Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108  
 Before the 
Federal Communications Commission  
Washington, D.C. 20554  
 
 
In the Matter of  
 Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model  
Hearing Aid Compatibility  
 
Improvements to Benchmarks and Related 
Requirements Governing Hearing Aid -Compatible 
Mobile Handsets  ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  
 
WT Docket No. 23 -388 
 
 
WT Docket No. 15 -285 
(terminated)  
 
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING  
 
Adopted:  December 13, 2023 Released:  December 14, 2023 
 
Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register  
Reply Comment Date: 45 days after publication in the Federal Register  
 
By the Commission: Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioner Starks issuing separate statements.  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Heading  Paragraph #  
I. INTRODUCTION  .................................................................................................................................. 1 
II. BACKGROUND  .................................................................................................................................... 6 
III. DISCUSSION  ...................................................................................................................................... 15 
A. Achievability of 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility Under the Section 710(e) Factors  ................. 16 
B. Definition of Wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility  ........................................................................ 23 
1. HAC Task Force Recommended Hearing Aid Compatibility Definition  ............................... 24 
2. Expanding the Definition of Hearing Aid Compatibility to Include Bluetooth Connectivity  ............................................................................................................................ 41 
a. Requiring Bluetooth Connectivity as an Alternative Coupling Method to Telecoil 
Coupling ............................................................................................................................ 43 
b. Alternative Approaches to Incorporating a Bluetooth Connectivity Requirement  ........... 50 
C. Compliance Benchmarks  ............................................................................................................... 69 
D. Transition Periods for 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility  .............................................................. 89 
E. Handset Settings for Hearing Aid Compatibility  ........................................................................... 95 
F. Consumer Notification Provisions  ............................................................................................... 102 
1. Labeling and Disclosure Requirements  ................................................................................. 102 
2. Digital Labeling Technology  .................................................................................................  105 
3. Handset Model Number Designation  .................................................................................... 110 
G. Website, Record Retention, and Reporting Requirements  ........................................................... 112 
1. Website and Record Retention Requirements  ....................................................................... 112 
2. FCC Form 655 and 855  ......................................................................................................... 118 
3. Reliance on Accessibility Clearinghouse .............................................................................. 129 
4. Contact Information for Consumers  ...................................................................................... 134 
H. Sunsetting the De Minimis  Exception  .......................................................................................... 141 
I. 90-Day Shot Clock for Waivers  ................................................................................................... 145 
J. Renaming Section 20.19  .............................................................................................................. 147  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
2 K. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion  ...................................................................................... 148 
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .............................................................................................................. 149 
V. ORDERING CLAUSES  ..................................................................................................................... 156 
Appendix A – Proposed Rules 
Appendix B – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  
 
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.1  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.  Our 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.
2  This section directs the Commission to facilitate compatibility between wireless 
handset models and hearing aids.3  In fulfilling this statutory directive, we are committed to ensuring that 
our 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 we initiate today’s rulemaking. 
2. Specifically, we issue this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to develop a record with 
respect to a proposal submitted to us 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.
4  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 
 
1 See, e.g. , Access to Video Conferencing , CG Docket No. 23 -161, Report and Order, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, and Order, FCC 23 -50, at 3, paras. 3 -5 (June 12, 2023) (taking steps to ensure video conferencing is 
accessible to all, including people with disabilities); Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services , WC Docket No. 
12-375, Fourth Report and Order and Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 11900, 11902, 
para. 3 (2002) (adopting requirements to improve access to communications services for incarcerated people with 
communication disabilities); Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty -First Century Communications and 
Video Accessibility Act of 2010 , MB Docket No. 11 -43, Second Report and Order, FCC 23 -82, at 1, para. 1 (Oct. 17, 
2023) (expanding audio description requirements to ensure that a greater number of individuals who are blind or visually impaired can be connected, informed, and entertained by television programming).  
2 47 U.S.C. § 610 .  Approximately 37.5 million Americans age 18 or over report hearing loss and about 2 to 3 out of 
every 1,000 children in the United States are born with a detectable level of hearing loss in one or both ears.  
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Quick Statistics About Hearing, 
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick -statistics -hearing .  The Hearing Loss Association of America 
(HLAA) estimates that approximately 48 million Americans have some degree of hearing loss.  HLAA, Hearing 
Loss Facts and Statistics, https://www.hearingloss.org/wp -c ontent/uploads/HLAA_HearingLoss_Facts_Statistics.
pdf. 
3 The Commission has long considered the scope of hearing aid compatibility to include compatibility with cochlear 
implants.  See, e.g. , Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid -Compatible Telephones , WT 
Docket No. 01 -309, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753, 16754 , para. 2 (2003) ( 2003 HAC Order ).  Accordingly, 
questions in this N otice  of Proposed Rulemaking pertaining to the interaction between handset models and hearing 
aids apply to cochlear implants  as well. 
4 Hearing Aid Compatibility Task Force Final Report and Recommendation, WT Docket No. 15 -285 (filed Dec. 16, 
2022)  (HAC Task Force Final Report ); see also Improvements to Benchmarks and Related Requirements Governing 
Hearing Aid -Compatible Mobile Handsets , WT Docket No. 15 -285, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 9336 , 9337, 
para. 3 (2016) ( 2016 HAC Order ).  References to comments and other filings in this Notice can be found in WT 
Docket No. 15 -285.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
3 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.  We propose 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 our rules do not discourage or impair the development of improved technology.
5 
3. Specifically, we tentatively conclude 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.6  As part of this determination, we seek 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.  We seek comment on the Bluetooth technology that we should utilize to meet this requirement and how we should incorporate this requirement into our wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.  
4. Further, we explore ways to reach the 100% compatibility benchmark, and we propose 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.  We seek 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 our section 20.19 rules to better reflect what this section covers. 
5. Our 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 we propose today to our 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.
7  In 2016, the Commission reconfirmed its commitment 
to pursuing 100% hearing aid compatibility to the extent achievable.8  The 2016 HAC  Order supported 
this objective by increasing the number of hearing aid -compatible handset  model s that handset 
 
5 47 U.S.C. § 610(e); see also  2003 HAC Order , 18 FCC Rcd at 16765, para. 28 (“ In the legislative history of the 
HAC Act, Congress stated that the Act does not tie manufacturers to a particular technology and inhibit future 
development; instead, it sought only to require that telephones be compatible. ”) (citation omitted).  
6 47 U.S.C. § 610(e).  
7 See 2016 HAC Order , 31 FCC Rcd at 9336 -9338, paras. 1, 5- 6 & n.3; see also 2003 HAC Order , 18 FCC Rcd at 
1675 4-55, para s. 3-4. 
8 2016 HAC Order , 31 FCC Rcd at 9337 , para. 3; see also  2003 HAC Order , 18 FCC Rcd at 1675 4, para. 2; 
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid- Compatible Mobile Handsets , WT Docket No. 07 -
250, Policy Statement and Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 
11167, 11174, para. 18 (2010)  (2010 HAC Order ); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Standards for 
Hearing Aid -Compatible Handsets , WT Docket No. 20 -3, Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 4566, 4577- 78, paras . 1, 
27-28 (2021) (2021 HAC Order ).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
4 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%.9  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%.10 
7. In this same order, the Commission established a process for determining whether a 
100% hearing aid compatibi lity 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.11  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.”12  Part of this process included determining  whether the hearing aid compatibility 
requirements should be modified to include alternative technologies such as Bluetooth.13  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.
14  The Commission specified  that it intended to  decide 
by 2024 whether to require 100% of covered wireless handset  model s to be hearing aid  compatible.15  The 
Commission indicated that it would make its determination as to whether this goal is achievable by 
relying on the factors identified in s ection 710(e) of the Communications Act.16  After the 2016 HAC 
Order was released, stakeholders  convened the independent Task Force  and filed progress updates with 
the Commission .17 
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.18  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 require d 100% of  covered handset  model s to be hearing aid compatible .19  
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 t ook 
further action in the 100% hearing aid compatibility docket  and that its decision s did not “ prejudge any 
further steps we may take to modify our  reporting rules in that proceeding. ”20 
 
9 2016 HAC  Order , 31 FCC Rcd at 9336, 9343, paras . 1, 20. 
10 Id. 
11 Id. at 9337, para. 4.  
12 Id. at 9342, 9349 -50, paras. 17, 35.  
13 Id. at 93 55-56, paras. 46-47. 
14 Id. at 9353 -54, para. 43.  
15 2016 HAC  Order , 31 FCC Rcd at 9337, 9349, paras. 4, 34.  
16 Id. at 9354 -55, paras. 44 -45. 
17 HAC Task Force Final Report  at 11 -12. 
18 Revisions to Reporting Requirements Governing Hearing Aid -Compatible Mobile Handsets , WT Docket No. 17 -
228, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 11549, 11554, paras. 12- 14 (2018) ( 2018 HAC Order ). 
19 Id. at 11554, para. 15.  
20 Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
5 9. In February 2021, the Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard for determining 
hearing aid compatibility.21  The 2019 ANSI Standard was to replace the existing 2011 ANSI Standard22 
after a two -year transition period that was set to end on June 5, 2023.23  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.
24  In addition, the 2019 ANSI Standard includes for the first time a 
volume control requirement.  The standard specifically incorporates by reference the TIA 5050 Standard 
that addresses volume control requirements for wireless handset models.25  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.”26 
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.27 
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.28  In its waiver request, ATIS asserted that the testing performed 
 
