efforts, 
and (x) if the manufacturer maintains a public website, the website 
address of the page(s) containing the required information regarding 
handset models.
    120. Section 20.19(i) also requires that service providers submit 
FCC Form 855 each year certifying under penalty of perjury their 
compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility 
requirements. Certifications filed by service providers must include: 
(i) the name of the signing executive and contact information; (ii) the 
company(ies) covered by the certification; (iii) the FCC Registration 
Number (FRN); (iv) if the service provider maintains a public website, 
the website address of the page(s) containing the required information 
regarding handset models; (v) the percentage of handset models offered 
that are hearing aid compatible; and (vi) a statement certifying that 
the service provider was in or was not in full compliance with the 
hearing aid compatibility provisions for the reporting period.
    121. Prior to the 2018 HAC Order, the Commission required service 
providers to show compliance with the Commission's wireless hearing aid 
compatibility provisions by filing FCC Form 655 just as handset 
manufacturers are presently required to do. In the 2018 HAC Order, 
however, the Commission took steps to reduce regulatory burden on 
service providers by eliminating annual service reporting requirements 
and allowing service providers to instead file a streamlined annual 
certification stating their compliance with the Commission's hearing 
aid compatibility requirements. The Commission found that many of the 
benefits of annual status reporting by service providers had become 
increasingly outweighed by the burdens that such information collection 
placed on those entities. The Commission noted that the action it was 
taking would streamline ``the Commission's collection of information 
while continuing to fulfill the underlying purposes of the current 
reporting regime.''
    122. While the 2018 HAC Order did not change the reporting 
requirements for handset manufacturers, the Commission noted that in 
the 100% hearing aid compatibility docket it was considering broader 
changes to the hearing aid compatibility rules that may be appropriate 
in the event it required 100% of covered handset models to be hearing 
aid compatible. The Commission indicated that the website, record 
retention, and certification requirements it was adopting as part of 
the 2018 HAC Order would remain in place unless and until the 
Commission took further action in the 100% hearing aid compatibility 
docket and that its decisions did not ``prejudge any further steps we 
may take to modify our reporting rules in that proceeding.''
    123. Currently, handset manufacturer compliance filings are due by 
July 31 each year and cover the reporting period from the previous July 
1 to June 30. Service providers compliance filings are due by January 
31 of each year and cover the previous calendar year--January 1 through 
December 31.
    124. Discussion. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative 
conclusions to require handset manufacturers to file FCC Form 855 
instead of FCC Form 655 and to align the filing deadline for handset 
manufacturers to the January 31 deadline that currently applies to 
service providers. Is moving handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855 
after the end of the manufacturer transition period consistent with a 
100% hearing aid compatibility standard? If the Commission requires all 
handset models to be hearing aid compatible, would requiring 
manufacturers to submit information on the more detailed FCC Form 655 
still be necessary? After the transition period expires, handset 
manufacturers will no longer be permitted to offer non-hearing-aid 
compatible handset models. Is there any reason why the Commission would 
need to continue to collect information about handset models such as 
the marketing name or model number, air interface, or months offered?
    125. Is it in the public interest to move handset manufacturers to 
FCC Form 855 once the handset manufacturer transition period ends? The 
Commission seeks comment on the relative costs and benefits of moving 
handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855 rather than continuing to require 
them to file FCC Form 655. Would moving

[[Page 5170]]

