5152 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[WT Docket No. 23–388; FCC 23–108; FR 

ID 195641] 

Achieving 100% Wireless Handset 

Model Hearing Aid Compatibility 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) tentatively concludes 

that requiring 100% of all handset 

models to be certified as hearing aidcompatible is an achievable object and 

seeks comment on revising the 

definition of hearing aid compatibility 

to include Bluetooth connectivity 

technology. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

number of implementation proposals 

related to this tentative conclusion. 

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before February 26, 

2024, and reply comments on or before 

March 11, 2024. Written comments on 

the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

must be submitted by the public, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), and other interested parties on 

or before March 26, 2024. Written 

comments on the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in this 

document must have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA and must be 

submitted by the public on or before 

February 26, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 23–388, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Filing, Public 

Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (2020), https:// 

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closesheadquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

please send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this proceeding, 

contact Eli Johnson, Eli.Johnson@

fcc.gov, of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 

Competition & Infrastructure Policy 

Division, (202) 418–1395. For additional 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act proposed information 

requirements contained in this 

document, send an email to PRA@

fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at 

(202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in WT 

Docket No. 23–388; FCC 23–108, 

adopted December 13, 2023, and 

released on December 14, 2023. The full 

text of the document is available for 

download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-23-108A1.pdf. The 

complete text of this document is also 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 45 L 

Street NE, Room 1.150, Washington, DC 

20554, (202) 418–0270. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA), requires that an agency 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for notice-and-comment rulemakings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning 

the possible impact of the rule and 

policy changes contained in this Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking. Written public 

comments are requested on the IRFA. 

Comments must be by the deadlines for 

comments on this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking indicated in the DATES

section of this document and must have 

a separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed in WT Docket 

No. 23–388. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

document contains proposed modified 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. If the Commission 

adopts any new or revised information 

collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget to comment on the 

information collection requirements. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding shall 

be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, then the 

presenter may provide citations to such 

data or arguments in his or her prior 

comments, memoranda, or other filings 

(specifying the relevant page and/or 

paragraph numbers where such data or 

arguments can be found) in lieu of 

summarizing them in the memorandum. 

Documents shown or given to 

Commission staff during ex parte 

meetings are deemed to be written ex 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5153 

parte presentations and must be filed 

consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In 

proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f), 

or for which the Commission has made 

available a method of electronic filing, 

written ex parte presentations and 

memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act: The Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act, Public Law 118–9, requires each 

agency, in providing notice of a 

rulemaking, to post online a brief plainlanguage summary of the proposed rule. 

The required summary of this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is available at 

https://www.fcc.gov/proposedrulemakings. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. The Commission has a 

longstanding commitment to ensuring 

that all Americans, including those with 

disabilities, are able to access 

communications services on an equal 

basis. The recent pandemic highlighted 

just how important equal access to 

communications services is for 

individual well-being as well as the dayto-day functioning of American society. 

The Commission’s commitment to 

ensuring accessibility for all Americans 

includes ensuring those with hearing 

loss—more than 37.5 million 

Americans—have equal access to 

communications services as required by 

section 710 of the Communications Act. 

This section directs the Commission to 

facilitate compatibility between wireless 

handset models and hearing aids. In 

fulfilling this statutory directive, the 

Commission is committed to ensuring 

that its wireless hearing aid 

compatibility provisions keep pace both 

with the ways handset models couple 

with hearing devices and requiring all 

handset models to be hearing aid 

compatible. It is with these objectives in 

mind that the Commission initiates 

today’s rulemaking. 

2. Specifically, the Commission issues 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

develop a record with respect to a 

proposal submitted to the Commission 

by the Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) 

Task Force on how the Commission can 

achieve its long held goal of a 100% 

hearing aid compatibility benchmark for 

all handset models offered in the United 

States or imported for use in the United 

States. The HAC Task Force is an 

independent organization composed of 

groups who represent the interests of 

people with hearing loss, wireless 

service providers, and wireless handset 

manufacturers that was formed for the 

purpose of reporting to the Commission 

on whether requiring 100% of all 

handset models to be certified as 

hearing aid compatible is an achievable 

objective. The Task Force’s Final Report 

represents a consensus proposal for how 

the Commission can achieve this 

objective. The Commission proposes to 

adopt the Task Force’s proposal with 

certain modifications in order to ensure 

that all handset models provide full 

accessibility for those with hearing loss 

while at the same time ensuring that its 

rules do not discourage or impair the 

development of improved technology. 

3. Specifically, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that requiring 

100% of all handset models to be 

certified as hearing aid compatible is an 

achievable objective under the factors 

set forth in section 710(e) of the 

Communications Act. As part of this 

determination, the Commission seeks 

comment on adopting the more flexible 

‘‘forward-looking’’ definition of hearing 

aid compatibility that the HAC Task 

Force recommends. This determination 

also includes a proposal to broaden the 

current definition of hearing aid 

compatibility to include Bluetooth 

connectivity technology and to require 

at least 15% of offered handset models 

to connect to hearing aids through 

Bluetooth technology as an alternative 

to or in addition to a telecoil. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

Bluetooth technology that it should 

utilize to meet this requirement and 

how it should incorporate this 

requirement into its wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules. 

4. Further, the Commission explores 

ways to reach the 100% compatibility 

benchmark, and it proposes a 24-month 

transition period for handset 

manufacturers; a 30-month transition 

period for nationwide service providers; 

and a 42-month transition period for 

non-nationwide service providers to 

transition to a 100% hearing aidcompatible handset standard for all 

handset models offered for sale in the 

United States or imported for use in the 

United States. The Commission seeks 

comment on certain implementation 

proposals and updates to the wireless 

hearing aid compatibility rules related 

to these proposals. These proposals 

include requirements for hearing aid 

compatibility settings in handset 

models, revised website posting, 

labeling and disclosure rules, and 

revised reporting requirements along 

with seeking comment on renaming its 

§ 20.19 rules to better reflect what this 

section covers. 

5. The Commission’s proposals are 

based on the results of collaborative 

efforts of members of the HAC Task 

Force who worked together over a 

period of years to reach a consensus 

proposal on how best to ensure that all 

new handset models meet the needs of 

those with hearing loss. The revisions 

that the Commission proposes today to 

its wireless hearing aid compatibility 

rules would ensure greater access to 

wireless communication services for 

Americans with hearing loss and the 

ability of these consumers to consider 

the latest and most innovative handset 

models for their needs. 

II. Background 

6. Over time, the Commission has 

progressively increased the deployment 

benchmarks for hearing aid-compatible 

wireless handset models. In 2016, the 

Commission reconfirmed its 

commitment to pursuing 100% hearing 

aid compatibility to the extent 

achievable. The 2016 HAC Order 

supported this objective by increasing 

the number of hearing aid-compatible 

handset models that handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

were required to offer by adopting two 

new handset model deployment 

benchmarks. After a two-year transition 

for handset manufacturers, and with 

additional compliance time for service 

providers, the then-applicable handset 

model deployment benchmarks were 

increased to 66%. After a five-year 

transition period for handset 

manufacturers, and with additional 

compliance time for service providers, 

the 66% handset model deployment 

benchmarks were increased to 85%. 

7. In this same order, the Commission 

established a process for determining 

whether a 100% hearing aid 

compatibility requirement is 

‘‘achievable.’’ The Commission stated 

that it wanted to continue the 

‘‘productive collaboration between 

stakeholders and other interested 

parties’’ that had been part of the 

process for enacting the two new 

handset model deployment benchmarks. 

The Commission noted the 

stakeholders’ proposal to form a task 

force independent of the Commission to 

‘‘issue a report to the Commission 

helping to inform’’ the agency ‘‘on 

whether 100 percent hearing aid 

compatibility is achievable.’’ Part of this 

process included determining whether 

the hearing aid compatibility 

requirements should be modified to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5154 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

include alternative technologies such as 

Bluetooth. The Commission stated that 

it was deferring action on compliance 

processes, legacy models, burden 

reduction, the appropriate transition 

periods, and other implementation 

issues until after it received the HAC 

Task Force’s Final Report on 

achievability. The Commission 

specified that it intended to decide by 

2024 whether to require 100% of 

covered wireless handset models to be 

hearing aid compatible. The 

Commission indicated that it would 

make its determination as to whether 

this goal is achievable by relying on the 

factors identified in section 710(e) of the 

Communications Act. After the 2016 

HAC Order was released, sstakeholders 

convened the independent Task Force 

and filed progress updates with the 

Commission. 

8. In 2018, the Commission imposed 

new website posting requirements and 

took steps to reduce regulatory burden 

on service providers by allowing them 

to file a streamlined annual certification 

under penalty of perjury stating their 

compliance with the Commission’s 

hearing aid compatibility requirements. 