21 See Accredited Standards Committee C63 ®–Electromagnetic Compatibility, American National Standard 
Methods of  Measurement of  Compatibility  Between Wireless  Communications Devices and  Hearing  Aids, ANSI 
C63.19 -2019 (approved Aug. 19, 2019) (2019 ANSI Standard) . 
22 See Accredited Standards Committee C63®—Electromagnetic Compatibility, American National Standard 
Methods of  Measurement of  Compatibility  Between Wireless  Communications Devices and  Hearing  Aids, ANSI 
C63.19 -2011  (approved May 27, 2011) (2011 ANSI Standard) . 
23 2021 HAC Order , 36 FCC Rcd at 4570, 4576, paras . 9, 22.  
24 Hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling mode receive sounds through a microphone and then amplify all 
sounds surrounding the user, including both desired sounds, such as a handset ’s audio signal, and unwanted ambient 
noise.  To use a mobile  handset model with a hearing aid or cochlear implant in acoustic coupling mode, 
radiofrequency interference and other electromagnetic interference from the handset must be controlled.  Hearing 
aids operating in inductive coupling mode turn off their microphone to avoid amplifying unwanted ambient noise, 
instead using a telecoil (T-Coil) to receive only audio signal -based magnetic fields generated by inductive coupling -
capable telephones.  The hearing aid converts these fields back to sound or to a signal appropriate for cochlear 
implant users .  For ease of reference, we refer to the 2019 ANSI Standard’s radiofrequency interference (RF) 
immunity requirements as acoustic coupling requirements and the standard’s T -Coil compatibility requirements as 
telecoil coupling requirements.  
25 2019 ANSI Standard at § 7; 2021 HAC Order , 36 FCC Rcd at 4571, para. 10; ANSI/TIA -5050 -2018, 
Telecommunications —Communications Products —Receive Volume Control Requirements for Wireless (Mobile) 
Devices (approved January 17, 2018) (TIA 5050 Standard).  The TIA 5050 Standard establishes  a volume control 
testing methodology, which defines conversational gain as the acoustic output level of speech from a handset 
relative to the acoustic level that would be present in a face -to-face conversation with two people one meter apart.  
TIA 5050 Standard at § 1.  
26 2021 HAC Order , 36 FCC Rcd at 4566, para. 1; see also id . at 4578, para. 28 . 
27 HAC Task Force Final Report  at ii. 
28 Id.; Petition of ATIS on Behalf of the Covered Entities of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Task Force for Limited, 
Interim Waiver, WT Docket Nos. 15 -285 and 20 -3 (filed Dec. 16, 2022)  (ATIS Waiver Petition ).  ATIS filed its 
waiver petition on behalf of all manufacturers and service providers subject to sections 20.19(b)(1) and (b)(3) of the Commission’s wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.  Id. at 1, 4.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
6 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.29  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.30  As a result, ATIS requested 
that the Commission allow handsets to be certified as hearing aid compatible using a modified volume control testing methodology.
31 
12. On March 23, 2023, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) released a Public 
Notice seeking comment on the HAC Task Force’s Final Report.32  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.
33  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 s ection 710 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.34  The Commission received three comments and three replies 
in response to the Public Notice.35 
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, 2023.36  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.
37  
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.
38 
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.39  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.
40  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 incorporat ion into the wireless hearing aid 
compatibility r ules.41 
 
29 ATIS Waiver Petition at 3 -4. 
30 Id. at 3. 
31 Id. at 4, 12-13. 
32 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Requests  Comment on the Hearing Aid Compatibility Task Force’s Final 
Report and Recommendation , Public Notice , Docket No. 15 -285 (WTB Mar. 23, 2023) ( HAC Public Notice ). 
33 Id. at para. 6.  
34 Id. at para. 6.  
35 Bluetooth Special Interest Group, Inc. (Bluetooth SIG) Comments; Consumer Technology Association (CTA) 
Comments; Samsung Electronics America (Samsung) Comments; HAC Task Force Reply; Ms. Janice S. Lintz 
(Lintz) Reply; and Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) Reply.  
36 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Standards for Hearing Aid- Compatible Handsets , WT Docket 
No. 20 -3, Order, DA 23 -327, at 1, para. 1 (WTB Apr. 14, 2023) ( HAC Extension Order ). 
37 Id. 
38 Id. at 2, para. 2.  
39 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Standards for Hearing Aid- Compatible Handsets , WT Docket 
No. 20 -3, Order, DA 23 -914 (WTB Sept. 29, 2023) ( HAC Waiver Order ). 
40 Id. at 1, para. 1.  
41 Id. at 2, 13, paras. 5, 36.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
7 III. DISCUSSION 
15. Below, we tentatively conclude 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.  We seek 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, we propose to broaden the definition of hearing aid compatibility to include Bluetooth connectivity technology.  We propose 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.  We also seek 
comment on the Bluetooth technology that we should utilize to meet this requirement and how we should incorporate this requirement into our wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.  We further explore ways to 
reach the 100% compatibility benchmark as well as the appropriate transition period for reaching that benchmark.  Finally, we seek comment on implementation of these proposals and 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, we seek comment on renaming our 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.
42  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.
43  The Commission found that this 
approach was consistent with the analysis it undertook previously when adopting modifications to the 
then-current deployment benchmarks.44  The HAC Task Force’s Final Report did not directly address 
achievability under the section 710(e) factors, and we did not receive comments addressing these factors in response to WTB’s Public Notice seeking comment on the HAC Task Force’s Final Report.
45 
17. We tentatively conclude that  requiring 100% of all handset  model s 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.”46  It further directs the 
 
42 2016 HAC  Order , 31 FCC Rcd at 9354, paras. 44 -45.  The Hearing Aid Compatibility Act was enacted in 1988 
and codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 610.  Pub. L. No. 100 -394, § 3, 102 Stat. 976, 976 (1988) .  Congress 
amended section 610 in 2010 with the passage of the Twenty -First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act (CVAA) .  Pub. L. 111– 260, § 102, 124 Stat. 2751, 2753.   The CVAA revised section 610(e) by 
adding at the end of the section:  ‘‘In implementing the provisions of subsection (b)(1)(C), the Commission shall 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. ”  47 U.S.C. § 610(e).  
43 2016 HAC  Order , 31 FCC Rcd at 9354, para. 45.  
44 Id. at 9354, para. 45 . 
45 HAC Task Force Final Report at 1, 13.  
46 47 U.S.C. § 610(e).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
8 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.47 
18. We tentatively conclude 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.  We anticipate that adopting a 100% compliance standard would provide 
significant benefits to those with hearing loss by ensur ing that a greater share of handset models for 
purchase are hearing aid compatible.  At the same time, we do 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, a bout 93%  of 
wireless handset  models  offered by manufacturers were already hearing aid compatible, which exceeds 
the benchmarks in the Commission’s current rules.48  We do 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, we seek comment on our tentative conclusion and on any specific burden 
or cost that a 100% compliance standard would impose on manufacturers and service providers.  We also 
seek 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, we tentatively conclude 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,
49 and the Task Force’s Final Report provides no indication or evidence that adopting 
the new standard would discourage t he 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.50  We seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion.  
21. Further, with respect to our tentative conclusion regarding the impact of a 100% 
requirement on technology, we specifically seek 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 
 
47 Id. 
48 HAC Task Force Final Report at 7 .  We note that the HAC Task Force’s  93% compliance figure is based on  
handset manufacturer compliance filings covering the reporting period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, which is 
before volume control testing requirements or use of the 2019 ANSI Standard became mandatory.  
49 Id. at i-ii, 18 -20; HAC Task Force Reply at 1.  
50 HAC Task Force Final Report at 15 (stating that “[t] he vast majority of wireless handsets now include at least 
some type of Bluetooth audio technology, without a regulatory mandate, and the HAC Task Force anticipates that 
operating system designers and manufacturers of handsets, headsets, earbuds, hearing aids, cochlear implants, 
personal sound amplification products, and other information and communications technology will incorporate the 
Bluetooth HAP going forward, providing a purpose -built, familiar, and effective means of using one’s handset with 
hearing aids designed to  be compatible with telephones .”).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
9 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, we tentatively conclude 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.”
51  The transition periods that we 
propose 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.52  We seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion.  Do commenters agree with our analysis and on the costs and benefits of our proposed 
finding?  Given the current number of handset manufacturers who already include hearing aid 
compatibility in all of their handset models, would our 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?  
B. Definition of Wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility  
23. As a threshold question for implementing a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, 
we seek comment on the appropriate definition of hearing aid compatibility for wireless handsets.  
Specifically, we seek comment on expanding the definition of hearing aid compatibility to reflect 
changing coupling technologies.  First, we seek comment on adopting the HAC Task Force’s 
recommended “flexible” hearing aid compatibility definition.  Next, we propose 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, we seek comment on which Bluetooth 
technologies the Commission should recognize and how we should incorporate these technologies into 
our rules.  
1. HAC Task Force Recommended Hearing Aid Compatibility Definition 
24. Background.  Our existing wireless hearing aid compatibility rules do not contain an 
express definition of hearing aid compatibility in the definitional section.
53  Rather, our 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.54  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.55 
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.”56  
 