manufacturers to FCC Form 855 be sufficient to emphasize to 
manufacturers the importance of compliance with the Commission's rules 
while reducing the burdens of gathering, formatting, and submitting 
data for FCC Form 655? Similarly, would aligning the manufacturer 
compliance filing deadline with the current January 31 deadline for 
service providers provide for efficiencies or create any difficulties 
for handset manufacturers or service providers?
    126. As discussed above, as part of its proposal for a 100% hearing 
aid compatibility benchmark, the Commission proposes to require that at 
least 85% of handset models offered meet a telecoil coupling 
requirement and that at least 15% of handset models offered meet a 
Bluetooth connectivity requirement. If the Commission adopts these 
proposed benchmarks, should it retain the FCC Form 655 reporting 
obligation for handset manufacturers so that it can monitor 
manufacturers' compliance, or would it be sufficient to require 
manufacturers to certify that they are in compliance with these 
requirements and all other requirements by filing under penalty of 
perjury FCC Form 855 as service providers presently do? Given the 
Commission's proposal that handset manufacturers would have to indicate 
on their websites which of their offered handset models meet telecoil 
certification standards and which do not, would such a requirement 
eliminate the need to require manufacturers to file FCC Form 655 and 
allow the Commission to replace this requirement with a requirement 
that they file FCC Form 855?
    127. In addition, if the Commission adopts its grandfathering 
proposal for the 100% requirement, handset manufacturers would have in 
their handset portfolios handset models certified under different 
certification standards, including some handset models certified under 
the 2011 ANSI Standard and others certified under the 2019 ANSI 
Standard. Would maintaining the FCC Form 655 reporting requirement be 
necessary to obtain information about the different hearing aid-
compatible handset models that manufacturers offer? In this regard, the 
Commission notes that handset manufacturers are required to indicate on 
their websites the ANSI standard under which a handset model is 
certified. Does this website posting requirement eliminate the need to 
file FCC Form 655 because of grandfathered handset models? Further, can 
the Commission gather relevant handset model information from equipment 
authorization reports instead of from FCC Form 655?
    128. Finally, if the Commission maintains the FCC Form 655 filing 
requirement for handset manufacturers after the end of the manufacturer 
transition period, are there any changes that the Commission should 
make to this form in regards to the information that the form collects? 
Further, are the any changes that the Commission should make to FCC 
Form 855 in regards to the information that this form collects either 
in terms of service providers or if it moves handset manufacturers to 
this form, too?
3. Reliance on Accessibility Clearinghouse
    129. The Commission proposes to decline the HAC Task Force's 
recommendation that the Commission permit service providers to rely on 
the information linked to in the Commission's Accessibility 
Clearinghouse as a legal safe harbor when making a determination of 
whether a handset model is hearing aid compatible for purposes of 
meeting applicable benchmarks.
    130. The HAC Task Force's Final Report recommends that service 
providers should be able to rely on the information reported in the 
Global Accessibility Reporting Initiative (GARI) database, which is 
linked at the Accessibility Clearinghouse website. The Report asserts 
that the GARI database would provide a more up-to-date snapshot of 
hearing aid-compatible handset models than the annual FCC Form 655 
report that manufacturers file. Presently, the Commission allows 
service providers to rely on the information from a handset 
manufacturer's FCC Form 655 as a safe harbor. In its Public Notice, WTB 
sought comment on the HAC Task Force's recommendation. MWF commented 
that its GARI website had ``gained global recognition'' and that the 
database ``is kept up to date with the available devices in the 
marketplace.'' MWF also noted that for the GARI website, ``all 
manufacturer statements'' are ``subject to the legal requirements for 
accuracy of representations to consumers.'' The HAC Task Force, in its 
reply, argued that being able to rely on the GARI database ``will 
provide a user-friendly experience for service providers to receive 
timely information, compared to the Form 655 reports and Equipment 
Authorization System.''
    131. While handset manufacturers must certify to the accuracy of 
their FCC Form 655 reports, there is no similar requirement with 
respect to the information handset manufacturers submit to the GARI 
database. The GARI database is not a Commission-maintained database, 
and the Commission does not control who can access the database and 
what information is added to the database. The Commission has no means 
of ensuring that the information in the GARI database is accurate, 
timely, or complete. Further, the Commission already allows service 
providers to rely on the information from a handset manufacturer's FCC 
Form 655 as a safe harbor, and it is not convinced that it is necessary 
to allow service providers a second safe harbor that may not contain 
accurate information.
    132. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to decline the Task 
Force's recommendation that would allow a service provider to rely on 
the information linked to in the Commission's Accessibility 
Clearinghouse to determine whether a handset model is hearing aid 
compatible for the purpose of meeting applicable benchmarks. The 
Commission seeks comment on its proposed determination. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether, once the transition to 100% hearing aid 
compatibility is completed, its rules should continue to require 
service providers to either link to the GARI database on their publicly 
accessible websites or provide a list for the past 24 months of hearing 
aid-compatible handset models that they no longer offer.
    133. The Commission also proposes to decline the Task Force's 
recommendation that, if a handset model is not in the GARI database, 
the Commission ``automatically and immediately upload'' handset 
manufacturers' FCC Form 655 reports to the Accessibility Clearinghouse 
after they are submitted to the Commission. The Commission already 
posts these reports on the Commission's wireless hearing aid 
compatibility website and links to that website on the Accessibility 
Clearinghouse website. The Commission seeks comment on its proposed 
determinations.
4. Contact Information for Consumers
    134. The Commission tentatively concludes that it should modify its 
website posting requirements to require handset manufacturers and 
service providers to include on their publicly accessible websites a 
point-of-contact for consumers to use in order to resolve questions 
they have about a company's hearing aid-compatible handset models. 
Under its tentative conclusion, handset manufacturers and service 
providers would provide the name of a