As part of the 2018 HAC Order, the 

Commission noted that, in the 100% 

hearing aid compatibility docket, it was 

considering broader changes to the 

hearing aid compatibility rules that may 

be appropriate in the event it required 

100% of covered handset models to be 

hearing aid compatible. The 

Commission indicated that the website, 

record retention, and certification 

requirements it was adopting as part of 

the 2018 HAC Order would remain in 

place unless and until the Commission 

took further action in the 100% hearing 

aid compatibility docket and that its 

decisions did not ‘‘prejudge any further 

steps we may take to modify our 

reporting rules in that proceeding.’’ 

9. In February 2021, the Commission 

adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard for 

determining hearing aid compatibility. 

The 2019 ANSI Standard was to replace 

the existing 2011 ANSI Standard after a 

two-year transition period that was set 

to end on June 5, 2023. Like the 2011 

ANSI Standard, the 2019 ANSI Standard 

addresses acoustic and inductive 

coupling between wireless handset 

models and hearing aids but uses 

heightened testing methodologies 

intended to ensure handset models offer 

a better listening experience for 

consumers. In addition, the 2019 ANSI 

Standard includes for the first time a 

volume control requirement. The 

standard specifically references the TIA 

5050 Standard that addresses volume 

control requirements for wireless 

handset models. As part of the order 

adopting the 2019 ANSI Standard and 

the related TIA 5050 Standard, the 

Commission reiterated its goal ‘‘to 

continue on the path to making 100% of 

wireless handsets hearing aid 

compatible.’’ 

10. In December 2022, the HAC Task 

Force filed its Final Report with the 

Commission, which makes five central 

recommendations. The report 

recommends that the Commission: (1) 

adopt a more flexible, forward-looking 

definition of hearing aid compatibility; 

(2) adjust current technical standards; 

(3) allow for exploration of changes in 

coupling technology (e.g., by additional 

exploration of Bluetooth and alternative 

technologies); (4) allow reliance on 

information linked in the Commission’s 

Accessibility Clearinghouse; and (5) set 

a 90-day shot clock for the resolution of 

petitions for waiver of the hearing aid 

compatibility requirements. 

11. The Final Report also 

recommends that the Commission grant 

the volume control waiver request that 

the Alliance for Telecommunications 

Industry Solutions (ATIS) filed the same 

day that the HAC Task Force filed its 

Final Report. In its waiver request, ATIS 

asserted that the testing performed by 

the Task Force revealed that the TIA 

5050 Standard for volume control was 

fundamentally flawed because it 

required the use of a pulsed-noise 

signal, which ATIS claimed was 

insufficiently voice-like to be 

compatible with many modern codecs. 

ATIS also stated that the standard’s use 

of a pulsed-noise signal resulted in none 

of the handsets that it tested passing the 

standard. As a result, ATIS requested 

that the Commission allow handsets to 

be certified as hearing aid compatible 

using a modified volume control testing 

methodology. 

12. On March 23, 2023, the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) 

released a Public Notice seeking 

comment on the HAC Task Force’s Final 

Report. The Public Notice sought 

comment generally on the report’s 

recommendations and whether they 

furthered the Commission’s goal of 

attaining 100% hearing aid 

compatibility. The Public Notice also 

asked whether the report’s 

recommendations were consistent with 

the policy goals the Commission has 

historically outlined in its hearing aid 

compatibility-related proceedings and 

with the Commission’s statutory duties 

under section 710 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. The Commission received 

three comments and three replies in 

response to the Public Notice. 

13. On April 14, 2023, WTB released 

an order extending the transition period 

for exclusive use of the 2019 ANSI 

Standard from June 5, 2023 to December 

5, 2023. WTB took this step to ensure 

that handset manufacturers could 

continue to certify new handset models 

with hearing aid compatibility features 

under the 2011 ANSI Standard while 

the Commission considered ATIS’s 

waiver petition. WTB stated that 

continuing to allow new handset 

models to be certified as hearing aid 

compatible is essential as the 

Commission moves to its goal of all 

handset models being hearing aid 

compatible. 

14. On September 29, 2023, WTB 

conditionally granted in part ATIS’s 

request for a limited waiver of the 2019 

ANSI Standard’s volume control testing 

requirements. Under the terms of the 

waiver, a handset model may be 

certified as hearing aid compatible 

under the 2019 ANSI Standard if it 

meets the volume control testing 

requirements described in the order as 

well as all other aspects of the 2019 

ANSI Standard. This waiver will remain 

in place for two years to allow time for 

the development of a new, full volume 

control standard and for its 

incorporation into the wireless hearing 

aid compatibility rules. 

III. Discussion 

15. Below, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that a 100% 

hearing aid compatibility requirement 

for wireless handset models offered in 

the United States or imported for use in 

the United States is an achievable goal. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

ways to achieve this goal, including 

seeking comment on a more flexible, 

forward-looking definition of hearing 

aid compatibility, as recommended by 

the HAC Task Force. In addition, 

consistent with the HAC Task Force’s 

recommendation, the Commission 

proposes to broaden the definition of 

hearing aid compatibility to include 

Bluetooth connectivity technology. The 

Commission proposes to implement this 

revised definition by requiring at least 

15% of offered handset models to 

connect to hearing aids through 

Bluetooth technology as an alternative 

to or in addition to a telecoil. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

Bluetooth technology that it should 

utilize to meet this requirement and 

how it should adopt this requirement 

into its wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules. The Commission 

furthers explore ways to reach the 100% 

compatibility benchmark as well as the 

appropriate transition period for 

reaching that benchmark. In addition, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

implementation of these proposals and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5155 

updates to the wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules, including proposed 

requirements for hearing aid 

compatibility settings in handset 

models, updates to website posting, 

labeling and disclosure, and revised 

reporting requirements. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

renaming its hearing aid compatibility 

rules to reflect more accurately what 

those rules cover. 

A. Achievability of 100% Hearing Aid 

Compatibility Under the Section 710(e) 

Factors 

16. In the 2016 HAC Order, the 

Commission stated that by 2024, it 

would make a determination of whether 

100% hearing aid compatibility is 

achievable based on the factors 

identified in section 710(e) of the 

Communications Act. The Commission 

noted that commenters recommend that 

the Commission use a section 710 

analysis (as opposed to the achievability 

requirements of sections 716 and 718) to 

determine whether a 100% standard is 

achievable. The Commission found that 

this approach was consistent with the 

analysis it undertook previously when 

adopting modifications to the thencurrent deployment benchmarks. The 

HAC Task Force’s Final Report did not 

directly address achievability under the 

section 710(e) factors, and the 

Commission did not receive comments 

addressing these factors in response to 

WTB’s Public Notice seeking comment 

on the HAC Task Force’s Final Report. 

17. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that requiring 100% of all 

handset models to be certified as 

hearing aid compatible is an achievable 

objective under the factors in section 

710(e) of the Communications Act. 

Section 710(e) requires the Commission, 

in establishing regulations to help 

ensure access to telecommunications 

services by those with hearing loss, to 

‘‘consider costs and benefits to all 

telephone users, including persons with 

and without hearing loss,’’ and to 

‘‘ensure that regulations adopted to 

implement [the Hearing Aid 

Compatibility Act] encourage the use of 

currently available technology and do 

not discourage or impair the 

development of improved technology.’’ 

It further directs the Commission to use 

appropriate timetables and benchmarks 

to the extent necessary due to technical 

feasibility or to ensure marketability or 

availability of new technologies to 

users. 

18. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that the benefits to all 

handset users of adopting a 100% 

compliance standard for handset models 

offered in the United States or imported 

for use in the United States would 

exceed the costs. The Commission 

anticipates that adopting a 100% 

compliance standard would provide 

significant benefits to those with 

hearing loss by ensuring that a greater 

share of handset models for purchase 

are hearing aid compatible. At the same 

time, the Commission does not expect 

that adopting the 100% standard would 

impose undue burdens on 

manufacturers or service providers, as 

the vast majority of new handset models 

are already hearing aid compatible 

today. 

19. The HAC Task Force’s Final 

Report found that, as of August 2022, 

about 93% of wireless handset models 

offered by manufacturers were already 

hearing aid compatible, which exceeds 

the benchmarks in the Commission’s 

current rules. The Commission does not 

anticipate large costs for those with or 

without hearing loss if non-compliant 

models are discontinued, considering 

the overwhelming share of wireless 

handset models are already hearing aid 

compatible. Given the existing 

availability of hearing aid-compatible 

handset models, the Commission seeks 

comment on its tentative conclusion 

and on any specific burden or cost that 

a 100% compliance standard would 

impose on manufacturers and service 

providers. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the extent to which a 100% 

compliance standard would reduce the 

affordability of lowest-cost handset 

models and adversely affect low-income 

persons. 

20. In addition, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that adopting a 

100% compliance standard would 

encourage the use of currently available 

technology and would not discourage or 

impair the development of improved 

technology. Handset manufacturers, 

service providers, and consumer 

organizations that compose the HAC 

Task Force all unanimously support the 

Task Force’s consensus proposal for 

achieving 100% compliance, and the 

Task Force’s Final Report provides no 

indication or evidence that adopting the 

new standard would discourage the use 

of currently available technology or the 

development of improved technology. 