51 47 U.S.C. § 610(e).  
52 See infra  paras. 8 9-94. 
53 47 CFR § 20.19(a).  
54 Id. § 20.19(b).  
55 HAC Waiver Order  at para. 35; HAC Extension Order at para. 1.  
56 HAC Task Force Final Report at 16.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
10 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.57 
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.
58  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 .
59  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.60  
In reply comments, the Task Force states that the definition of hearing aid compatibility should incorporate current and alternative hearing aid compatibility technologies.
61 
27. HAC Task Force Definition .  We seek comment on the HAC Task Force proposed 
definition of hearing aid compatibility, including whether we 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.”
62  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.”
63  It also states that “[t]he Commission shall consult with the 
public, including people with hearing loss, in establishing or approving such technical standards.”64  
Finally, this section states that “[t]he Commission shall remain the final arbiter as to whether the 
standards meet the requirements of this section.”65 
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 us to continue to define hearing aid 
compatibility through technical standards that the Commission incorporates by reference into its rules or 
does it permit us 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.66 
 
57 Id. 
58 HAC Public Notice  at para. 7.  
59 Id. at para. 7.  
60 CTA Comments at 3.  
61 HAC Task Force Reply at 3.  
62 47 U.S.C. § 610(c).  
63 Id. 
64 Id. 
65 Id. 
66 See 47 U.S.C. § 610(e).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
11 29. In adopting technical standards into our 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.67  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.68  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.69  We seek 
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 
shape or weight of the phone as compared to other phones offered by the manufacturer.”
70  We seek 
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 .71  This Order recognized that section 710(b)(1)(B) of the Act refers to 
providing for internal means for effective use with hearing aids.72  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.
73  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.”   We seek 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 
 
67 See Report and Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63®, CG 
Docket No. 13 -46, WT Docket Nos. 07 -250 and 10-254, at 1 (filed Sept. 23, 2019) . 
68 HAC Task Force Final Report at 15 -17. 
69 Id. at 16.  
70 Id. at 16 (citing 2003 HAC Order , 18 FCC Rcd  at 16778, para. 61).  
71 2003 HAC Order , 18 FCC Rcd  at 16778, para. 61 (cited in HAC Task Force Final Report at 16).  
72 Id. (citing 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(1)(B) (This section requires handsets to “provide internal means for effective use 
with hearing aids that are designed to be compatible with telephones which meet established technical standards for 
hearing aid compatibility.”)).  
73 2003 HAC Order , 18 FCC Rcd  at 16778, para. 61.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
12 technical standard for hearing aid coupling should be interoperable, non-proprietary, and adopted by 
industry and consumers alike.”74  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.75  We seek 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 
section 20.19 of the rules.  We note 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 into Commission regulations may be resource intensive and would necessarily lag behind marketplace developments.  
33. If we adopt this approach, how should we evaluate whether a standard is “established” 
and “adopted by industry and consumers alike?”  What criteria should we 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?  We note 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.
76 
35. Should we 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 
 
74 HAC Task Force Final Report at 16.  
75 Id. at 17.  
76 47 U.S.C. § 610(c)  (emphasis added).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
13 with such a “public participation process” and consumer consultation?77  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 we took this approach, how would we enforce such a standard?  Alternatively, can we adopt the Task Force’s proposed definition, while still incorporating industry- developed standards for 
hearing aid compatibility into our rules, consistent with our current approach?  
37. “Is Usable. ”  Finally, we seek 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.
78  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.’”
79  We seek comment on incorporating this aspect of the 
proposed definition into our rules.  What does this aspect of the HAC Task Force’s proposed definition add to our hearing aid compatibility rules that our rules do not already cover?  Does “usable” mean anything more than complying with Commission regulations and practicing good consumer relations?  
38. Federal Register Regulations .  We also seek comment on the HAC Task Force’s 
proposed definition in light of the Federal Register regulations.  When we incorporate by reference a new 
hearing aid compatibility standard into our rules, we must request Federal Register approval by 
submitting a request to the Federal Register for approval that complies with the Federal Register incorporation by reference requirements.  Among other requirements, 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.”
80  Further, 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.”81  The Commission also makes the document being incorporated by reference 
available for inspection in the Commission’s public reference room.82 
39. As a result, when we request Federal Register’s approval, we must ensure that the 
standard that we ask 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”83 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.  We seek comment on whether there is a way for us to continue to incorporate ANSI standards for 
 
77 In 2015, the Commission proposed a procedure to implement this provision, but no action has been taken on that 
proposal.  See Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities , CG Docket No. 
12-32, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 12219, 12242 -50, paras. 50 -70 (2015).  
78 HAC Task Force Final Report at 17 (citing Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order and Further Notice of Inquiry, 16 
FCC Rcd 6417, 6429, para. 22 (1999) ; 47 C FR § 6.3(l) ); see also 47 CFR § 20.19(f) (labeling and disclosure 
requirements for hearing aid -compatible handset models).  
79 HAC Task Force Final Report at 17 (citations omitted).  
80 1 CFR § 51.1(f).  
81 Id. § 51.5(b)(5).  
82 47 CFR § 20.19(l); see also 1 CFR § 51.5(a)(1).  
83 See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
14 hearing aid compatibility into our 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. We also seek comment on how the Commission could comply with 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 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.
84  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.85  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.
86  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.87 
42. In light of the record, we propose to expand the definition of hearing aid compatibility to 
include Bluetooth connectivity, and we seek comment on the best way to accomplish this objective.  
Below, we propose to require handset models to connect to hearing aids through Bluetooth connectivity 
as an alternative to telecoil coupling on a limited basis as we continue to study this issue, as long as both 
types of handset models also meet applicable acoustic coupling and volume control standards.  As part of 
our proposal, we seek comment on whether we 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, we seek 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.
88 
 
84 2016 HAC  Order , 31 FCC Rcd at 9353, 9355, paras. 42, 46.  
85 HAC Task Force Final Report at 18 -19. 
86 Id. 
87 CTA Comments at 3; MWF Reply at 2; Samsung Comments at 2; see also  HAC Task Force Reply at 2.  
88 The HAC Task Force states that unlike telecoils, Bluetooth audio transmission methods are expressly designed to 
transmit and facilitate audio, and that Bluetooth LE Audio greatly improves power consumption resulting in longer 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
15 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.
89  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.
90  Bluetooth technology is an umbrella term for related 
technical standards that enable devices to communicate wirelessly.91  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 . . . .”
92  The Task Force expects even greater use of Bluetooth connectivity in the coming 
years.93 
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.
94  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.95  Samsung expresses support for 
the consensus recommendation on coupling requirements and notes that Bluetooth is among the top three most frequently mentioned features included in hearing devices desired by consumers.
96  The Mobile & 
Wireless Form (MWF) states that Bluetooth is a dominant wireless technology and used in over -the-
counter hearing aids.97 
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.
98  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 
(Continued from previous page)   
battery life, and smaller, lightweight devices.  HAC Task Force Final Report at 13, 15.  Further, the Task Force 
states that Bluetooth HAP extends the Bluetooth LE Audio standard and will enhance the ability of individuals with 
hearing devices that implement the profile to interchangeably use wireless handsets from any manufacturer that also 
implements the profile.  Id. at 14.  
89 HAC Task Force Final Report at 13.  
90 Id. at i. 
91 Id. at 13.  
92 Id. at 15.  
93 Id. at i, 20, 68.  
94 Bluetooth SIG Comments at 1 -2. 
95 CTA Comments at 2.  
96 Samsung Comments at 2.  
97 MWF Reply at 3.  
98 HAC Task Force Final Report at 16.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
16 replacing hearing aids or a handset when the other is updated.99  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.100 
46. Discussion .  We propose to require some handset models to connect to hearing aids 
through Bluetooth connectivity as an alternative to telecoil coupling on a limited basis as we continue to 
study this issue.  We seek 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.101  Under our proposal, we 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.
102 
47. Specifically, we seek 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?
103 
48. We are 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. We also seek 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?
104  Is telecoil coupling being 
replaced with Bluetooth connectivity in the marketplace?  Would allowing market conditions to control 
 
99 Lintz Reply at 1 -4. 
100 Lintz Reply at 1, 5.  
101 HAC Task Force Final Report at i (consumers are increasingly using and finding a satisfying listening experience 
with Bluetooth connectivity).  
102 See infra Section III.C (compliance benchmarks).  
103 HAC Task Force Final Report at 15, 20.  The HAC Task Force reports that the results of its consumer survey 
show that a larger percentage of consumers prefer coupling via Bluetooth than with telecoil.  Id. at 20.  The Task 
Force suggests that this might be because consumers are familiar with the concept of Bluetooth pairing.  Id. at 14.  
The Task Force expects the popularity of Bluetooth coupling to increase as newer versions of the Bluetooth standard 
greatly improve power consumption resulting in longer battery life and smaller, lightweight devices.  Id. at 13.  
104 Id. at 22.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
17 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 Incorporating a Bluetooth Connectivity Requirement  
50. Given our 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 —we seek comment on how to implement Bluetooth coupling 
into our rules.  Specifically, we seek 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 any particular standard into our rules; or 
(2) requiring a certain percentage of handset models to meet a (non -proprietary) Bluetooth standard that 
has been specifically incorporated into our rules.  In considering these approaches, we seek comment on 
whether there is a need for the Commission to approve and incorporate particular Bluetooth technical 
standards into its rules for hearing aid compatibility certification or whether the Commission can adopt a 
Bluetooth connectivity requirement without incorporating 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 —we seek 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.
105  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.  We seek comment on this analysis.  
53. We also seek comment on whether this approach is consistent with the Commission’s 
obligations under section 710(c).  Section 710(c) of the Act states that “[t]he Commission shall establish 
or approve such technical standards as are required to enforce this section.”106  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 we evaluate the 
need for the Commission to adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement into our rules?  Should we rely on 
the fact that handset manufacturers have already been including various forms of Bluetooth connectivity in their handset  model s without our involvement, and more recently have been including updated versions 
 