[[Page 5171]]

department or a division that is staffed with knowledgeable employees 
and provide an email address, mailing address, and a toll free number 
that consumers could contact in order to find out information about a 
hearing aid-compatible handset model that the company offers or to ask 
questions about how a particular handset model links to the consumer's 
hearing device. The Commission would expect manufacturers and service 
providers to be responsive to consumer questions and interact with 
consumers asking questions about hearing aid-compatible handset models 
in a manner consistent with the Consumer Code for Wireless Service that 
can be found on CTIA's website.
    135. Section 710(a) of the Act requires the Commission to 
``establish such regulations as are necessary to ensure reasonable 
access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on whether requiring handset manufacturers and 
service providers to post contact information on their publicly 
accessible websites is necessary in order to ensure that consumers with 
hearing loss have reasonable access to telephone service. The 
Commission believes such a requirement might be beneficial to consumers 
in terms of getting their questions answered and may help handset 
manufacturers and service providers sell new handsets and services. 
Further, by requiring the contact information to be provided on 
publicly accessible websites, the information can be easily updated and 
is readily accessible to the public; a provider's website is also a 
place the public reasonably expects to find contact information for 
these types of inquiries. The Commission's website posting rules 
require websites to be updated within 30 days of a change.
    136. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that 
handset manufacturers and service providers should be required to 
include contact information on their publicly accessible websites that 
consumers can use regarding questions that they might have on a 
company's hearing aid-compatible handset models. How can the Commission 
ensure that handset manufacturers and service providers display contact 
information in a uniform fashion and in a uniform location on their 
websites? Should the Commission require that this information be 
provided on the first page of their hearing aid compatibility web pages 
and in a particular location on this page, such as the upper right-hand 
corner? Should the Commission require that this information be labeled 
as HAC Contact Information or something similar? How can the Commission 
ensure that consumers can easily find the required contact information, 
and should the Commission require additional information to be provided 
beyond what it is proposing?
    137. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to require 
handset manufacturers and service providers both to provide this 
contact information on their publicly accessible websites, and also to 
provide this contact information in their FCC Form 655 and 855 filings. 
Under this alternative, the Commission would modify these forms to 
provide a space where this contact information would be provided. These 
forms contain certification requirements to ensure the accuracy of the 
information that is provided; however, the forms are only due once a 
year and are not required to be updated within 30 days of a change as 
the Commission's website posting rule requires. Further, consumers 
might not be aware of these forms or where to access them but are 
likely familiar with company websites and understand how to access 
them. Moreover, consumers would expect to find this type of contact 
information on a company website.
    138. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should require handset manufacturers and service providers to enter the 
required contact information in a Commission-maintained database. Under 
this approach, the Commission would create a database that would 
contain company point-of-contact information for consumers who have 
hearing aid compatibility questions related to a company's hearing aid-
compatible handset models that they offer. Companies would be required 
to enter their contact information for hearing aid compatibility 
questions directly into the database and to update their contact 
information within 30 days of any changes. This database would operate 
similarly to the Commission's Recordkeeping Compliance Certification 
and Contact Information Registry. This database could be used to search 
for a company's representatives who are knowledgeable about the 
company's hearing aid-compatible handset models that they offer and 
could answer consumer questions related to these models.
    139. Commenters supporting or opposing the above approaches should 
explain why these proposals are consistent or inconsistent with 
statutory requirements. In addition, commenters should explain why 
these proposals are or are not in the public interest and what the 
costs and benefits of each of these proposals are. Is the Commission's 
website posting approach more beneficial to consumers in terms of 
getting questions answered and to companies in terms of selling new 
handsets and services then the other approaches outlined above? Are 
consumers familiar with FCC Form 655 and 855 filings, and do they know 
where to find these filings and how to access them? From a consumer's 
perspective is it necessary for consumers to be able to find this 
contact information on the certification forms or is being able to 
locate it on a company's website sufficient? Is the website posting 
approach more consumer friendly than adding the contact information to 
FCC Forms 655 and 855 or the database approach? If the Commission 
adopts a database approach, how would consumers know about the database 
or where to find it? Are consumers more likely to go to a company's 
website before exploring other options? Further, is there an existing 
Commission database that is accessible to consumers that the Commission 
could utilize for purposes of requiring handset manufacturers and 
service providers to list customer service contact information?
    140. Finally, the Commission proposes to delete the last sentence 
of Sec.  20.19(j) which provides that for state enforcement purposes 
the procedures set forth in part 68, subpart E of the Commission's 
rules should be followed. The rules in part 68, subpart E relate to 
sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Communications Act rather than 
section 610 and the Commission, therefore, proposes to delete this 
sentence.

H. Sunsetting the De Minimis Exception

    141. In view of its tentative conclusion to require 100% of handset 
models to be hearing aid compatible after the expiration of the 
relevant transition periods, the Commission tentatively concludes that 
it should remove the de minimis exception in Sec.  20.19(e) of the 
Commission's rules. Under this tentative conclusion, once the 
applicable transition periods expire handset manufacturers and service 
providers will no longer be able to claim de minimis status.
    142. Section 20.19(e) provides a de minimis exception to hearing 
aid compatibility obligations for those manufacturers and mobile 
service providers that only offer a small number of handset models. 
Specifically, section 20.19(e)(1) provides that manufacturers and 
service providers offering two handset models or fewer in the United 
States over an air interface are exempt