To the contrary, the Task Force’s Final 

Report suggests that revising the 

wireless hearing aid compatibility rules 

to permit the use of Bluetooth as a 

coupling method would better align the 

Commission’s requirements with 

current consumer preferences, as 

Bluetooth has become an increasingly 

popular method for pairing hearing aid 

devices to wireless handsets. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

21. Further, with respect to its 

tentative conclusion regarding the 

impact of a 100% requirement on 

technology, the Commission specifically 

seeks comment on whether allowing 

Bluetooth coupling as a way to achieve 

hearing aid compatibility or as an 

alternative or replacement for telecoil 

coupling would satisfy relevant 

statutory criteria. To permit the use of 

Bluetooth coupling as an alternative or 

as a replacement for telecoil coupling, is 

it sufficient for the Commission to find 

that Bluetooth coupling meets the 

achievability factors of section 710(e)? If 

so, commenters should explain how 

Bluetooth coupling meets the 

requirements of section 710(e) or why 

this method does not meet these 

statutory requirements. Are there other 

statutory requirements that Bluetooth 

coupling must meet in order for the 

Commission to allow its use as an 

alternative or replacement for telecoil 

coupling? If so, commenters should 

explain why Bluetooth coupling meets 

or does not meet these other statutory 

requirements. 

22. Finally, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that adopting a 

100% compliance standard after a 

reasonable transition period meets the 

requirements of section 710(e) that the 

Commission ‘‘use appropriate 

timetables or benchmarks to the extent 

necessary (1) due to technical 

feasibility, or (2) to ensure the 

marketability or availability of new 

technologies to users.’’ The transition 

periods that the Commission proposes 

below will expand access to hearing aidcompatible handset models while giving 

manufacturers and service providers 

sufficient notice and lead time to build 

hearing aid compatibilities into all 

future handset models rather than just a 

percentage of handset models. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

tentative conclusion. Do commenters 

agree with the Commission’s analysis 

and on the costs and benefits of its 

proposed finding? Given the current 

number of handset manufacturers who 

already include hearing aid 

compatibility in all of their handset 

models, would the Commission’s 

finding adversely impact the ability of 

handset manufacturers to innovate and 

create new products? If so, how would 

shifting to a 100% requirement curtail 

innovation? Similarly, would requiring 

hearing aid compatibility in all handset 

models impose an undue burden on 

those handset manufacturers who 

currently do not meet this mark, or 

otherwise create disruptions in the 

competitive marketplace? 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5156 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

B. Definition of Wireless Hearing Aid 

Compatibility 

23. As a threshold question for 

implementing a 100% hearing aid 

compatibility requirement, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

appropriate definition of hearing aid 

compatibility for wireless handsets. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on expanding the definition of 

hearing aid compatibility to reflect 

changing coupling technologies. First, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

adopting the HAC Task Force’s 

recommended ‘‘flexible’’ hearing aid 

compatibility definition. Next, the 

Commission proposes to expand the 

definition to include Bluetooth 

connectivity and to require a certain 

percentage of offered handset models to 

include Bluetooth connectivity 

technology. As part of that proposal, the 

Commission seeks comment on which 

Bluetooth technologies it should 

recognize and how it should adopt these 

technologies into its rules. 

1. HAC Task Force Recommended 

Hearing Aid Compatibility Definition 

24. Background. The Commission’s 

existing wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules do not contain an 

express definition of hearing aid 

compatibility in the definitional section. 

Rather, the Commission’s rules provide 

that a handset model is considered to be 

hearing aid compatible if it has been 

certified as such under a Commissionapproved technical standard that the 

Commission has incorporated by 

reference into the rules through notice 

and comment rulemaking procedures. 

As of December 5, 2023, a new handset 

model can be certified as hearing aid 

compatible only if it meets the acoustic 

and inductive coupling requirements of 

the 2019 ANSI Standard and applicable 

volume control requirements. 

25. The HAC Task Force recommends 

that the Commission define hearing aid 

compatibility in a more flexible manner 

than whether a handset model merely 

meets the criteria of a technical 

certification standard that the 

Commission has incorporated by 

reference into its rules. Specifically, the 

Task Force ‘‘encourages the Commission 

to adopt a forward-looking, flexible 

definition’’ of hearing aid compatibility 

‘‘that reflects changing technologies 

while abiding by Congress’s direction in 

the statute.’’ Specifically, the Task Force 

recommends that a hearing aidcompatible handset model be defined as 

a handset model that: (1) has an internal 

means for compatibility; (2) meets 

established technical standards for 

hearing aid coupling or compatibility; 

and (3) is usable. 

26. In the Public Notice, WTB sought 

comment on whether the Task Force’s 

proposed revised definition of hearing 

aid compatibility would be consistent 

with the Commission’s goal of ensuring 

that consumers have access to handset 

models that are fully hearing aid 

compatible. WTB asked whether the 

proposed definition would allow the 

Commission to determine hearing aid 

compatibility with certainty and 

whether a definition that makes general 

reference to ‘‘established technical 

standards for hearing aid coupling or 

compatibility’’ would be consistent with 

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

or other legal requirements. In response 

to the Public Notice, the Consumer 

Technology Association (CTA) 

expresses support for the Task Force’s 

proposed definition, arguing that a more 

flexible approach encourages innovation 

while ensuring objective testing 

standards. In reply comments, the Task 

Force states that the definition of 

hearing aid compatibility should 

incorporate current and alternative 

hearing aid compatibility technologies. 

27. HAC Task Force Definition. The 

Commission seeks comment on the HAC 

Task Force proposed definition of 

hearing aid compatibility, including 

whether it could adopt the definition in 

a manner that is consistent with the 

statutory requirements of section 710(c) 

of the Communications Act. Section 

710(c) provides that ‘‘[t]he Commission 

shall establish or approve such 

technical standards as are required to 

enforce this section.’’ Further, this 

section states that ‘‘[a] telephone or 

other customer premises equipment that 

is compliant with relevant technical 

standards developed through a public 

participation process and in 

consultation with interested consumer 

stakeholders . . . will be considered 

hearing aid compatible for purposes of 

this section.’’ It also states that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission shall consult with the 

public, including people with hearing 

loss, in establishing or approving such 

technical standards.’’ Finally, this 

section states that ‘‘[t]he Commission 

shall remain the final arbiter as to 

whether the standards meet the 

requirements of this section.’’ 

28. Is the more flexible definition of 

hearing aid compatibility that the Task 

Force proposes consistent with section 

710(c)? Does section 710(c) require the 

Commission to continue to define 

hearing aid compatibility through 

technical standards that the 

Commission incorporates by reference 

into its rules or does it permit the 

Commission to recognize technical 

standards that industry and consumers 

are using for hearing aid compatibility 

without adopting those standards 

through a rulemaking process? 

Commenters should provide a detailed 

analysis of why their approach is 

consistent with statutory requirements, 

including why the commenter’s 

proposal is more consistent with the 

public interest than the Commission’s 

current approach. This analysis should 

also explain the costs and benefits of the 

commenter’s proposed approach versus 

the Commission’s current approach. 

29. In adopting technical standards 

into its hearing aid compatibility rules, 

the Commission has relied historically 

on standards that were developed by 

organizations composed of handset 

manufacturers, wireless service 

providers, and, in some cases, groups 

that represent consumers with hearing 

loss who, through a consensus-driven 

process, create or revise technical 

standards. The standards development 

process does not necessarily include an 

opportunity for members of the public 

to participate in the initial creation of 

new technical standards. Once these 

technical standards bodies have 

developed a new standard, they petition 

the Commission to adopt the new 

standard into the hearing aid 

compatibility rules. The Commission 

accomplishes this task in compliance 

with the APA and Communications Act 

through notice and comment 

rulemaking that allows the Commission 

to meet public participation 

requirements. 

30. The HAC Task Force recommends, 

however, that the Commission adopt a 

more forward-looking definition of 

hearing aid compatibility that would 

allow for the express incorporation of 

alternative and innovative technologies 

that can enable compatibility between 

handset models and hearing aid devices. 

As stated above, the Task Force 

proposes that the Commission define a 

hearing aid-compatible handset model 

as a handset model that: (1) has an 

internal means for compatibility; (2) 

meets established technical standards 

for hearing aid coupling or 

compatibility; and (3) is usable. The 

Commission seeks comment on each 

part of the HAC Task Force’s proposed 

definition of hearing aid compatibility, 

as discussed below. 

31. ‘‘Internal Means of 

Compatibility.’’ The Task Force 

recommends that the Commission 

define an ‘‘internal means of 

compatibility’’ to mean that ‘‘the 

capability must be provided as an 

integral part of the phone, rather than 

through the use of add-on components 

that significantly enlarge or alter the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5157 

shape or weight of the phone as 

compared to other phones offered by the 

manufacturer.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on this aspect of the HAC 

Task Force’s proposed definition of 

hearing aid compatibility. As the Task 

Force notes, its proposed definition of 

‘‘internal means of compatibility’’ is 

based on language from the 2003 HAC 

Order. This Order recognized that 

section 710(b)(1)(B) of the Act refers to 

providing for internal means for 

effective use with hearing aids. The 

Commission interpreted this to mean 

that the capability must be provided as 

an integral part of the handset model, 

rather than through the use of add-on 

components that significantly enlarge or 

alter the shape or weight of the handset 

model as compared to other handset 

models offered by manufacturers. 