105 2003 HAC Order , 18 FCC Rcd at 16765, para. 28; see also  HAC Task Force Final Report at 2.  
106 See 47 U.S.C. § 610(c).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
18 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.”107  If we adopt this proposed definition, should we limit the 
permissible Bluetooth standards to non- proprietary standards?  Even if we do not adopt a specific 
Bluetooth standard, should we 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 we 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, we seek comment on requiring a handset model to meet a Bluetooth standard that the 
Commission has incorporated by reference into its rules in order to meet a Bluetooth requirement.  Under 
this approach, we 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, we would explicitly incorporate by reference the non -proprietary 
Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP standards into our 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 our 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.  We seek 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.
108  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.
109  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.110 
58. As an initial matter, we seek comment on whether we are required by section 710(c) to 
incorporate specific Bluetooth standards into our rules in order to implement a Bluetooth requirement 
(e.g., the proposed 15% requirement , as detailed below), or whether we can interpret section 710(c) to 
allow a handset model to meet a standard that has not been affirmatively adopted or incorporated into the 
 
107 HAC Task Force Final Report at 16.  
108 Id. at 14.  
109 Id. at 14.  
110 Id. at 20.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
19 Commission’s rules.111  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 our 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 Propriet ary Bluetooth Standards .  We also seek comment on whether 
we should permit the use of other Bluetooth standards, such as proprietary standards, to satisfy our 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 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.
112  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 .”113 
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.114  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 we allow 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 Incorporating Bluetooth Standards .  We also seek 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 we 
 
111 See supra  paras. 34 -36. 
112 HAC Task Force Final Report at 20.  
113 Id. 
114 Letter from Thomas Goode, General Counsel, ATIS, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 15 -
285 and 20 -3, at 2 (filed Sept. 27, 2023) (ATIS Ex Parte Letter).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
20 would not require compliance with a certain edition or version of these technologies by referencing those 
editions or versions in our 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 we enforce compliance with these technologies if we do not require compliance 
with a specific edition or version of the technologies?  
64. Along these same lines, we seek comment on whether WTB could use its delegated 
authority under section 20.19(k) to incorporate new Bluetooth connectivity technologies into the hearing aid compatibility rules or use this authority to revise the edition that c ould be used for certification 
purposes.
115  Under this approach, t he 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 
section 20.19(k) if we determine to use this approach?  
66. Bluetooth Compliance Requirements.  Finally, we seek comment on how the Commission 
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 we 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.116  We seek 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 we 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.
117  If the Commission adopts Bluetooth LE Audio and 
 
115 47 CFR § 20.19(k).  
116 HAC Task Force Final Report at 1 9. 
117 Letter from Pamela Garvey, K&L Gates LLP, on behalf of Bluetooth SIG, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 
WT Docket No. 15- 285, at 1 (filed Sept. 11, 2023).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
21 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.  Our 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.118  Our 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, our 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.
119 
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.120  The Task Force 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.121  
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.122  The remaining 15% of these handset models would have to meet a new Bluetooth  
connectivity requirement.123  To the extent the handset model “does not pass the telecoil test, it would 
have to support Bluetooth, and vice -versa.”124  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.125 
71. As discussed above, the HAC Task Force has recommended that the Commission 
consider a “more forward -looking” definition of HAC. 126  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.127  Further, the Task Force 
 
118 47 CFR § 20.19(c)(1)(ii), (2)(ii), (3)(ii).  
119 Id. § 20.19(b)(5).  
120 HAC Task Force Final Report at 20.  
121 Id. at 19.  
122 Id. at 19 -20. 
123 Id. 
124 Id. at 20.  
125 Id. at ii, 19; ATIS Ex Parte Letter at 2 -3.  The Final Report notes that a volume control requirement would “be 
determined based on FCC adoption of an updated Volume Control standard.”  WTB recently granted a limited 
waiver allowing a modified testing methodology for volume control.  HAC Waiver Order  at para. 1.  
126 HAC Task Force Final Report at 15 -20. 
127 Id. at 13.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
22 states that unlike telecoils, Bluetooth audio transmission methods are expressly designed to transmit and 
facilitate audio.128  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.129  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.130  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.131 
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.
132  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.
133  
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.
134  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.135  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.136  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.137  As noted above, however, 
an individual commenter argues that the Commission should adopt a 100% telecoil requirement.138  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 
 
128 Id. at 15.  
129 Id. at 15 (citing Linda Kozma -Spytek, Hearing Aid Compatible Telephones: History and Current Status , 24(1) 
Telephones and Telecoils: Past, Present and Future, Seminars in Hearing at 17, 19 (2003) ). 
130 HAC Task Force Final Report at 14 -15. 
131 Id. at 13, 16.  
132 Id. at 19 (proposing that 100% of handset models meet the RF Immunity Test  C63.19 -2019 ; at least 85% of 
handset models meet the T-Coil Compatibility Test C63.19 -2019 ; and at least 15% of handset models “support 
Bluetooth”).  
133 Id. at 22.  The Final Report states that: “The HAC Task Force does not, at this time, address other possible 
modifications to the HAC rule to address how a transition to a 100% regime would work in practice . . . .”  Id. at 26.  
134 CTA Comments at 3; MWF Reply at 2; Samsung Comments at 2; see also  HAC Task Force Reply at 2.  
135 Samsung Comments at 2; CTA Comments at 3.  
136 Samsung Comments at 2.  
137 HAC Task Force Reply at 5; Bluetooth SIG Comments at 1.  
138 Lintz Reply at 1.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
23 updated.139  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.”140 
74. 100% Benchmark .  Consistent with our tentative conclusion regarding achievability, we 
propose 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, we propose 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.
141  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.  We seek comment on this proposal in more detail below and throughout this Notice.  These 
handset models would have to be certified as hearing aid compatible under the requirements of part 2 subpart J —Equipment Authorization Procedures of our rules, and include the relevant test reports 
showing compliance with these rules and the Commission’s section 20.19 hearing aid compatibility testing requirements for mobile handset models.
142  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.143  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. We seek comment on our 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 we have 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 our proposal should explain why this objective is not achievable using the statutory criteria outlined above.  
76. Additionally, we seek comment below on a proposal —as well as an alternative 
approach —for meeting the 100% hearing aid-compatible handset portfolio requirement, including our 
proposed 85/15% split for telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity.  Under our 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 our current rule 
allows.  Manufacturers and service providers could meet the 85/15% telecoil/Bluetooth requirement using 
new or grandfathered handset models.  Alternatively, we seek comment on an approach where we would discontinue our 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 
 
139 Id. at 1-4. 
140 Id. at 1, 5.  
141 See HAC Task Force Final Report at ii, 19.  
142 47 CFR pt. 2, subpart J; 47 CFR § 20.19.  
143 See HAC Waiver Order  at para. 1.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
24 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 our existing rules, we propose 
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.
144  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.  We seek comment on this proposal.  
78. Under our 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 we adopt this proposal, should we modify our 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 we 
modify the grandfathering rule if we adopt 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 we adopt our grandfathering proposal, should we 
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 we impose and how would this percentage work with small 
 
144 47 CFR § 20.19(b)(5).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
25 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 we 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.  We seek comment on this approach, as opposed to our 
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 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. We seek comment on the differences between our grandfathering proposal and this 
alternative approach, including the costs and benefits of each option, and how either approach might 
impact transition time.  Should we consider a hybrid of the two, such as a phased approach that would 
enable us 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 our grandfathering proposal or the alternative 
100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach, how should we incorporate the volume control requirement into our benchmarks?  As noted above, under our 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.
145  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.146  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.147  This waiver remains in effect for a two -year 
period that ends on September 29, 2025.148 
 
145 HAC Extension Order at paras. 1, 10, 14, 17; see also  47 CFR § 20.19(b)(1).  
146 Id. 
147 HAC Waiver Order  at paras. 1, 4, 34 -35. 
148 Id. at paras. 3, 36, 42.  See Letter from Christiaan Segura, Director, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 23 -388 at 2 (filed Dec. 6, 2023) (CTIA Ex Parte Letter) (requesting a 
reference to the terms of the interim waiver in the discussion of volume control).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
26 84. If we adopt 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 we include a 
100% volume control requirement at the end of the transition period?  On the other hand, if we allow 
manufacturers and service providers to meet the 100% requirement using grandfathered handset models, 
as we propose above, should we 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 we 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.  We also seek comment on implementing our proposed 
85/15% split between telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity under the two alternatives discussed above (i.e., our 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, we note 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.
149  Under either approach, how do we 
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 we 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 we allow for some fluctuation within a range 
close to an 85/15% split, or should we strictly enforce that number?  For example, should we 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 our proposed 85/15% split between telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity, we 
seek comment on a number of alternative approaches to establishing a telecoil and Bluetooth coupling benchmark.  
• Under the first alternative, instead of our proposed 85/15% split, should we continue to require all handset models to meet the 2019 ANSI Standard’s telecoil requirements?
150  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 
 
149 ATIS Ex Parte Letter at 2 & n.5 (citing HAC Task Force Final Report at 24 -26). 
150 See, e.g. , Lintz Reply at 1.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
27 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 we 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 we set a deadline  for 50% or more  of handset  model s 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  model s already support some form of Bluetooth 
connectivity.
151  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 we impose a different 
telecoil/Bluetooth split such as a 75/25% or 60/40% split or should our 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?
152 
• Under the fifth alternative, should we 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. We seek 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?  We 
seek comment on this issue in light of the Task Force’s statement that consumers prefer Bluetooth coupling over telecoil coupling.
153  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. We propose 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, we propose a 42- month 
transition period for non- nationwide service providers.
154  We seek comment on this proposal.  
 