[[Page 5172]]

from the requirements of Sec.  20.19, other than the reporting 
requirement. Section 20.19(e)(2) provides that manufacturers or service 
providers that offer three handset models over an air interface must 
offer at least one compliant model. Section 20.19(e)(3) provides that 
manufacturers or service providers that offer four or five handset 
models in an air interface must offer at least two handset models that 
are hearing aid compatible in that air interface.
    143. The Commission first adopted the de minimis rule together with 
the initial wireless hearing aid compatibility requirements in 2003, 
based on its recognition that the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements could have a disproportionate impact on small 
manufacturers or those that sell only a small number of digital 
wireless handset models in the United States, as well as on service 
providers that offer only a small number of digital wireless handset 
models. In the 2005 HAC Order, the Commission clarified that the de 
minimis rule applies on a per air interface basis, rather than across a 
manufacturer's or service provider's entire product line. In 2010, the 
Commission modified the de minimis exception as applied to companies 
that are not small entities by deciding that, beginning two years after 
it offers its first handset model over an air interface, a manufacturer 
or service provider that is not a small entity, must offer at least one 
model that is hearing aid compatible.
    144. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion to 
remove the de minimis exception to its hearing aid compatibility rules. 
Maintaining a de minimis exception that would permit a manufacturer to 
certify less than 100% of its handset models as hearing aid compatible 
or would allow a service provider to maintain a handset portfolio that 
is less than 100% composed of hearing aid-compatible handset models 
would be inconsistent with the Commission's objective of developing a 
100% compliance standard. While the de minimis exception served an 
important purpose when it was implemented two decades ago, today 
manufacturers and service providers are able to offer more easily a 
range of hearing aid-compatible handset models using a variety of 
technologies including Bluetooth. Considering the developments in 
hearing aid compatibility technologies, and the greater availability of 
hearing aid-compatible handset models, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether maintaining the de minimis exception is necessary. Are there 
reasons why smaller manufacturers cannot certify all of their handset 
models as hearing aid compatible or why smaller manufacturers or 
wireless providers cannot ensure that all of the handset models that 
they offer are hearing aid compatible? Do commenters believe that 
maintaining a de minimis exception would still be necessary to preserve 
competitive opportunities for small entities?

I. 90-Day Shot Clock for Waivers

    145. The HAC Task Force's Final Report recommends that the 
Commission set a 90-day shot clock for the resolution of petitions for 
waiver of the hearing aid-compatibility requirements, which would 
include a public notice comment cycle. In the Public Notice on the Task 
Force's recommendations, WTB sought comment on this proposal. In its 
reply comments, the Task Force reiterated its recommendation. No other 
commenters addressed this issue.
    146. The Commission proposes to decline the Task Force's 
recommendation because it does not anticipate that establishing a shot 
clock would be necessary to ensure the timely resolution of potential 
future requests for waiver of the hearing aid compatibility rules or to 
ensure that the deployment of new technologies is not delayed. In 
addition, given the highly technical nature of the questions that arise 
in the hearing aid-compatibility proceedings, establishing a 90-day 
shot clock could limit public participation and negatively impact 
staff's ability to work with affected stakeholders to develop consensus 
solutions that serve the interest of consumers with hearing loss. The 
Commission notes that not only is the 90-day proposal half of what it 
sought comment on, but that the Commission also sought comment on 
whether there are situations in which it should have the ability to 
extend the waiver deadline. The Commission also notes that section 
710(f) requires the Commission to periodically review the regulations 
established pursuant to the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act. This 
statutory obligation should curtail the need for waivers. The 
Commission seeks comment on its proposed determination.

J. Renaming Section 20.19

    147. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
revise the heading of Sec.  20.19 of its rules to better reflect the 
scope of its requirements. Section 20.19 is currently titled ``Hearing 
aid-compatible mobile handsets.'' The rules, however, are intended to 
help ensure access to communications services for consumers who use 
hearing aids as well as other types of hearing devices such as cochlear 
implants and telecoils as well as consumers who have hearing loss but 
do not use hearing devices. The Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should revise the heading of Sec.  20.19 to better reflect the scope of 
the requirements. If so, the Commission seeks comment on what heading 
the it should adopt. For example, should the Commission rename Sec.  
20.19 to ``Accessibility for Consumers with Hearing Loss'' or ``Hearing 
Loss Interoperability Requirements?'' Are there alternative headings 
the Commission should consider? Would revising the section heading 
create consumer confusion or provide needed clarity?

K. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion

    148. To the extent not already addressed, the Commission, as part 
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including 
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural 
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically 
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues 
discussed herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its 
inquiries may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's 
relevant legal authority.
    149. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section 
above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). All filings related to this document 
shall refer to WT Docket No. 23-388.