Commenters supporting or opposing 

this part of the HAC Task Force’s 

proposed definition of hearing aid 

compatibility should explain why they 

support or oppose this part of the 

definition and whether it is consistent 

with the Commission’s recognition of a 

possible Bluetooth coupling standard. Is 

this part of the Task Force’s proposed 

definition clear and can it be applied 

effectively by testing organizations? 

Does it include the types of connectivity 

components that are desirable to 

include, and exclude those that are 

undesirable to include? 

32. ‘‘Meets Established Technical 

Standards.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on the ‘‘meets established 

technical standards for hearing aid 

coupling or compatibility’’ portion of 

the HAC Task Force’s proposed 

definition. With respect to this portion 

of the definition, the Task Force states 

that ‘‘[a]ny established technical 

standard for hearing aid coupling 

should be interoperable, nonproprietary, and adopted by industry 

and consumers alike.’’ The HAC Task 

Force also ‘‘recommends that the 

Commission consider factors such as 

ease-of-use, reliability, industry 

adoption, and consumer use and 

adoption when evaluating what 

technical standards’’ would meet the 

proposed definition. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach, 

particularly because use of an 

‘‘established technical standards’’ 

definition would be in contrast to an 

approach that would seek to reference 

each and every possible technical 

standard within § 20.19 of its rules. The 

Commission notes that incorporating 

multiple standards by reference may be 

particularly difficult where technology 

is rapidly changing, new or revised 

standards continue to be developed, and 

the legal requirements for incorporating 

specific technical standards by reference 

into Commission regulations may be 

resource intensive and would 

necessarily lag behind marketplace 

developments. 

33. If the Commission adopts this 

approach, how should it evaluate 

whether a standard is ‘‘established’’ and 

‘‘adopted by industry and consumers 

alike?’’ What criteria should the 

Commission rely on to make these 

determinations? To be deemed 

‘‘established,’’ would a given standard 

have to be adopted by all manufacturers 

and consumers or just a certain 

percentage of manufacturers and 

consumers, and how would the 

Commission measure the degree of 

acceptance of a standard by industry 

and consumers? How would testing 

bodies and the Commission’s Office of 

Engineering and Technology determine 

compliance with such standards? 

Further, should the Commission qualify 

the term ‘‘non-proprietary’’ in the Task 

Force’s proposed definition, to permit 

reliance on proprietary Bluetooth 

standards, as discussed in the next 

section? 

34. Further, would adopting this 

portion of the definition be consistent 

with the section 710(c) requirement that 

a wireless handset model is hearing aid 

compatible if it is compliant with 

relevant technical standards developed 

through a public participation process 

and in consultation with interested 

stakeholders, including people with 

hearing loss, as discussed above? The 

Commission notes that section 710(c) 

appears to provide that a handset model 

may be deemed compatible by 

complying with a technical standard 

that has not yet been affirmatively 

adopted or approved by the 

Commission: 

The Commission shall establish or approve 

such technical standards as are required to 

enforce this section. A telephone or handset 

that is compliant with relevant technical 

standards developed through a public 

participation process and in consultation 

with interested consumer stakeholders 

(designated by the Commission for the 

purposes of this section) will be considered 

hearing aid compatible for purposes of this 

section, until such time as the Commission 

may determine otherwise. The Commission 

shall consult with the public, including 

people with hearing loss, in establishing or 

approving such technical standards. The 

Commission may delegate this authority to 

an employee pursuant to section 155(c) of 

this title. The Commission shall remain the 

final arbiter as to whether the standards meet 

the requirements of this section. 

35. Should the Commission interpret 

section 710(c) to permit handset models 

to be designated as hearing aid 

compatible based on a technical 

standard that has been ‘‘developed 

through a public participation process’’ 

and in consultation with designated 

consumer stakeholders, even if the 

standard has not yet been adopted or 

approved by the Commission? How 

should the Commission define and 

determine compliance with such a 

‘‘public participation process’’ and 

consumer consultation? Would the 

Commission’s adoption of such a 

procedure be consistent with the 

Commission’s other section 710 

obligations, the Administrative 

Procedure Act, and the U.S. 

Constitution? 

36. Further, would this approach be 

sufficiently certain for enforcement 

purposes as required by section 710(c)? 

If the Commission took this approach, 

how would it enforce such a standard? 

Alternatively, can the Commission 

adopt the Task Force’s proposed 

definition, while still incorporating by 

reference industry-developed standards 

for hearing aid compatibility into its 

rules, consistent with its current 

approach? 

37. ‘‘Is Usable.’’ Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

third aspect of the HAC Task Force’s 

proposed definition of hearing aid 

compatibility. The Task Force explains 

that it defines ‘‘usable’’ in a manner 

consistent with the Commission’s 

accessibility requirements. Specifically, 

the Task Force states that ‘‘usable’’ 

refers ‘‘to ensuring that an individual 

has adequate information on how to 

operate a product and access to the ‘full 

functionality and documentation for the 

product, including instructions, product 

information (including accessible 

feature information), documentation, 

bills and technical support which is 

provided to individuals without 

disabilities.’ ’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on incorporating this aspect of 

the proposed definition into its rules. 

What does this aspect of the HAC Task 

Force’s proposed definition add to the 

Commission’s hearing aid compatibility 

rules that its rules do not already cover? 

Does ‘‘usable’’ mean anything more than 

complying with Commission regulations 

and practicing good consumer relations? 

38. Office of the Federal Register 

Regulations. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the HAC Task Force’s 

proposed definition in light of the Office 

of the Federal Register incorporation by 

reference regulations. When the 

Commission incorporates by reference a 

new hearing aid compatibility standard 

into its rules, it must request approval 

from the Director of the Federal Register 

by submitting a request for approval that 

complies with Office of the Federal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5158 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Register incorporation by reference 

requirements. Among other 

requirements, the Office of the Federal 

Register rules state that ‘‘[i]ncorporation 

by reference of a publication is limited 

to the edition of the publication that is 

approved’’ and ‘‘[f]uture amendments or 

revisions of the publication are not 

included.’’ Further, the Office of the 

Federal Register requires that the 

Commission ‘‘[e]nsure that a copy of the 

incorporated material is on file at the 

Office of Federal Register.’’ The 

Commission also makes the document 

being incorporated by reference 

available for inspection in the 

Commission’s public reference room. 

39. As a result, when the Commission 

requests Director of the Federal 

Register’s approval, it must ensure that 

the standard that it asks to be 

incorporated by reference is limited to 

the approved edition and make clear 

that future updates to the standard are 

not incorporated by reference without 

going through notice and comment 

rulemaking. Further, to ensure that any 

technical standard is ‘‘reasonably 

available’’ to affected parties, the 

Commission would ensure that a copy 

of the incorporated standard is on file at 

the Office of Federal Register and make 

a copy of the standard available for 

public inspection in its reference room. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether there is a way for it to continue 

to incorporate by reference ANSI 

standards for hearing aid compatibility 

into its rules, while allowing for a more 

flexible approach for alternative 

technologies, such as Bluetooth 

technologies. Is there a way to 

distinguish alternative coupling 

technologies, such as Bluetooth 

technologies, from the traditional ANSI 

coupling capabilities? 

40. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how the Commission could 

comply with the Office of the Federal 

Register incorporation by reference 

regulations if it adopted a specific 

Bluetooth standard, such as the nonproprietary Bluetooth Low Energy 

Audio (Bluetooth LE Audio) and the 

Bluetooth Hearing Access Profile 

(Bluetooth HAP) standards. Could the 

Commission submit a copy of the 

Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP 

standards to the Director of the Federal 

Register with its request for 

incorporation by reference permission 

and then make a copy of these standards 

available for public inspection in the 

Commission’s reference room? Further, 

how would the Commission address 

updates to these standards given that 

the Commission can only incorporate by 

reference an approved edition of a 

standard? Is there another way 

consistent with statutory requirements 

that would allow the Commission to 

recognize these standards without 

following the traditional incorporation 

by reference process and that would 

allow the standards to be updated as 

industry releases revised versions of 

these standards? 

2. Expanding the Definition of Hearing 

Aid Compatibility To Include Bluetooth 

Connectivity 

41. As part of the 2016 HAC Order, 

the Commission requested that the HAC 

Task Force consider whether the 100% 

hearing aid compatibility goal could be 

achieved in part or in whole by relying 

on alternative hearing aid compatibility 

technologies, such as Bluetooth, bearing 

in mind the importance of ensuring 

interoperability between hearing aids 

and alternative technologies. The Task 

Force’s Final Report recommends that 

the Commission move to a hearing aid 

compatibility standard that requires a 

handset model to be able to couple with 

hearing aids using two of three possible 

methods. All handset models would 

have to be capable of coupling using 

acoustic coupling and these handset 

models would also have to be capable 

of coupling through either a telecoil that 

meets certification standards or through 

Bluetooth connectivity. In response to 

WTB’s Public Notice seeking comment 

on the Task Force’s recommendation, 

most commenters expressed support for 

the Task Force’s proposal to permit 

Bluetooth connectivity to be used as an 

alternative coupling method to telecoils, 

noting that most consumers are already 

using hearing aids that come with 

Bluetooth connectivity. 