151 HAC Task Force Final Report at 34 (stating that 56% of devices support one of the proprietary Bluetooth 
methods, and support is increasing over time ). 
152 HAC Task Force Final Report at 21 (suggesting that “in the future, the Commission may wish to consider 
adjusting the Bluetooth benchmark”).  
153 Id. at i. 
154 The dates in the proposed rules are based on calculating the transition periods of 24 months, 30 months, and 42 
months as starting from December 31, 2024.  In the 2016 HAC Order , the Commission indicated its intent to make a 
final determination in this proceeding by no later than 2024.  2016 HAC  Order , 31 FCC Rcd at 9337, 9349, 9352, 
paras. 4, 34 , 41.  The dates in the proposed rules are for illustration purposes only.  Under this proposal, the actual 
dates would be based on the effective date of any rule amendments that the Commission adopts.  See CTIA Ex Parte 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
28 90. While our 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,155 the Commission previously has relied on a two-year transition 
period when transitioning to new technical standards and we propose 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.156  The longer transition periods we 
propose 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, we believe 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.
157  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?
158 
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?  We note 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.
159  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.  
(Continued from previous page)   
Letter at 2 & n.4 (requesting clarification that the dates in the proposed rules will be adjusted to reflect the final 
timeline and that the current dates are variables).  
155 HAC Task Force Final Report at 22 -25; CTIA Ex Parte Letter at 1 -2 (urging adoption of the compliance timeline 
set forth in the HAC Task Force’s Final Report).  
156 2021 HAC Order , 36 FCC Rcd at 4576, para. 22; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing 
Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets , WT Docket No. 07 -250, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3406, 3440, para. 
83 (2008); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid- Compatible Mobile Handsets , WT 
Docket No. 07 -250, Third Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 3732, 3741, para. 22 (WTB/OET 2012) ( WTB/OET 2012 
HAC Order); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid- Compatible Mobile Handsets , WT 
Docket No. 07 -250, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 32 FCC Rcd 9063, 9068- 69, para s. 12-13 
(2017) . 
157 ATIS Ex Parte Letter at 2.  
158 We note that if the Commission adopts a new volume control testing standard to replace the standard approved 
under WTB’s waiver either during or after the transition period to 100% manufacturer compliance, the Commission 
may take the 100% requirement into consideration in determining an appropriate transition period for the revised 
standard.  
159 HAC Task Force Final Report at 20.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
29 93. We seek 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.   We seek 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. We seek 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 our grandfathering proposal?  What impact would that longer period have on consumers with hearing loss?  If we require 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 we adopt the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach, should we 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 timeline for reaching 100% for volume control?  
E. Handset Settings for Hearing Aid Compatibility  
95. Our 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, our rules do not address whether a handset model can have two different settings: one setting that turns on acoustic coupling and volume control, but not telecoil coupling, and a second separate setting that turns on the handset model’s telecoil coupling capabilities.  In addition, our rules do not address whether a handset model in telecoil mode has to continue to fully meet acoustic and volume control requirements.  
96. While our 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.
160  Staff has stated that only one 
hearing aid compatibility selection is permitted and multiple selections are not permitted.161  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 
 
160 FCC, Office of Engineering and Technology, Laboratory Division, Hearing Aid Compatibility, Frequently Asked 
Questions, at 4, Q10 (July 20, 2022).  The document can be found at this link:  
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=vuKe73LLxgCw4J24DvWvyQ%3D%3D&desc=285076%20D03
%20HAC%20FAQ%20v01r06&tracking_number=36388 .  
161 Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
30 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 we allow more than one mode of operation for hearing aid compatibility in a handset model and 
detail what each mode of operation must include, we believe stakeholders would benefit from our 
establishing a rule, and seek comment on this issue.  W e propose 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.  We further propose 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.  We seek 
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, we seek 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 
we allow handset models operating in telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode to automatically turn off 
acoustic coupling or the volume control function, or should we 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 we require all available 
coupling options to be turned on in the handset model’s default mode?  
100. If we determine to allow more than one hearing aid compatibility mode of operation, we 
are concerned with how difficult it might be for consumers to discover these features and to understand their functionality.  In this regard, should we 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 we allow a handset model to have two compatibility modes, what should we 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 we allow three different modes of 
compatibility and, if so, what should we require each of these modes to be called, and what hearing aid 
compatibility functions should we require to be included in each mode?  
101. Commenters should fully explain why they support or oppose our proposals for different 
modes of operations and why our proposals are in the public interest or not in the public interest.  What are the costs and benefits of each of our proposals?  What are the advantages and the disadvantages of our 
proposals in terms of their impact on handset manufacturers and consumers?   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
31 F. Consumer Notification Provisions  
1. Labeling and Disclosure Requirements 
102. We seek comment on whether to revise the labeling and disclosure requirements in 
section 20.19(f).162  As stated above, we propose that, after the expiration of the applicable transition 
period for handset manufacturers , all handset  model s must be certified as hearing aid  compatible .  
Further, we propose that at least 85% of these handset  model s must meet a  telecoil coupling requirement 
and that at least  15% of these handset  model s must meet the Commission’s new Bluetooth coupling 
requirement.   We propose using either our grandfathering proposal or a 100% 2019 ANSI Standard 
alternative.  Under either approach, we propose that all new handset models must be certified using the 
2019 ANSI S tandard’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 we adopt these proposed changes, we tentatively conclude that we should revise the 
package labeling provisions in section 20.19(f)(1) of the Commission’s rules to reflect these changes.  
Specifically, we tentatively conclude 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.  
We seek 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. We also tentatively conclude that we should make a corresponding change to the package 
insert and handset user manual requirements in section 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.
163  For new handset models that use Bluetooth coupling rather than telecoil 
coupling to meet Commission requirements, we propose 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 .  We seek comment on whether revising the rule in this way would provide sufficient 
information for consumers.  
104. Further, if we allow handset models to have default and secondary hearing aid 
compatibility modes of operation, we tentatively conclude that we should modify our 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.  We seek comment on this proposal.  
How can we 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 do we 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.  
 
162 47 CFR § 20.19(f).  
163 Section 710(d) empowers the Commission with authority to “establish such requirements for the labeling of 
packaging materials for equipment as are needed to provide adequate information to consumers on the compatibility 
between telephones and hearing aids.”  47 U.S.C. § 610(d).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
32 2. Digital Labeling Technology  
105. As an additional proposed change to section 20.19(f)(2), we propose 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 webpage 
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.164  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.165  Therefore, the 
Commission r equire d that package inserts and user manuals be provided with hearing aid -compatible 
handset  model s and that this information not just be provided online.166 
107. We propose to reconsider the Commission’s determination and allow manufacturers and 
service providers to meet the requirements of section 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 i n 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. We seek 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 we 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 we allow the use of digital 
labeling technology as an alternative to paper inserts and user manuals, how can we ensure that these 
 
164 2021 HAC Order , 36 FCC Rcd at 4584, para. 42.  
165 Id.  
166 Id.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
33 methods of labeling do not become obsolete before the Commission can update the labeling rules ?  
Finally, w hat are the costs and benefits of 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. We seek comment on whether to update the Commission’s rule on handset model number 
designations.  Section 20.19(g) of the Commission’s rules requires that “w here a manufacturer has made 
physical changes to a handset that result in a change in the hearing aid compatibility rating under the 2011 
ANSI standard or an earlier version of the standard, the altered handset must be given a model 
designation distinct from that of the handset prior to its alteration.”167  We seek 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, i f 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, we seek comment on whether to revise the rule to require a manufacturer to issue a new mod el 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, we tentatively conclude that we 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, we tentatively conclude 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.  We also tentatively conclude 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.
168  
We believe 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. We seek 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?  We note that if we allow 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 
 
167 47 CFR § 20.19(g).  
168 47 CFR § 20.19(f)(1).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
34 store.  Commenters should provide a detailed explanation as to why they support or oppose these tentative 
conclusions.  
114. Further, if we adopt a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, we seek 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 h earing aid compatibility rules .
169  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 .170  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.
171 
115. Service providers must also retain on their website a link to a third- party web site 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 .
172  
The rules also require that t he 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.173 
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.174 
117. We seek comment on whether to streamline these requirements by eliminating the 
requirement to post or retain information about non hearing aid-compatible handset models.  If we require that 100% of handset models be hearing aid compatible, we do 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 we continue to require service providers to post information 
and keep records about the non-hearing aid-compatible handset 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?  
 