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    150. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has 
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested

[[Page 5173]]

on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the NPRM. The 
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    151. The Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules ensure that 
the millions of Americans with hearing loss will have access to the 
same types of technologically advanced telephone handsets as those 
without hearing loss. Both manufacturers and service providers, some of 
which are small entities, are required to make available handsets that 
meet specified technical criteria for hearing aid compatibility. The 
Commission issued the NPRM to develop a record relating to a proposal 
submitted by the Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) Task Force on how the 
Commission can achieve its goal of requiring 100% of handsets offered 
by handset manufacturers and service providers to be certified as 
hearing aid compatible.
    152. The NPRM tentatively concludes that requiring 100% of all 
handsets to be certified as hearing aid compatible is an achievable 
objective under the factors set forth in section 710(e) of the 
Communications Act. As part of this determination, the NPRM seeks 
comment on adopting the more flexible ``forward-looking'' definition of 
hearing aid compatibility that the HAC Task Force recommends. This 
determination also includes a proposal to broaden the current 
definition of hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth 
connectivity technology and to require at least 15% of offered handset 
models to connect to hearing aids through Bluetooth technology as an 
alternative to or in addition to a telecoil. The NPRM seeks comment on 
the Bluetooth technology the Commission should utilize to meet this 
requirement and how to incorporate this requirement into the wireless 
hearing aid compatibility rules. Additionally, the NPRM proposes a 24-
month transition period for handset manufacturers; a 30-month 
transition period for nationwide service providers; and a 42-month 
transition period for non-nationwide service providers to transition to 
a 100% hearing aid-compatible handset standard for all handset models 
offered for sale in the United States or imported for use in the United 
States. The NPRM also seeks comment on certain implementation proposals 
and updates to the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules related to 
these proposals.

B. Legal Basis

    153. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4 and 
641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154 and 641-646.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply

    154. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    155. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities 
that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry 
specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the 
regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small 
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. 
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in 
the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.
    156. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were 
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    157. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that 
at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    158. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms 
had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the 
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
    159. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically 
applicable to unlicensed communications handset manufacturers. Radio 
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing is the closest industry with a SBA small business size 
standard. The Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television 
broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products 
made by these establishments are:

[[Page 5174]]

transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS 
equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, 
and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA 
small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 
1,250 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. 
Thus, under the SBA size standard the majority of firms in this 
industry can be considered small.
    160. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    161. Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless 
Resellers. The closest industry with a SBA small business size standard 
is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications and they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. Under the SBA size standard for this 
industry, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,375 firms 
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, for this industry under 
the SBA small business size standard, the majority of providers can be 
considered small entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    162. The Commission expects potential rule changes proposed in the 
NPRM, if adopted, could impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or 
other compliance requirements on some small entities. If the proposals 
in the NPRM are adopted, small and other manufacturers and service 
providers would be required to certify that 100% of handsets offered 
are hearing aid compatible. Small and other manufacturers' and service 
providers' handset portfolios would be allowed to meet this 100% 
requirement, with grandfathered handsets, or in the alternative, could 
be required to have 100% of handsets meet aspects of the 2019 ANSI 
Standard. Additionally, small and other manufacturers' and service 
providers' could be subject to a compliance requirement that 85% of 
these handsets must meet the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling 
requirements and the remaining 15% of these handsets meet a new 
Bluetooth connectivity requirement as a replacement for meeting the 
standard's telecoil requirements.
    163. If adopted, the transition period for compliance would allow a 
24-month transition period for handset manufacturers; a 30-month 
transition period for nationwide service providers; and a 42-month 
transition period for non-nationwide service providers, which are 
typically small entities, to transition to a 100% hearing aid-
compatible handset standard for all handset models offered for sale in 
the United States or imported for use in the United States.
    164. In addition, small and other handset manufacturers could be 
subject to compliance requirements should certain implementation 
proposals and updates to the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules 
be adopted. For example, a revision to the package labeling provisions 
in section 20.19(f)(1) of the Commission's rules could require handset 
manufacturers to have the handset package label state whether the 
handset has a telecoil that meets certification requirements or instead 
includes Bluetooth connectivity as a replacement for meeting telecoil 
certification requirements. Also, if a corresponding change to the 
package insert and handset manual requirements in section 20.19(f)(2) 
is adopted, manufacturers could be required to provide information in a 
package insert or user manual about whether a handset meets telecoil 
certification requirements or replaces this requirement with Bluetooth 
coupling ability.
    165. If the proposed rules are adopted small and other handset 
manufacturers and service providers would be required to identify on 
their publicly accessible websites which handsets in their handset 
portfolios meet telecoil certification requirements. For those handsets 
that do not meet telecoil certification requirements, handset 
manufacturers and service providers would be required to identify which 
Bluetooth connectivity standards these handsets include. Handset 
manufacturers and service providers would also be required to identify 
on their publicly accessible websites the conversational gain with and 
without hearing aids for each handset that they offer regardless of 
whether the handset meets telecoil certification standards or includes 
Bluetooth connectivity instead.
    166. Additionally, after the expiration of the manufacturer 
transition period, all handsets would be required by default to have 
their acoustic and volume control functions on. Handsets would also be 
allowed to I have a secondary mode whereby the handset's telecoil is 
turned on or, for those handsets that substitute Bluetooth connectivity 
for telecoil connectivity, the Bluetooth function is turned on. In 
addition, proposed modifications of the handset package insert and user 
manual requirements could require an included explanation of each of 
these modes, what each mode does and does not include, and how to turn 
these settings on and off. In view of the proposal to require 100% of 
handsets to be hearing aid compatible, should it be adopted, the de 
minimis exception in section 20.19(e) of the rules would be removed.
    167. Small entities may be required to hire attorneys, engineers, 
consultants, or other professionals to comply with the rule changes 
proposed in the NPRM, if adopted. The Commission does not believe, 
however, that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with 
any of the proposal rule changes will unduly burden small entities. 
While the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the 
potential rule changes and compliance obligations raised in the NPRM, 
in its discussion of the proposals the Commission has requested 
comments from the parties in