42. In light of the record, the 

Commission proposes to expand the 

definition of hearing aid compatibility 

to include Bluetooth connectivity, and it 

seeks comment on the best way to 

accomplish this objective. Below, the 

Commission proposes to require 

handset models to connect to hearing 

aids through Bluetooth connectivity as 

an alternative to telecoil coupling on a 

limited basis as it continues to study 

this issue, as long as both types of 

handset models also meet applicable 

acoustic coupling and volume control 

standards. As part of its proposal, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should take a ‘‘market based’’ 

approach to Bluetooth technology 

whereby the Commission would not 

explicitly adopt or incorporate by 

reference a single Bluetooth 

connectivity technology but would 

allow market forces to continue to 

determine which Bluetooth technology 

handset models use to pair with hearing 

aids. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on an approach whereby 

the Commission would broaden the 

current definition of hearing aid 

compatibility by explicitly 

incorporating by reference one or more 

non-proprietary Bluetooth connectivity 

standards, such as Bluetooth LE Audio 

and Bluetooth HAP, into the wireless 

hearing aid compatibility rules, the use 

of which would be required on a nonexclusive basis. 

a. Requiring Bluetooth Connectivity as 

an Alternative Coupling Method to 

Telecoil Coupling 

43. Background. The HAC Task Force 

states that based on a survey that it 

conducted, most consumers prefer to 

use Bluetooth connectivity for pairing 

hearing aid devices with wireless 

handsets, as compared to acoustic and 

telecoil coupling methods. Further, it 

explains that unlike telecoils, Bluetooth 

audio transmission methods are 

expressly designed to transmit and 

facilitate audio. According to the HAC 

Task Force, consumers are increasingly 

using—and are increasingly finding a 

satisfying listening experience with 

using—Bluetooth connectivity. 

Bluetooth technology is an umbrella 

term for related technical standards that 

enable devices to communicate 

wirelessly. Some of these standards are 

proprietary standards, such as Apple’s 

Made-for-iPhone (MFi) and Google’s 

Audio Streaming for Hearing Aids 

(ASHA) standards and other standards 

are non-proprietary standards, such as 

LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP standards. 

The Task Force indicates that variations 

of these Bluetooth standards can be 

found in many of today’s handset 

models. In fact, the HAC Task Force 

states that ‘‘[t]he vast majority of 

wireless handsets now include at least 

some type of Bluetooth audio 

technology, without a regulatory 

mandate . . . .’’ The Task Force expects 

even greater use of Bluetooth 

connectivity in the coming years. 

44. The vast majority of commenters 

support the Task Force’s findings with 

respect to Bluetooth coupling between 

wireless handset models and hearing 

aids. Bluetooth Special Interest Group, 

Inc. (Bluetooth SIG) states that more 

than 80% of hearing aids today use 

some form of Bluetooth technology, and 

that the Commission should adopt 

Bluetooth as a primary coupling 

method. CTA states that nine out of ten 

consumers own smartphones with 

Bluetooth and two-thirds report that 

their hearing device includes 

satisfactory direct Bluetooth audio 

streaming. Samsung expresses support 

for the consensus recommendation on 

coupling requirements and notes that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5159 

Bluetooth is among the top three most 

frequently mentioned features included 

in hearing devices desired by 

consumers. The Mobile & Wireless Form 

(MWF) states that Bluetooth is a 

dominant wireless technology and used 

in over-the-counter hearing aids. 

45. The Task Force’s Final Report 

notes, however, that there is a subset of 

consumers that continue to use telecoils 

and that these consumers find telecoils 

to be an important feature in wireless 

handset models. This finding is 

consistent with a comment arguing that 

telecoil coupling facilitates 

interoperability, is more reliable than 

Bluetooth, is consistent across devices, 

and does not require replacing hearing 

aids or a handset when the other is 

updated. This commenter states that 

through its HAC rules, the Commission 

is helping to maintain the availability of 

telecoils and urges the Commission to 

have a 100% telecoil requirement. 

46. Discussion. The Commission 

proposes to require some handset 

models to connect to hearing aids 

through Bluetooth connectivity as an 

alternative to telecoil coupling on a 

limited basis as it continues to study 

this issue. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. The record 

indicates that Bluetooth coupling is 

presently being widely utilized by 

consumers to couple handsets with 

hearing aids and achieving positive 

results. Under its proposal, the 

Commission will maintain a telecoil 

requirement but require a certain 

percentage of handset models to use 

Bluetooth connectivity as an alternative 

to telecoil coupling as long as both types 

of handset models also meet applicable 

acoustic coupling and volume control 

requirements, as discussed in more 

detail below. 

47. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on how Bluetooth 

coupling compares with telecoil 

coupling as far as interoperability 

between handsets and hearing aids. Is a 

handset model that meets telecoil 

certification requirements more 

expensive to manufacture then a 

handset model that substitutes 

Bluetooth connectivity for a telecoil? 

Does one type of coupling have better 

sound quality or maintain its 

connection better than the other type of 

coupling? Is it easier to connect a 

handset to a hearing aid with a telecoil 

connection versus a Bluetooth 

connection? What are the costs and 

benefits of allowing Bluetooth coupling 

on a limited basis as an alternative to 

telecoil coupling? Would a gradual 

transition from telecoil coupling to 

Bluetooth coupling serve the public 

interest? As Bluetooth coupling 

becomes more accepted by consumers, 

will telecoil coupling become a less 

favorable way of connecting handsets to 

hearing aids as the HAC Task Force 

suggests? 

48. The Commission is concerned 

with the cost to consumers of Bluetooth 

connectivity versus telecoil coupling. 

When using Bluetooth connectivity as 

an alternative to telecoil coupling, how 

frequently do consumers need to replace 

hearing aids or a handset when the 

other is updated? Similarly, does 

telecoil technology evolve over time, or 

is it a stable technology that does not 

change in the way Bluetooth standards 

are updated and therefore does not 

require a handset to be replaced when 

a consumer purchases a new hearing 

device with telecoil connectivity? In 

general, do lower priced hearing devices 

include telecoil or Bluetooth 

connectivity? Are new over-the-counter 

hearing aids more likely to include 

telecoil or Bluetooth connectivity? If 

they are more likely to include 

Bluetooth connectivity, what type of 

Bluetooth technology are they likely to 

include? How can the Commission 

ensure that its hearing aid compatibility 

rules allow consumers to have access to 

reasonably priced hearing aidcompatible handset models? 

49. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the future of telecoil 

coupling. Is the HAC Task Force’s 

observation that Bluetooth coupling has 

been steadily increasing over time while 

telecoil coupling has been stagnating an 

accurate reflection of consumer 

preferences and trends? Is telecoil 

coupling being replaced with Bluetooth 

connectivity in the marketplace? Would 

allowing market conditions to control 

the replacement of telecoil coupling 

with Bluetooth connectivity 

technologies in handset models protect 

the interests of all consumers? Will 

relying on market conditions—which 

may lead to fewer handset models with 

telecoil coupling—leave behind the 

needs of consumers who may not be 

able to update to the newest handset 

models or hearing aids or who find that 

telecoil coupling better meets their 

needs? 

b. Alternative Approaches to Adopting 

a Bluetooth Connectivity Requirement 

50. Given its proposal to require 

Bluetooth coupling in a certain 

percentage of handset models (either as 

an alternative to or in place of 

telecoil)—and in light of the various 

Bluetooth technologies currently in use 

in the market—the Commission seeks 

comment on how to implement 

Bluetooth coupling into its rules. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on two alternative approaches 

to adopting such a requirement: (1) 

requiring a certain percentage of 

handset models to meet a Bluetooth 

technical standard (either proprietary or 

non-proprietary) without incorporating 

by reference any particular standard 

into its rules; or (2) requiring a certain 

percentage of handset models to meet a 

(non-proprietary) Bluetooth standard 

that has been specifically incorporated 

by reference into its rules. In 

considering these approaches, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there is a need for it to approve and 

incorporate by reference particular 

Bluetooth technical standards into its 

rules for hearing aid compatibility 

certification or whether the Commission 

can adopt a Bluetooth connectivity 

requirement without incorporating by 

reference a particular standard into the 

rules. 

51. Market Based Approach to a 

Bluetooth Requirement. Given the 

variety of Bluetooth standards that exist 

today—both proprietary and nonproprietary—the Commission seeks 

comment on an approach to 

implementing a Bluetooth requirement 

that does not mandate a particular 

Bluetooth connectivity technology. 