169 2018 HAC Order , 33 FCC Rcd at 11554 -57, paras. 12- 20. 
170 47 CFR § 20.19(h)(1).  
171 Id. 
172 Id. § 20.19(h)( 2). 
173 47 CFR § 20.19(h)( 4). 
174 Id. § 20.19(h)(5).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
35 2. FCC Form 655 and 855  
118. In this section, we tentatively conclude that after the handset manufacturer 100% 
transition period ends, we 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.  We also tentatively conclude that after the 
expiration of the manufacturer transition period, we 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.  We seek comment on these 
tentative conclusions below.  
119. Background.  Under section 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 .
175  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) c ompliant 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) n on-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) t otal numbers of compliant and non-
compliant models offered to service providers for each air interface as of the time of the report; (vii) a ny 
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) s tatus of product labeling; (ix) o utreach efforts, and (x) if the manufacturer 
maintains a public website, the website address of the page(s) containing the required information 
regarding handset models.
176 
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.177  Certifications filed by service providers must include: (i ) the name of the signing 
 
175 Id. § 20.19(i )(1).  FCC Form 655 provides that certain manufacturers of wireless handsets are required to 
annually file a FCC Form 655 status report indicating their compliance with the Commission’s hearing aid 
compatibility requirements.  Specifically, this reporting requirement applies to manufacturers of wireless handsets 
used in the delivery of digital mobile service in the United States to the extent that the handsets offer terrestrial 
mobile service that enables two -way real -time voice communications among members of the public or a substantial 
portion of the public, including both interconnected and non- interconnected VoIP services, and such service is 
provided over frequencies in the 698 MHz to 6 GHz bands.  See id. § 20.19(a)(2).  
176 Id. § 20.19(i)(3).  
177 Id. § 20.19(i)(1).  FCC Form 855 provides that certain digital mobile service providers, including mobile virtual 
network operators (“MVNOs”) and resellers, are required to annually file a FCC Form 855 certification with the 
Commission stating whether or not they are in full compliance with the Commission’s hearing aid compatibility 
rules.  Specifically, this certification requirement applies to “providers of digital mobile service in the United States to the extent that they offer terrestrial mobile service that enables two -way real -time voice communications among 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
36 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.178 
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.179  The 
Commission found that  many of the benefits of annual status reporting by service providers ha d become 
increasingly outweighed by the burdens that such information collection place d on th ose entities.180  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. ”181 
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 
require d 100% of  covered handset  model s to be hearing aid  compatible .182  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 t ook further action in the 100% hearing aid 
compatibility docket  and that its decision s did not “ prejudge any further steps we may take to modify our  
reporting rules in that proceeding. ”
183 
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.
184 
124. Discussion .  We seek comment on our 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 we require 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 
(Continued from previous page)   
members of the public or a substantial portion of the public, including both interconnected and non -interconnected 
VoIP services, and such service is provided over frequencies in the 614 MHz to 6 GHz bands.”  See id. § 20.19(a).  
178 Id. § 20.19(i)(2).  
179 2018 HAC Order , 33 FCC Rcd at 11554, paras. 12 -14. 
180 Id. at 11554, para. 13.  
181 Id.  
182 Id. at 11554, para. 15.  
183 2018 HAC Order , 33 FCC Rcd at 11554, para. 15.  
184 The service provider filing window opens the first business day in January and closes on January 31 each year.  If 
January 31 falls on a weekend or holiday, then the filing widow closes on the next business day.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
37 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?  We seek 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 manufacturers to FCC Form 855 be sufficient to emphasize to manufacturers the importance of compliance with our rules  while reduc ing the burden s 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 our proposal for a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
benchmark, we propose to require that at least 85% of  handset  model s offered meet a telecoil coupling 
requirement and that at least  15% of handset  model s offered meet a Bluetooth connectivity requirement.  
If we adopt these proposed benchmarks, should we retain the FCC Form 655 reporting obligation for 
handset manufacturers so that we 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 our 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 us to replace this 
requirement with a requirement that they file FCC Form 855?  
127. In addition, if we adopt our 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, we note 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 we maintain 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 we move handset manufacturers to this form, too?  
3. Reliance on Accessibility Clearinghouse  
129. We propose 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.
185 
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 
 
185 HAC Task Force Final Report at ii, 27.  The Commission’s Accessibility Clearinghouse can be found at 
https://www.fcc.gov/ach .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
38 is linked at the Accessibility Clearinghouse website.186  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.187  Presently, the Commission allows service providers to rely on the 
information from a handset  manufacturer’s FCC Form 655 as a safe harbor.188  In its Public Notice, WTB 
sought comment on the HAC Task Force’s recommendation.189  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.”190  MWF also noted that for the GARI website, “all manufacturer statements ” are “subject 
to the legal requirements for accuracy of representations to consumers.”191  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 E quipment 
Authorization S ystem.”192 
131. While handset  manufacturers must certify to the accuracy of their FCC Form 655 report s, 
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 we are not convinced that it is necessary to allow service providers a second safe harbor that may not contain accurate information.  
132. Accordingly, we propose 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 .  We seek comment on our proposed determination.  We also seek comment on whether, 
once the transition to 100% hearing aid compatibility is completed, our rules should continue to require service providers to either link to the GARI database on their publicly accessible websites or provide a list for the past 24 months of hearing aid-compatible handset models that they no longer offer.
193 
133. We also propose 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 
 
186 HAC Task Force Final Report at 26 -28.  GARI is a project of the Mobile & Wireless Forum populated by 
handset  manufacturers and app developers  with the objective of “helping consumers learn about the accessibility 
features of mobile devices and to identify devices with the features that may assist them with their particular 
needs”).  See GARI, What Do You Want to Find? Gari.info, http://gari.info/  (last visited Sept. 10, 2023)  (providing 
a search field to accessibility information, including handset model hearing aid compatibility information).  GARI is 
an ongoing project of the Mobile and Wireless Forum, “an international association of companies with an interest in mobile and wireless communication. . . The MWF focuses on a range of issues concerning mobile and wireless 
devices including RF health and safety, certification testing standards and requirements, counterfeit, counterfeit 
issues and accessibility,” GARI, Contact GARI, 
https://www.gari.info/contact.cfm  (last visited Oct. 24, 2023).  
187 HAC Task Force Final Report at 27; see GARI, Home Page, https://www.gari.info  (last visited Oct. 24 , 2023).  
188 2018 HAC Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 11557, para. 20.  We also note that , in 2018, the Commission determined that 
service providers may rely on the GARI database in meeting certain publicly accessible website posting requirements.  Id. at 11555- 56, para. 18.  
189 HAC Public Notice  at para. 15.  
190 MWF Reply at 4 -5. 
191 Id. at 5.  MWF also argued that the Form  655 certification requirement does not add to a manufacturer’s 
obligation to provide accurate product information .  Id. 
192 HAC Task Force Reply at 8.  
193 47 CFR § 20.19(h)(2).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
39 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.194  We seek 
comment on our proposed determinations.  
4. Contact Information for Consumers  
134. We tentatively conclude that we should modify our 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.
195  Under our tentative conclusion, handset manufacturers and service 
providers would 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 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.  We 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.
196 
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.”197  We seek 
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.  We believe 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.
198  Our website posting rules require websites to be updated within 30 days of a change.199 
136. We seek comment on our 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 we ensure that handset manufacturers and service providers display contact 
information in a uniform fashion and in a uniform location on their websites?  Should we require that this 
information be provided on the first page of their hearing aid compatibility webpages and in a particular 
 
194 See Filing Hearing Aid Compatibility Reports and Certifications | Federal Communications Commission 
(fcc.gov) ; Accessibility Clearinghouse, https://www.fcc.gov/ach  (last visited Oct. 24, 2023) (linking at bottom of 
page to Hearing Aid Compatible Wireless Handsets Status Reports).  
195 47 CFR § 20.19(h).  
196 See CTIA, Wireless Industry Commitment, Consumer Code for Wireless Service at https://www.ctia.org/the -
wireless -industry/industry- commitments/consumer -code -for-wireless -service . 
197 47 U.S.C. § 610(a).  Moreover, section 710(d), which provides the Commission with authority to establish 
package labeling requirements for handset models, indicates a congressional intent in favor of promoting the 
availability of HAC information for consumers.  See id. § 610(d).  
198 We note that consumers may contact the FCC’s Disability Rights Office with questions concerning our hearing 
aid compatibility requirements.  The Office’s contact information can be found here: https://www.fcc.gov/accessibility
.  In addition, the Office has prepared a consumer guide on Hearing Aid 
Compatibility for Wireline and Wireless Telephones that can be found here: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers
/guides/hearing- aid-compatibility -wireline -and-wireless -telephones . 
199 See 47 CFR § 20.19(h)(4) (website posting requirements for information on HAC compatible handset models).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
40 location on this page, such as the upper right -hand corner?  Should we require that this information be 
labeled as HAC Contact Information or something similar?  How can we ensure that consumers can easily 
find the required contact information, and should we require additional information to be provided beyond what we are proposing?  
137. We also seek 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, we 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 our 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, we seek comment on whether we 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.
200  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 our 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, we propose to delete the last sentence of section 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.
201  The rules in part 68, subpart E relate to sections 255, 716, and 718 of the 
Communications Act rather than section 610 and we, therefore, propose to delete this sentence.202 
 