[[Page 5175]]

the proceeding including cost and benefit analyses which may help the 
Commission identify and evaluate relevant matters for small entities, 
such as compliance costs and burdens that may result from the proposed 
rules and the matters on which the Commission has requested comments.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    168. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    169. In the NPRM, the Commission considers specific steps it could 
take and alternatives to the proposed rules that could minimize 
potential economic impact on small entities that might be affected by 
the proposed rule changes, as well as any other rule changes that may 
be required as a result of comments provided by interested parties. The 
Commission proposes a 24-month transition period for handset 
manufacturers; a 30-month transition period for nationwide service 
providers; and a 42-month transition period for non-nationwide service 
providers, which are typically small entities, to transition to a 100% 
hearing aid-compatible handset standard for all handset models offered 
for sale in the United States or imported for use in the United States. 
The proposed transition periods would minimize some economic impact for 
small manufacturers and service providers since they would not have to 
immediately comply with the revised standard in the short term. In 
particular, the 42-month transition period would be particularly 
beneficial for non-nationwide providers, which are usually small 
entities. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed 
transition periods are reasonable timeframes to allow implementation of 
the 100% compliance standard. Alternatively, the Commission considered 
using the longer transition periods recommended by the HAC Task Force; 
however, the proposal in the NPRM is both more in keeping with previous 
transition periods the Commission has utilized for new technical 
standards and serves the needs of consumers with hearing loss as soon 
as possible without negatively impacting product development cycles for 
manufacturers and service providers.
    170. To limit any potential burdens regarding the impact of the 
proposed transition to a 100% compliance standard on previously 
manufactured wireless handsets, the Commission proposes to allow 
manufacturers and service providers to continue to offer handsets that 
are already certified as hearing aid compatible as part of their 
hearing aid-compatible handset portfolio. Under this proposal, handsets 
would be grandfathered and manufacturers and service providers can 
include these handsets in their 100% handset portfolios as long as the 
handsets are still being offered. This grandfathering proposal could 
minimize the burdens associated with implementing the new standard for 
small entities because they would not have to recertify previously 
approved handsets. In developing the proposal, the Commission 
considered discontinuing its grandfathering rule, in which case 100% of 
the handset models in a manufacturer's or service provider's handset 
portfolio would have to be certified as hearing aid-compatible using 
the 2019 ANSI Standard's requirements, as modified by a possible 
telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity split. The NPRM seeks comment from 
small and other entities on the economic impact of adopting such an 
approach.
    171. To reduce potential reporting burdens, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether to eliminate website and record retention 
requirements that may no longer be necessary if it adopts a 100% 
compliance standard. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether to eliminate the requirement that service providers and 
manufacturers post or retain information about non hearing aid-
compatible handsets. Additionally, the Commission proposes to eliminate 
the annual service reporting requirements for manufacturers if the 
Commission adopts a 100% compliance standard. Alternatively, the 
Commission considered approaches that would retain website and record 
retention requirements as well as annual service reporting 
requirements, but believes the proposed approach would better serve the 
needs of small entities for the reasons stated above.
    172. The Commission seeks to balance the potential economic impact 
and burdens that small entity manufacturers and service providers might 
face in light of the 100% compliance requirement with the need to 
ensure that Americans with hearing loss can access a wide array of 
handsets with emerging technologies. Therefore the NPRM seeks comment 
on alternative obligations, timing for implementation, and other 
measures including costs and benefits analyses that will allow the 
Commission to more fully consider and evaluate the economic impact on 
small entities. The Commission will review the comments filed in 
response to the NPRM and carefully consider these matters as it relates 
to small entities before adopting final rules in this proceeding.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    173. None.