Under this approach, the Commission 

would not explicitly adopt or endorse a 

particular Bluetooth connectivity 

technology or standard but would allow 

manufacturers and service providers to 

determine which Bluetooth technology 

to use to satisfy the required percentage 

of Bluetooth-compatible handset models 

(e.g., the proposed 15% requirement, as 

detailed below). 

52. Would this approach be in the 

public interest? How would such an 

approach impact the development of 

Bluetooth technology in handset 

models? This approach appears to be 

consistent with the 2003 HAC Order, 

where the Commission noted that 

Congress expressly avoided technology 

mandates so as not to ‘‘inhibit future 

development’’ of handset models, 

provided they are compatible with 

hearing aids. Further, under this 

approach, the Commission could 

continue to monitor the development of 

Bluetooth connectivity between wireless 

handset models and hearing aids as it 

has been doing since the release of the 

2016 HAC Order. If an issue develops in 

the future, the Commission could take 

action at that time to resolve the 

problem. The Commission seeks 

comment on this analysis. 

53. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether this approach is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

obligations under section 710(c). 

Section 710(c) of the Act states that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5160 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘[t]he Commission shall establish or 

approve such technical standards as are 

required to enforce this section.’’ If the 

Commission does not establish or 

approve a specific Bluetooth standard, 

how can the Commission enforce a 

Bluetooth connectivity requirement? For 

the purposes of implementing section 

710(c), can a distinction be drawn 

between the industry-developed 

standards for the more traditional 

coupling technologies (i.e., acoustic and 

inductive) and volume control on the 

one hand, and the standards developed 

for Bluetooth technology on the other 

hand? For example, should the fact that 

industry has already developed and 

implemented a variety of proprietary 

and non-proprietary standards for 

Bluetooth coupling impact how the 

Commission evaluates the need for it to 

adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement 

into its rules? Should the Commission 

rely on the fact that handset 

manufacturers have already been 

including various forms of Bluetooth 

connectivity in their handset models 

without the Commission’s involvement, 

and more recently have been including 

updated versions of this form of 

connectivity that permit lower battery 

usage and can allow a user to connect 

to assistive listening devices in movie 

theaters, convention centers, public 

transit vehicles, and other ventures? 

54. Along these same lines, how 

would an approach that may allow 

manufacturers and service providers to 

meet Bluetooth benchmarks using 

proprietary standards, be consistent 

with the ‘‘established technical standard 

for hearing aid coupling compatibility’’ 

portion of the HAC Task Force’s 

proposed definition for hearing aid 

compatibility? As noted above, the Task 

Force proposes that ‘‘[a]ny established 

technical standard for hearing aid 

coupling should be interoperable, nonproprietary, and adopted by industry 

and consumers alike.’’ If the 

Commission adopts this proposed 

definition, should it limit the 

permissible Bluetooth standards to nonproprietary standards? Even if the 

Commission does not adopt a specific 

Bluetooth standard, should it 

nevertheless stipulate that any 

Bluetooth standard that a manufacturer 

chooses to use in a handset model must 

at least incorporate LE Audio 

technology given the efficiency and 

quality advantages of that technology? 

Under a market-based approach, could 

the Commission encourage use of the 

latest non-proprietary Bluetooth 

standards, such as the Bluetooth LE 

Audio and HAP Profile? 

55. Incorporation by Reference of a 

Non-Proprietary Bluetooth Connectivity 

Standard. Alternatively, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring a handset model to meet a 

Bluetooth standard that it has 

incorporated by reference into its rules 

in order to meet a Bluetooth 

requirement. Under this approach, the 

Commission would broaden the current 

definition of hearing aid compatibility 

by explicitly incorporating by reference 

non-proprietary Bluetooth connectivity 

standards whose use would be required 

on a non-exclusive basis. Specifically, 

the Commission would explicitly 

incorporate by reference the nonproprietary Bluetooth LE Audio and 

Bluetooth HAP standards into its 

hearing aid compatibility rules and 

require their use instead of a telecoil in 

a manner consistent with the proposed 

Bluetooth requirement. 

56. Under this approach, handset 

models could come with other 

Bluetooth connectivity options, such as 

Apple’s MFi and Google’s ASHA 

proprietary standards, but the handset 

models also would have to include a 

non-proprietary Bluetooth standard, 

such as Bluetooth LE Audio and 

Bluetooth HAP coupling abilities, in 

order to satisfy the Commission’s 

certification rules. Handset models that 

include other Bluetooth technologies 

rather than the Commission endorsed 

technologies, such as proprietary 

technologies, could not be used to 

satisfy the Bluetooth benchmark, unless 

the Commission decides to allow 

interim use of other Bluetooth 

technologies to meet the Bluetooth 

benchmark as a means of transitioning 

to full utilization of the Commission 

endorsed Bluetooth technology. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach. 

57. The HAC Task Force’s Final 

Report states that Bluetooth LE Audio is 

an industry standard and that handset 

models with Bluetooth LE Audio are 

likely to increase interoperability with 

hearing devices entering the 

marketplace. Further, the Final Report 

states that Bluetooth HAP, which 

extends the Bluetooth LE Audio 

standard, is likely to increase Bluetooth 

technology’s popularity as a coupling 

method for hearing devices and wireless 

handsets. The Final Report states, 

however, that Bluetooth LE Audio and 

Bluetooth HAP are relatively new 

standards and that to ensure a seamless 

transition to full interoperability the 

Commission should allow the use of 

well-established standards, such as 

Bluetooth Classic, ASHA, and MFi in 

the near term. 

58. As an initial matter, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it is required by section 710(c) to 

incorporate specific Bluetooth standards 

by reference into its rules in order to 

implement a Bluetooth requirement 

(e.g., the proposed 15% requirement, as 

detailed below), or whether it can 

interpret section 710(c) to allow a 

handset model to meet a standard that 

has not been affirmatively adopted or 

incorporated by reference into the 

Commission’s rules. Further, what are 

the costs and benefits of this approach 

relative to the more flexible marketbased approach discussed above? Does 

this approach balance the need to adopt 

specific Bluetooth standards into the 

Commission’s rules with the need to 

avoid excluding other standards, the 

loss of which might force consumers to 

replace their hearing aids prematurely 

to avoid connectivity issues with a new 

handset? How would this approach 

affect the availability of proprietary 

Bluetooth standards? Do proprietary 

Bluetooth technologies provide superior 

connectivity that would be sacrificed 

under this approach? What are the 

quality differences, if any, between the 

various Bluetooth standards with regard 

to the consumer experience in coupling 

and utilizing such Bluetooth 

technology? Would this approach be 

feasible in view of the pace at which 

Bluetooth technologies change and 

develop? Would one of these 

approaches better protect the interests of 

consumers with hearing loss and the 

ability of handset manufacturers to 

innovate? 

59. If the Commission adopts a 

specific non-proprietary Bluetooth 

standard, would the Commission run 

the risk of tipping the marketplace in 

favor of Bluetooth LE Audio and 

Bluetooth HAP rather than another nonproprietary Bluetooth connectivity 

standard? In addition to Bluetooth LE 

Audio and Bluetooth HAP, are there 

other non-proprietary Bluetooth 

connectivity standards that the 

Commission should consider 

incorporating by reference into the 

wireless hearing aid compatibility rules? 

Are there other non-proprietary 

Bluetooth standards in the development 

stage? How can the Commission ensure 

that its choice of a non-proprietary 

Bluetooth standard is best suited to 

meet the needs of consumers with 

hearing loss? 

60. Transitional Use of Proprietary 

Bluetooth Standards. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether it 

should permit the use of other Bluetooth 

standards, such as proprietary 

standards, to satisfy its certification 

requirements on an interim basis as the 

industry transitions to full use of the 

Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP. 

In its Final Report, the HAC Task Force 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5161 

states that the Commission should 

consider incorporating Bluetooth 

technology such as Apple’s MFi and 

Google’s ASHA into the Commission’s 

rules for a period of transition. The Task 

Force states that Bluetooth LE Audio 

and Bluetooth HAP represent a longterm goal and current ‘‘widespread use’’ 

of these other Bluetooth standards 

‘‘indicates that these methods should be 

considered to ensure a seamless 

transition toward full interoperability.’’ 

61. Recently, the HAC Task Force 

reiterated its commitment to continuing 

to explore the development and 

inclusion of Bluetooth LE Audio and 

Bluetooth HAP in new handset models. 

How likely is it that handset 

manufacturers will replace proprietary 

Bluetooth connectivity in their handset 

models with non-proprietary standards 

and over what time period? If the 

Commission allows the use of 

proprietary Bluetooth standards to meet 

the Bluetooth benchmark before 

transitioning to exclusive use of 

Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP, 

how long should the transition period 

be? What are the costs and benefits of 

allowing the use of proprietary 

standards for a period of time while the 

marketplace transitions to full use of 

Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth 

HAP? 

62. Other Approaches to Adopting 

Bluetooth Standards. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should establish a 

Bluetooth safe harbor or allow WTB to 

use its delegated authority to approve 

new Bluetooth connectivity standards or 

new editions of currently adopted 

standards that meet certain 

requirements. 