200 See id. § 68.418(b) ; https://apps.fcc.gov/rccci -search/search.action . 
201 47 CFR § 20.19(j).  
202 47 U.S.C. §§ 255, 716, 718.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
41 H. Sunsetting the De Minimis  Exception  
141. In view of our tentative conclusion to require 100% of handset models to be hearing aid 
compatible after the expiration of the relevant transition periods, we tentatively conclude that we should 
remove the de minimis exception in section 20.19(e) of the 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.203  
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 from the requirements of s ection 
20.19, other than the reporting requirement.204  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.205  
Section 20.19(e)(3) provides that m anufacturers 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.206 
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.207  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 .208  In 2010, the Commission modif ied the de minimis  exception as 
applied to companies that are not small entities by decid ing 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.209 
144. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion to remove the de minimis exception to our 
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 our 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 
 
203 47 CFR § 20.19(e).  
204 Id. § 20.19(e)(1). 
205 Id. § 20.19(e)(2). 
206 Id. § 20.19(e)( 3).  “Air interface” refers to the technology that ensures compatibility between mobile radio 
service equipment, such as handsets, and a service provider’s base stations.  WTB/OET 2012 HAC Order , 27 FCC 
Rcd at 3733, para. 3 & n.2.  Examples of air interfaces include GSM, CDMA, LTE, and Wi -Fi.  See generally  2019 
ANSI Standard.  
207 See 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order , 18 FCC Rcd at 16781, para. 69; see also Section 68.4(a) of the 
Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid- Compatible Telephones , WT Docket No. 01 -309, Order on  
Reconsideration and Further Notice  of Proposed Rulemaking, 20  FCC Rcd 11221,  11244 , para.  51 (2005) ( 2005 
HAC Order).  
208 2005 HAC  Order , 20 FCC Rcd at 11244 , para.  53. 
209 2010 HAC Order , 25 FCC Rcd at 11182, para. 40.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
42 hearing aid compatibility technologies, and the greater availability of hearing aid-compatible handset 
models, we seek 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 preserv e competitive opportunities for small entities ? 
I. 90-Day Shot Clock for Waivers  
145. The HAC Task Force’s Final Report recommend s 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.
210  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. We propose to decline the Task Force’s recommendation because we do 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.
211  We note that not only is the 90-day proposal half 
of what the Commission sought comment on, but that the Commission also sought comment on whether 
there are situations in which the Commission should have the ability to extend the waiver deadline.212  We 
also note that section 710(f) requires the Commission to periodically review the regulations established 
pursuant to the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act.213  This statutory obligation should curtail the need for 
waivers.  We seek comment on our proposed determination.  
J. Renaming Section 20.19  
147. Finally, we seek comment on whether the Commission should revise the heading of 
section 20.19 of the 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
214 as well as consumers who have hearing loss but do not use 
hearing devices.  We seek comment on whether the Commission should revise the heading of section 
20.19 to better reflect the scope of the requirements.  If so, we seek comment on what heading the Commission should adopt.  For example, should the Commission rename section 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?  
 
210 HAC Task Force Final Report at ii, 30 -31. 
211 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(3) (the Commission shall not grant a waiver unless the Commission determines on the basis 
of evidence in the record that granting a waiver is in the public interest and the Commission shall consider the effect 
of the waiver on hearing -impaired individuals).  
212 Improvements to Benchmarks and Related Requirements Governing Hearing Aid- Compatible Mobile Handsets , 
WT Docket No. 15- 285, Fourth Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 13845, 13880-
81, para. 79 (2015).  
213 47 U.S.C. § 610(f); see also  id. § 610(b)(3) (“The Commission shall periodically review and determine the 
continuing need for any waiver granted . . . .”).  
214 Lintz Comments, WT Docket No. 20 -3 at 2 -3 (filed Apr. 10, 2020) (“The FCC should make clear that hearing aid 
compatible means telecoil.  I respectfully request the FCC to change the term HAC to telecoil or T -coil . . . .”).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
43 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,215 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 considerations216 and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.   Specifically, we 
seek comment on how our inquiries may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission’s relevant legal authority.  
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS  
149. 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 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.  
150. Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA),
217 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.”218  Accordingly, we have prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes 
 
215 Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended provides that the FCC “regulat[es] interstate and 
foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] available, so far as possible, to 
all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.”   47 U.S.C. § 151.  
216 The term “equity”  is used here consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, 
and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have 
been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans 
and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons 
otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.   See Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009, 
Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal 
Government (January 20, 2021).  
217 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 –612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104 -121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).  
218 Id. § 605(b).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
44 contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.  Written public 
comments are requested on the IRFA.  Comments must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the first page of this document . 
151. 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.   In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198,  see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.  
152. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act.   The Providing Accountability 
Through Transparency Act requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain -language summary of the proposed rule.  Accordingly, the Commission will publish the 
required summary of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed -rulemakings
. 
153. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments .  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, i nterested parties may file comments and reply comments 
on or before the dates indicated on the first page  of this document.  Comments may be filed using the 
Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by paper. 
 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.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.  
Paper filings can be sent by first -class or overnight commercial or U.S. Postal Service mail.  All 
filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.  
(1) Filings by 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.  
(2) Filings by U.S. Postal Service first -class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 
45 L Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554.  
(3) 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.
219 
154. People with Disabilities .  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files , audio format), send an e -mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202 -418-0530.  
155. Contact Person .  For further information  about this proceeding, contact Eli Johnson, 
FCC, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Competition  & Infrastructure Policy Division, (202) 418-
1395 , Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov . 
 
219 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 -cl oses-headquarters -open- window -and-
changes -hand -delivery -policy.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
45 V. ORDERING CLAUSES  
156. 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, thi s Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 
157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that WT Docket No. 15 -285 IS  HEREBY TERMINATED . 
158. 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.  
 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  
 
 
  
      Marlene H. Dortch  
      Secretary   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108  
46 APPENDIX A 
Proposed Rules  
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR p art 20 as follows:  
 
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:  
 
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251- 254, 303, 332, and 710 unless otherwise noted.  
 
2. Amend § 20.19 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)-(3), (c)(1) -(3), removing existing paragraph (e) 
and redesignating existing paragraphs (f) -(l) as paragraphs (e) -(k), and revising ( e)(1)-(2),  
(g)(1), and (h)(1) -(2) to read as follows:  
 
§ 20.19  Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.  
 
* * * * *  
 
(b) Hearing aid compatibility; technical standards  
 
(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  model s must by default have their acoustic and volume control 
functions on.  Such handset  model s may also have a secondary mode whereby the handset  
model ’s telecoil is turned on or, for those handset  model s 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  model s operating over multiple frequency bands or air interfaces  
  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
47 (i) Beginning on December 31, 202 6, 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 § 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 § 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  model s 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, 202 6, for each digital air interface for which it offers handset  model s in the United States or 
imported for use in the United States, one -hundred ( 100) percent  of the handset  model s 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 , 202 7, for each digital air interface for which it offers handset  
model s to customers, one -hundred ( 100) percent  of the handset  model s 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, f or each digital air interface 
for which it offers handset  model s to customers, one -hundred ( 100) percent  of the handset  model s 
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 .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
48  
* * * * *  
(d) [Reserved]  
 
(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 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  model s 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) Website and record retention requirements.  
 
(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  model s 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  model s 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.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
49 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  model s include.  
 
(iii) Each h andset 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  model s.  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) Reporting Requirements- 
 
(1) Reporting and certification dates. 
 (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, s ervice 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.  
 
* * * * *  
 
(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  model s offered that are hearing aid -compatible ( companies will 
derive this percentage by determining the number of hearing aid-compatible handset  model s 
offered across all air interfaces during the year divided by the total number of handset  model s 
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 a s a company 
covered by those requirements.  
  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23-108   
 
50 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. 
 * * * * *  
 
  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108 
51 
 APPENDIX B  
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act  of 1980, as amended,  (RFA),1 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 (Notice ).  Written public comments are 
requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments provided in the  Notice .  The Commission will send a copy of the Notice , 
including thi s IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2  In 
addition, the Notice  and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3 
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules  
2. 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 Notice   to develop a record relating to a proposal submitted by the H earing 
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 . 
3. The Notice  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.4  As part of this determination, the Notice  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 
Notice  seeks comment on the Bluetooth technology the Commission  should utilize to meet thi s 
requirement and how to  incorporate this requirement into the  wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.  
Additionally, the Notice  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 Notice  also seeks 
comment on certain implementation proposals and updates to the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules 
related to these proposals.  
B. Legal Basis  
4. 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 . 
 