V. Ordering Clauses

    174. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1-4 and 
641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154 and 641-646, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    175. It is further ordered that WT Docket No. 15-285 is hereby 
terminated.
    176. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Incorporation by reference, Individuals with disabilities, 
Telecommunications, Telephones.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 155, 157, 160, 201, 
214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, and 615c, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  20.19 by:

[[Page 5176]]

0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3), (c) introductory text, 
(c)(1) through (3);
0
b. Removing paragraph (e);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (f) through (l) as paragraphs (e) through 
(k);
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (e) introductory text, 
(e)(1), and (e)(2) introductory text;
0
e. Adding paragraph (e)(2)(ix) to newly redesignated paragraph (e);
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1);
0
g. Adding paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (ii) to newly redesignated paragraph 
(h); and
0
h. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(2) introductory text, and 
(h)(2)(iv) through (vi).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  20.19   Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Handset model compatibility on or after December 31, 2026. In 
order to satisfy a manufacturer or service provider's obligations under 
paragraph (c) of this section, a handset model submitted for equipment 
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid 
compatibility on or after December 31, 2026 must meet:
    (i) The 2019 ANSI standard's acoustic coupling requirements;
    (ii) The 2019 ANSI standard's volume control requirements; and
    (iii) Either the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling 
requirements or have Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement 
for or in addition to meeting the standard's telecoil coupling 
requirements.
    (iv) All such new handset models must by default have their 
acoustic and volume control functions on. Such handset models may also 
have a secondary mode whereby the handset model's telecoil is turned on 
or, for those handset models that substitute Bluetooth connectivity for 
telecoil connectivity, the Bluetooth function is turned on.
    (2) Handset model compatibility before December 31, 2026. In order 
to satisfy a manufacturer's or service provider's obligations under 
paragraph (c) of this section, a handset model submitted for equipment 
certification or for a permissive change relating to hearing aid 
compatibility before December 31, 2026 must meet either:
    (i) The 2019 ANSI standard; or
    (ii) The 2019 ANSI standard's acoustic coupling requirements, 
applicable volume control requirements, and either the standard's 
telecoil coupling requirements or have Bluetooth connectivity 
technology as a replacement for or in addition to meeting the 
standard's telecoil coupling requirements.
    (3) Handset models operating over multiple frequency bands or air 
interfaces
    (i) Beginning on December 31, 2026, a handset model is hearing aid-
compatible if it meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section for all frequency bands that are specified in the 2019 ANSI 
standard and all air interfaces over which it operates on those 
frequency bands, and the handset model has been certified as compliant 
with the test requirements for the 2019 ANSI standard pursuant to Sec.  
2.1033(d) of this chapter.
    (ii) Before December 31, 2026, a handset model is hearing aid-
compatible if it meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section for all frequency bands that are specified in the 2019 ANSI 
standard and all air interfaces over which it operates on those 
frequency bands, and the handset model has been certified as compliant 
with the test requirements for the 2019 ANSI standard pursuant to Sec.  
2.1033(d) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (c) Phase-in of hearing aid-compatibility requirements. The 
following applies to each manufacturer and service provider that offers 
handset models used to deliver digital mobile services as specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (1) Manufacturers--Number of hearing aid-compatible handset models 
offered. After December 31, 2026, for each digital air interface for 
which it offers handset models in the United States or imported for use 
in the United States, one-hundred (100) percent of the handset models 
that the manufacturer offers must be certified as hearing aid-
compatible.
    (i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of those handset models must 
meet the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling requirements or have 
been certified as meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI 
standard; and
    (ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of those handset models must 
have Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement for or in 
addition to meeting the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling 
requirements or the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI standard.
    (2) Tier I carriers. After June 30, 2027, for each digital air 
interface for which it offers handset models to customers, one-hundred 
(100) percent of the handset models that the provider offers must be 
certified as hearing aid-compatible.
    (i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of those handset models must 
meet the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling requirements or have 
been certified as meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI 
standard; and
    (ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of those handset models must 
have Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement for or in 
addition to meeting the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling 
requirements or the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI standard.
    (3) Service providers other than Tier I carriers. After June 30, 
2028, for each digital air interface for which it offers handset models 
to customers, one-hundred (100) percent of the handset models that the 
provider offers must be certified as hearing aid-compatible.
    (i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of those handset models must 
meet the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling requirements or have 
been certified as meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI 
standard; and
    (ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of those handset models must 
have Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement for or in 
addition to meeting the 2019 ANSI standard's telecoil coupling 
requirements or the T3 telecoil rating under a previous ANSI standard.
* * * * *
    (e) Labeling and disclosure requirements for hearing aid-compatible 
handset models.
    (1) Package label. For all handset models certified to be hearing 
aid-compatible, manufacturers and service providers shall ensure that 
the handset model's package label states that the handset model is 
hearing aid-compatible and the handset model's actual conversational 
gain with and without a hearing aid if certified using a technical 
standard with volume control requirements. The actual conversational 
gain displayed for use with a hearing aid shall be the lowest rating 
assigned to the handset model for any covered air interface or 
frequency band. The label shall also state whether the handset model 
has a telecoil that meets certification requirements, includes 
Bluetooth connectivity as a replacement for meeting telecoil 
certification requirements, or includes both.
    (2) Package insert or handset manual. For all handset models 
certified to be hearing aid-compatible, manufacturers and service 
providers shall disclose to