63. Under the safe harbor approach, 

the Commission would require a certain 

percentage of handset models to include 

Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP 

connectivity technologies, but the 

Commission would not require 

compliance with a certain edition or 

version of these technologies by 

referencing those editions or versions in 

its rules. As long as the handset model 

included some edition or version of the 

technologies, the handset model would 

meet certification requirements in terms 

of the proposal to require a certain 

percentage of handset models to meet 

Bluetooth connectivity requirements. Is 

the establishment of a Bluetooth safe 

harbor consistent with the requirements 

of section 710(c)? Under the safe harbor 

approach, how would the Commission 

enforce compliance with these 

technologies if it does not require 

compliance with a specific edition or 

version of the technologies? 

64. Along these same lines, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

WTB could use its delegated authority 

under § 20.19(k) to adopt new Bluetooth 

connectivity technologies into the 

hearing aid compatibility rules or use 

this authority to revise the edition that 

could be used for certification purposes. 

Under this approach, the Commission 

could establish criteria that should 

guide the Bureau when making the 

determination of whether to approve a 

new Bluetooth connectivity standard or 

new edition of a currently approved 

standard. Alternatively, the Commission 

could adopt the Bluetooth connectivity 

standard and allow WTB to use its 

delegated authority to approve new 

editions of the Commission’s adopted 

standard. WTB could make a list of 

approved standards publicly available 

that handset manufacturers could use 

for certification purposes. 

65. If the Commission adopted this 

approach, would WTB be required to 

use notice-and-comment rulemaking 

procedures or could WTB release a 

Public Notice authorizing the use of a 

new Bluetooth connectivity standard or 

the use of a new edition of a currently 

approved standard? Would such an 

approach be consistent with section 

710(c) of the Act and other statutory 

requirements, such as notice and 

comment rulemaking procedures? 

Would the Commission need to 

differentiate the process of adopting 

new ANSI standards from the processes 

of adopting new Bluetooth connectivity 

standards or editions? If the 

Commission needed to differentiate the 

two processes, how would the 

Commission make this distinction? 

Would the Commission need to adjust 

or supplement WTB’s delegated 

authority under § 20.19(k) if it 

determine to use this approach? 

66. Bluetooth Compliance 

Requirements. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on how it could ensure 

a handset model is in compliance with 

the Bluetooth standards permitted by 

any of the above approaches. How could 

the Commission ensure that a handset 

model complies with the Bluetooth 

connectivity standard that the 

manufacturer indicates that it meets, 

and how can it ensure that this standard 

meets minimum consumer requirements 

for a quality wireless connection with a 

hearing device? 

67. The HAC Task Force suggests that 

a handset manufacturer should be 

required to submit a Bluetooth 

attestation as part of its FCC equipment 

certification application. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

suggestion. Would the submission of an 

attestation be sufficient to meet 

statutory requirements? How could the 

Commission ensure that a handset 

model submitted with an attestation 

actually meets the Bluetooth 

connectivity standards that the 

manufacturer indicates is embedded 

within the handset model? What kind of 

testing does a handset model undergo in 

order to receive such an attestation? 

Should the Commission rely on the 

Bluetooth standard party’s own testing 

process such that an attestation is 

sufficient to satisfy that process 

including any interoperability concerns? 

Even if a handset model receives an 

attestation, how can the Commission 

ensure that the standard that is 

incorporated into the handset model is 

robust enough to meet the minimum 

consumer needs with respect to 

establishing a quality connection 

between the handset model and a 

hearing device? 

68. Bluetooth SIG has indicated that 

it has its own qualification process, 

which involves testing at the product 

level for interoperability. If the 

Commission adopts Bluetooth LE Audio 

and Bluetooth HAP standards, should 

the Commission rely on the Bluetooth 

SIG’s own testing process such that an 

attestation is sufficient to satisfy that 

process including any interoperability 

concerns? Is there reason to believe that 

some Bluetooth standards bodies 

provide more robust testing then other 

standards bodies? 

C. Compliance Benchmarks 

69. Background. The Commission’s 

hearing aid compatibility rules require 

that 85% of the total number of handset 

models that manufacturers and service 

providers offer must be certified as 

hearing aid compatible. The 

Commission’s rules, however, do not 

impose separate benchmarks for the 

three components of the 2019 ANSI 

Standard (acoustic coupling, inductive 

coupling, and volume control). That is, 

in order for a handset model to be 

certified as hearing aid compatible 

under this standard, the handset model 

must meet all aspects of the standard 

and not just certain parts of the 

standard. Further, the Commission’s 

rules allow handset manufacturers and 

service providers to grandfather existing 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

for benchmark purposes as long as the 

handset models are still offered to the 

public. 

70. Under the HAC Task Force’s 

100% proposal, after the applicable 

transition period passes, all of the 

handset models that manufacturers and 

service providers offer in their handset 

portfolios would have to be certified as 

hearing aid compatible. The Task Force 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5162 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

proposes, however, that a portion of 

handset models could be certified as 

hearing aid compatible by meeting only 

certain aspects of the 2019 ANSI 

Standard’s requirements rather than all 

of the requirements as presently 

required. Specifically, the Task Force 

proposes that to meet the 100% 

compatibility requirement, all handset 

models would have to meet the 2019 

ANSI Standard’s acoustic coupling 

requirements, but only 85% of these 

handset models would have to continue 

to meet the 2019 ANSI standard’s 

telecoil coupling requirements. The 

remaining 15% of these handset models 

would have to meet a new Bluetooth 

connectivity requirement. To the extent 

the handset model ‘‘does not pass the 

telecoil test, it would have to support 

Bluetooth, and vice-versa.’’ While the 

Task Force’s Final Report does not 

contain a specific volume control 

benchmark proposal, recently members 

of the Task Force reiterated their 

commitment to working towards the 

goal that all new handset models will 

meet hearing aid compatibility 

requirements and that this will include 

an applicable volume control 

requirement. 

71. As discussed above, the HAC Task 

Force has recommended that the 

Commission consider a ‘‘more forwardlooking’’ definition of HAC. The Task 

Force asserts that its proposed 85/15% 

split between telecoil and Bluetooth 

coupling requirements is an appropriate 

way to reflect the popularity of 

Bluetooth connectivity for pairing 

hearing aid devices to handsets. 

According to a survey that it conducted, 

most consumers prefer to use Bluetooth 

connectivity for pairing hearing aid 

devices with wireless handsets, as 

compared to acoustic and telecoil 

coupling methods. Further, the Task 

Force states that unlike telecoils, 

Bluetooth audio transmission methods 

are expressly designed to transmit and 

facilitate audio. By contrast, the HAC 

Task Force explains, telecoils are a ‘‘byproduct’’ of certain 1940s-era phone 

designs that later proved useful to 

couple to a similarly coiled piece of 

copper in a hearing aid. Noting that 

consumers are already familiar with 

Bluetooth technology, the Task Force 

reports that the vast majority of wireless 

handset models now include at least 

some type of Bluetooth audio 

technology. The Task Force expects 

even greater use of Bluetooth 

connectivity in the coming years and 

that consumers will prefer Bluetooth 

applications over acoustic and inductive 

coupling. 

72. The Task Force’s Final Report 

appears to recommend that at the end of 

its proposed four-year transition period 

for manufacturers and five-year 

transition period for service providers, 

all handset models in a manufacturer’s 

or service provider’s overall handset 

portfolio would have to be certified as 

hearing aid compatible under the 2019 

ANSI Standard, subject to the 

percentages detailed above. The Final 

Report, though, is ambiguous regarding 

the grandfathering of existing handset 

models that have been certified as 

hearing aid compatible under older 

technical standards and are still being 

offered to the public. While the body of 

the Final Report does not discuss this 

issue, it does suggest in its Model Rule 

section that the current grandfathering 

rule be kept in place but given a new 

subparagraph designation. The Final 

Report does not explain how the 

grandfathering rule would operate with 

respect to the overall composition of a 

handset manufacturer’s or service 

provider’s handset portfolio after the 

end of the relevant transition periods. 

73. In response to WTB’s Public 

Notice seeking comment on the Task 

Force’s Final Report, CTA, MWF, and 

Samsung state that they support the 

HAC Task Force’s consensus 

recommendations that provide a path to 

100% hearing aid compatibility. 

Further, CTA and Samsung state that 

they support the Task Force’s 

recommendation regarding the 85% 

benchmark for telecoil coupling and the 

15% benchmark for Bluetooth coupling. 