1 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 -612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104 -121, Title II, 110 Stat. 8 57 (1996).  
2  5 U.S.C.  § 603(a).  
3 Id. 
4 47 U.S.C. § 610(e).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108  
 
52 C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Would Apply  
5. 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.5  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
6  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7  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.
8 
6. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions.   Our actions, 
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.
9  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.
10  These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 3 3.2 million  
businesses.11 
7. 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.”12  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.
13  Nationwide, for tax year 20 20, 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.14 
 
5 Id. § 603(b)(3).  
6 Id. § 601(6).  
7 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the 
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or 
more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  
8 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).  
9 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)- (6). 
10 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “What’s New With Small Business?,” https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp -
content/uploads/2023/03/Whats -New -Infographic -March -2023- 508c.pdf . (Mar. 2023).  
11 Id. 
12 See 5 U.S.C.  § 601(4).  
13 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction .  Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number  of 
small organizations in this small entity description.   See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations – Form 990 -N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,” https://www.irs.gov/charities -non-profits/annual -
electronic -filing -requirement -for-small -exempt -organizations -form -990-n-e- postcard .  We note that the IRS data 
does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or 
dominant in its field . 
14 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region ,” 
https://www.irs.gov/charities -non-profits/exempt -organizations -business -master -file-extract -eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax -
exempt/non -profit organizations.  The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
(continued….)  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108  
 
53 8. 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.”15  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 201 7 Census 
of Governments16 indicate there were 90,075 l ocal governmental jurisdictions consisting of general  
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.17  Of this number , there were 
36,931 g eneral purpose governments (county ,18 municipal , and town or township19) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,040  special p urpose governments —independent school districts20 with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.21  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data , we 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdiction s.”22 
9. 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.
23  Examples of products made by these 
(Continued from previous page)   
BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1- Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2 -Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3 -Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840)  that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.  This data does not include information for 
Puerto Rico.  
15 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5). 
16 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Government s survey  is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7. ”  See also Census of Government s, https://www.census.gov/programs -
surveys/cog/about.html . 
17 See U.S. Census Bureau, 201 7 Census of Governments  – Organization Table 2.  Local Governments by Type and 
State: 20 17 [CG1700ORG02] , https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017- governments.html .  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of g eneral purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).   See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 
Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017. 
18 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population -Size Group and State: 2017  [CG1700ORG05] ,  
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017 -governments.html .  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) 
governments.  
19 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General -Purpose Governments by Population -Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG06] , https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017 -governments.html .  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000.  
20 See id. at tbl. 10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment -Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG10] , https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017 -governments.html .  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also tbl.4.  Special -Purpose Local 
Governments by State  Census Years 1942 to 2017  [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State_Census Years 1942 to 2017. 
21 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district  governments, the 2017 Census 
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
category.  
22 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of s pecial purpose governments - 
independent school districts  with enrollment populations of less than 50,000  (12,040) , from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls. 5, 6 & 10. 
23 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “ 334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220 .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108  
 
54 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.
24  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 
having 1,250 employees or less as small.25  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.26  Of this number , 624 firms had fewer than 250 
employees.27  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.  
10. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers .  Neither t he 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
28 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.
29  
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.30  The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies firms having 1,250 or fewer employees as small.31  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.32  Of this number, 624 
firms had fewer than 250 employees.33  Thus, under the SBA size standard the majority of firms in this 
industry can be considered small.  
11. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves.
34  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and 
 
24 Id. 
25 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.  
26 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM , NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
27 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  
28 See U.S. Census Bureau , 2017 NAICS Definition, “ 334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220 . 
29 Id. 
30 Id. 
31 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.  
32 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM , NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
33 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  
34 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition , “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers  (except 
Satellite) ,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312 .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108  
 
55 wireless video services.35  The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.36  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.37  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.38  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.39  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.40  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.  
12. 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.
41  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.
42  Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications and  
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure.43  Mobile virtual network operators 
(MVNOs) are included in this industry.44  Under the SBA size standard for this industry, a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.45  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in 
this industry provided resale services during that year.46  Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer 
than 250 employees.47  Thus, for this industry under the SBA small business size standard, the majority of 
providers can be considered small entities.  
 
35 Id. 
36 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112) . 
37 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States , Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017 , Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
38 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  
39 Federal -State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022),  
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 391070A1.pdf . 
40 Id. 
41 See U.S. Census Bureau , 2017 NAICS Definition , “517911 Telecommunications Resellers ,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517911&year=2017&details=517911 . 
42 Id. 
43 Id. 
44 Id. 
45 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517911 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517121) . 
46 See U.S. Census Bureau,  2017 Economic Census  of the United States , Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017 , Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM , NAICS Code 517911,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517911&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
47 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108  
 
56 D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities  
13. The Commission expects potential  rule changes proposed in the  Notice , if adopted, could 
impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities.   If 
the proposals in the Notice  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.  
14. 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 . 
15. 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 s ection 
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 s ection 20.19(f)(2)  is 
adopted, manufacturers could be require d 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 . 
16. 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. 
17. 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.  
18. Small entities may be required to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other 
professionals to comply with the rule changes proposed in the Notice, if adopted.  The Commission does 
not believe,  however, that the costs and/or administrati ve 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 Notice , in our discussion of the  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108  
 
57 proposals we have requested comments from the parties in 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 we have 
requested comments.  
E. Steps Taken  to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered  
19. 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.”
48 
20. In the Notice , 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 change s, 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 Notice  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.  
21. 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 provide rs 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 our 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 Notice  seeks comment from small and other entities on the economic 
impact of adopting such an approach.  
22. 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 eliminat e the 
requirement that service providers and manufacturers post or retain information about non hearing aid-
 
48 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -(4).  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108  
 
58 compatible handsets.  Additionally, the Commission proposes to eliminate the annual service reporting 
requirements for manufacturers if the Commission  adopt s 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.  
23. 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 ensur e that Americans with hearing loss can  access a wide array of handsets with emerging 
technologies .  Therefore the Notice  seeks comment on alternative obligations, timing for implementation, 
and other measures including costs and benefits analyses that will allow us to more fully  consider and 
evaluate the economic impact on small entities .  The Commission will review the comments filed in 
response to the Notice  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  
24. None.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108 
59 
 STATEMENT OF  
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL  
 
Re:   Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility; Improvements to 
Benchmarks and Related Requirements Governing Hearing Aid -Compatible Mobile Handsets , 
WT Docket Nos. 23 -388, 15-285 (terminated), Notice  of Proposed Rulemaking  
(December 13, 2023)  
 
Hearing loss is a big deal.  More than 37 million Americans have some form of hearing difficulty.  
Among older  adults  it is especially prevalent , and it is also common among veterans, particularly those 
who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But technology is also a big deal, and we can use it to make sure those struggling with hearing loss have access to modern communications.   
While the agency has been at work on this for some time, today we reach a new milestone.  That 
is because in this rulemaking we make clear that in the United States we believe it is possible for 100 
percent of mobile wireless handsets to be fully compatible with hearing aids.  That means every mobile handset that is imported or used in this country is accessible to everyone with hearing challenges.  This is 
the right thing to do.  It is also the right time to do it.  Because access to hearing aids has never been 
easier.  Just over a year ago, the Food and Drug Administration took steps to pave the way for a new 
category of over -the-counter hearing aids.  This has made hearing aids more accessible and affordable 
than ever before.  So now let’s make wireless handsets work for those with hearing aids like never before.   
I appreciate the educational and research institutions, equipment manufacturers, wireless carriers, 
and advocates for those with hearing loss who have worked with the Hearing Aid Compatibility Task 
Force to get us to this point.  It is historic.  And in a nod to the past, I want to acknowledge that it was 50 years ago this year that this kind of work on accessibility began in earnest when the Organization for the 
Use of the Telephone was founded by two senior citizens seeking to ensure public payphones were 
hearing -aid compatible.  We follow in their footsteps.   
Thank you also to the staff behind this rulemaking, including Saurbh Chhabra, Barbara Esbin, 
Garnet Hanly, Eli Johnson, Susannah Larson, John Lockwood, Jennifer Salhus, and Joel Taubenblatt 
from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Robert Aldrich, Diane Burstein, Darryl Cooper, 
Alejandro Roark, and Suzy Rosen Singleton from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau; Ron 
Repasi, Justin Rison, Dana Shaffer, and Jim Szeliga from the Office of Engineering and Technology; 
William Huber, Michael Janson, Doug Klein, and Anjali Singh from the Office of General Counsel; 
Patrick Brogan, Judith Dempsey, Douglas Galbi, Kim Makuch, Catherine Matraves, Giulia McHenry, 
Molly Schwarz, Emily Talaga, and Weiren Wang from the Office of Economics and Analytics; and 
Michael Gussow, Joy Ragsdale, and Chana Wilkerson from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -108 
60 
 STATEMENT OF  
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS  
 
Re: Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility; Improvements to 
Benchmarks and Related Requirements Governing Hearing Aid -Compatible Mobile Handsets , 
WT Docket Nos. 23 -388, 15-285 (terminated), Notice  of Proposed Rulemaking  
(December 13 , 2023)  
 
Everyone in America deserves access to modern communications.  That includes Americans with 
disabilities, and in particular those who are hearing  impaired.  That’s why I’m proud to support today’s 
notice of proposed rulemaking.  This proposal puts us down a path to ensuring that every single 
smartphone sold in America can be used with hearing aids.  Every model, all of them.  100 percent.   
Reaching 100% compatibility will give hearing-impaired consumers more choice, and that’s 
reason enough to invest in making it a reality.  But our HAC efforts also show that we can absolutely 
achieve equal access to communications without compromise.  It may take vision, hard work, time, innovation, commitment, resolve, and collaboration .  But whether we’re talking hearing -aid compatibility 
or the digital divide, don’t ever tell me that 100% is simply impossible.  
Speaking of hard work, this item was only made possible by years of collaboration among 
industry, consumer groups, standards organizations, and of course government.  For all those who 
contributed— including our staff in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau—thank you for your efforts, 
and for leading the way.  As the technical  matters raised in this item show, we have plenty left to do.  
We’re counting on you to keep up the work.   
This item has my full support.