[[Page 5177]]

consumers through the use of digital labeling (e.g., a QR Code) on the 
handset model's package label, or through the use of a package insert, 
or in the handset model's user manual:
* * * * *
    (ix) Where applicable, an explanation that the handset model does 
not meet telecoil certification requirements and instead couples with 
hearing aids using a Bluetooth connectivity standard and provide the 
name of that Bluetooth standard. This explanation should also indicate 
that the handset model will, by default, have its acoustic and volume 
control functions on and that it may also have a secondary mode whereby 
the handset model's telecoil is turned on or, for those handset models 
that substitute Bluetooth connectivity for telecoil connectivity, the 
Bluetooth function is turned on. The explanation must include an 
explanation of each of these modes, what each mode does and does not 
include, and how to turn these settings on and off.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Each manufacturer and service provider that operates a 
publicly-accessible website must make available on its website:
    (i) A list of all hearing aid-compatible models currently offered, 
the ANSI standard used to evaluate hearing aid compatibility, the 
ratings of those models under the relevant ANSI standard, if 
applicable, and an explanation of the rating system. Each service 
provider must also include on its website: A list of all non-hearing 
aid-compatible models currently offered, as well as a link to the 
current FCC web page containing information about the wireless hearing 
aid compatibility rules and service provider's obligations. Each 
service provider must also include the marketing model name/number(s) 
and FCC ID number of each hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-
compatible model currently offered.
    (ii) In addition, each manufacturer and service provider must 
identify on their publicly accessible websites, for all handset models 
in their handset portfolios that are certified as hearing aid 
compatible under (b) of this section, which of those handset models 
meet telecoil certification requirements and which have Bluetooth 
connectivity technology. For those handset models that do not meet 
telecoil certification requirements, each manufacturer and service 
provider must affirmatively state that the handset model does not meet 
the telecoil certification requirements. For handset models that have 
Bluetooth connectivity technology as a replacement to or in addition to 
telecoil, manufacturers and service providers must identify which 
Bluetooth connectivity standards these handset models include.
    (iii) Each handset manufacturer and service provider must identify 
on their publicly accessible websites the conversational gain with and 
without hearing aids for each handset model certified as hearing aid 
compatible that they offer regardless of whether the handset model 
meets telecoil certification standards or includes Bluetooth 
connectivity instead.
    (iv) Each handset manufacturer and service provider must include on 
its website a point-of-contact for consumers to use in order to resolve 
questions they have about a company's hearing aid-compatible handset 
models. Handset manufacturers and service providers must provide the 
name of a department or a division that is staffed with knowledgeable 
employees and provide an email address, mailing address, and a toll 
free number that consumers could contact to find out information about 
a hearing aid-compatible handset model that the company offers or to 
ask questions about how a particular handset model couples with the 
consumer's hearing device.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) On or after December 31, 2026, manufacturers and service 
providers shall submit Form 855 certifications on their compliance with 
the requirements of this section by January 31 of each year. 
Information in each certification and report must be up-to-date as of 
the last day of the calendar month preceding the due date of each 
certification and report.
    (ii) Before December 31, 2026, service providers shall submit Form 
855 certifications on their compliance with the requirements of this 
section by January 31 of each year. Manufacturers shall submit Form 655 
reports on their compliance with the requirements of this section by 
July 31 of each year. Information in each certification and report must 
be up-to-date as of the last day of the calendar month preceding the 
due date of each certification and report.
    (2) Content of manufacturer and service provider certifications. 
Certifications filed by service providers and manufacturers must 
include:
* * * * *
    (iv) If the company is subject to paragraph (g) of this section, 
the website address of the page(s) containing the required information 
regarding handset models;
    (v) The percentage of handset models offered that are hearing aid-
compatible (companies will derive this percentage by determining the 
number of hearing aid-compatible handset models offered across all air 
interfaces during the year divided by the total number of handset 
models offered during the year); and
    (vi) The following language:
    I am a knowledgeable executive [of company x] regarding compliance 
with the Federal Communications Commission's wireless hearing aid 
compatibility requirements as a company covered by those requirements.
    I certify that the company was [(in full compliance/not in full 
compliance)] [choose one] at all times during the applicable time 
period with the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility handset 
model deployment benchmarks and all other relevant wireless hearing aid 
compatibility requirements.
    The company represents and warrants, and I certify by this 
declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 47 CFR 1.16 that the 
above certification is consistent with 47 CFR 1.17, which requires 
truthful and accurate statements to the Commission. The company also 
acknowledges that false statements and misrepresentations to the 
Commission are punishable under Title 18 of the U.S. Code and may 
subject it to enforcement action pursuant to Sections 501 and 503 of 
the Act.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-00414 Filed 1-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P