Samsung also states that the 

Commission should adopt a benchmark 

for the volume control requirement, but 

it does not propose a benchmark for this 

requirement. The HAC Task Force states 

that the Commission should adopt a 

new Bluetooth connectivity benchmark, 

and Bluetooth SIG states that the use of 

a Bluetooth coupling requirement will 

help the Commission achieve its 100% 

hearing aid compatibility objective. As 

noted above, however, an individual 

commenter argues that the Commission 

should adopt a 100% telecoil 

requirement. This commenter states that 

telecoil coupling facilitates 

interoperability, is more reliable than 

Bluetooth, is consistent across devices, 

and does not require replacing hearing 

aids or a handset when the other is 

updated. Further, this commenter states 

that the Commission ‘‘is helping to 

maintain the availability of telecoils’’ 

and that the Commission ‘‘should 

require telecoil technology in 100% of 

all mobile devices . . . and mandate a 

timeline for compliance.’’ 

74. 100% Benchmark. Consistent with 

its tentative conclusion regarding 

achievability, the Commission proposes 

that after the expiration of the relevant 

transition periods, 100% of the handset 

models that manufacturers and service 

providers offer or import for use in the 

United States must be certified as 

hearing aid compatible. As part of this 

requirement, the Commission proposes 

to require all handset models offered or 

imported for use in the United States to 

have at least two forms of coupling, as 

proposed by the HAC Task Force: (1) 

100% of handset models would be 

required to meet an acoustic coupling 

requirement; and (2) 100% of handset 

models would be required to meet either 

a telecoil or a Bluetooth coupling 

requirement. Specifically, at least 85% 

of handset models would be required to 

meet a telecoil requirement and at least 

15% of handset models would be 

required to meet a Bluetooth 

requirement. Any handset models not 

meeting a telecoil requirement would be 

required to meet a Bluetooth 

requirement, and any handset models 

not meeting a Bluetooth requirement 

would be required to meet a telecoil 

requirement. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal in more 

detail below and throughout this NPRM. 

These handset models would have to be 

certified as hearing aid compatible 

under the requirements of part 2 subpart 

J—Equipment Authorization Procedures 

of the Commission’s rules, and include 

the relevant test reports showing 

compliance with these rules and the 

Commission’s § 20.19 hearing aid 

compatibility testing requirements for 

mobile handset models. All of these 

procedures must be complied with in 

full for a handset model to be labeled as 

hearing aid compatible and offered in 

the United States or imported for use in 

the United States. Once the relevant 

transition period ends, handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

will no longer be able to offer handset 

models that are not certified as hearing 

aid compatible. 

75. The Commission seeks comment 

on its proposal to require all handset 

models that manufacturers and service 

providers offer in the United States or 

imported for use in the United States to 

be hearing aid compatible after the end 

of the applicable transition periods. 

Since the Commission has tentatively 

concluded above that 100% is 

achievable, and no commenters opposed 

or found issue with some form of a 

100% requirement when WTB sought 

comment on the HAC Task Force’s Final 

Report, any commenter objecting to the 

Commission’s proposal should explain 

why this objective is not achievable 

using the statutory criteria outlined 

above. 

76. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment below on a proposal—as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5163 

well as an alternative approach—for 

meeting the 100% hearing aidcompatible handset portfolio 

requirement, including its proposed 85/ 

15% split for telecoil and Bluetooth 

connectivity. Under the Commission’s 

proposal, manufacturers and service 

providers could meet the 100% 

requirement by including grandfathered 

handset models that have been certified 

as hearing aid compatible in their 

overall handset portfolios as long as the 

handset models are still being offered in 

the United States or imported for use in 

the United States, as the Commission’s 

current rule allows. Manufacturers and 

service providers could meet the 85/ 

15% telecoil/Bluetooth requirement 

using new or grandfathered handset 

models. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on an approach where it 

would discontinue its grandfathering 

rule and not allow handset 

manufacturers and service providers to 

count grandfathered handset models 

certified under older certification 

standards towards the benchmark. 

Under this alternative, 100% of the 

handset models in a manufacturer’s or 

service provider’s handset portfolio 

would have to be certified as hearing aid 

compatible using the 2019 ANSI 

Standard’s requirements, as modified by 

a possible telecoil and Bluetooth 

connectivity split. 

77. Grandfathering Proposal to Reach 

100%. Consistent with its existing rules, 

the Commission proposes to allow 

manufacturers and service providers to 

continue to offer handset models that 

are already certified as hearing aid 

compatible under older technical 

standards after the end of the relevant 

transition periods. These handset 

models would be grandfathered, and 

manufacturers and service providers 

could include these handset models as 

part of their 100% handset portfolios as 

long as the handset models are still 

being offered. Under this proposal, 

100% of handset models would have to 

meet an acoustic coupling requirement, 

and could meet this requirement with 

handset models certified under the 2019 

ANSI Standard or with grandfathered 

handset models (i.e., handset models 

previously certified using a pre-2019 

ANSI Standard). Further, all handset 

models would have to meet a telecoil or 

Bluetooth requirement, with at least 

85% meeting a telecoil requirement— 

which could be met using handset 

models certified under the 2019 ANSI 

Standard or grandfathered handset 

models—and with at least 15% meeting 

a Bluetooth requirement. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

78. Under the Commission’s 

grandfathering proposal, handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

would have in their handset portfolios 

handset models that have been certified 

under different certification standards. 

For instance, manufacturer and service 

provider handset portfolios might 

include handset models certified as 

hearing aid compatible using the 2011 

ANSI Standard and other handset 

models certified under the 2019 ANSI 

Standard. With respect to handset 

models certified under the 2019 ANSI 

Standard, some of these handset models 

might be certified as hearing aid 

compatible under the conditions of 

WTB’s volume control waiver order or, 

depending on timing, under a new 

volume control standard that the 

Commission has adopted. Further, if the 

Commission adopts the Task Force’s 

proposal regarding the 85/15% split 

between telecoil and Bluetooth 

connectivity, manufacturer and service 

provider handset portfolios might 

include these types of handset models 

as well. All of these handset models 

could be part of a manufacturer’s or 

service provider’s 100% hearing aidcompatible handset portfolio as long as 

the handset models are still being 

offered. 

79. If the Commission adopts this 

proposal, should it modify its 

grandfathering rule to allow only a 

certain percentage of a handset portfolio 

to include handset models certified 

under older certification standards or 

older volume control requirements (e.g., 

the volume control waiver standard)? 

Should the Commission modify the 

grandfathering rule if it adopts a new 

volume control requirement to replace 

the waiver condition standard? How 

would such an approach work and 

would it require that certified handset 

models be taken out of a handset 

portfolio prior to the end of a handset 

model’s product cycle? What would be 

the costs and benefits of such a rule and 

how would such a rule impact 

consumers, manufacturers, and service 

providers? Would removal of handset 

models certified under prior standards 

adversely affect consumers by 

prematurely removing from the market 

handset models that are relatively lowpriced or that offer special features 

relied upon by certain groups of 

customers? 

80. If the Commission adopts the Task 

Force’s proposed 85/15% split between 

telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity, but 

allows grandfathered handset models to 

count towards these benchmarks, how 

should the Commission count handset 

models certified under pre-2019 ANSI 

Standards towards this split? Under a 

grandfathering approach to the 85/15% 

split, would handset manufacturers and 

service providers be likely to offer fewer 

new handset models with telecoil 

connectivity? Or are market incentives 

sufficient to ensure that manufacturers 

and service providers would continue to 

offer new handset models with telecoil 

coupling technology? What percentage 

of handset models have both Bluetooth 

connectivity and telecoil capabilities? If 

the Commission adopts its 

grandfathering proposal, should it 

impose a requirement on service 

providers that they have to offer a 

certain percentage of new handset 

models that meet telecoil requirements 

and the rest would have to meet 

Bluetooth connectivity requirements? If 

so, what percentage should the 

Commission impose and how would 

this percentage work with small or rural 

service providers that may only add one 

or two new handset models over a 

period of years? Alternatively, does the 

fact that a consumer can purchase a 

handset directly from a manufacturer 

and bring the handset to the service 

provider’s network solve this problem? 

What are the costs and benefits to 

consumers to having to purchase a 

handset from a manufacturer and bring 

it to the service provider for service? 

What impact does this approach have 

on manufacturers and service providers? 

81. Alternative Approach to Reach 

100%. Alternatively, instead of allowing 

grandfathering, should the Commission 

require 100% of all handset models 

offered in the United States or imported 

for use in the United States to meet the 

2019 ANSI Standard (or any future 

ANSI standards), with 100% of handset 

models meeting the acoustic coupling 

portion of the 2019 ANSI standard, at 

least 85% of all handsets models 

meeting the telecoil portion of the 2019 

ANSI standard, and at least 15% 

meeting a Bluetooth component? Under 

this approach, manufacturers and 

service providers would no longer be 

able to offer handset models certified as 

hearing aid compatible under earlier 

(pre-2019) versions of the ANSI 

standard and would either have to 

remove these handset models from their 

handset portfolios or recertify these 

handset models under the 2019 ANSI 

Standard. The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach, as opposed 

to its proposal above to allow handset 

models to meet the 100% benchmark 

using grandfathered handset models. 

What are the benefits and drawbacks of 

such an approach? Would an approach 

that requires service providers and 

manufacturers either to retire older 

handset models or certify those handset 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5164 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

models under the 2019 ANSI Standard 

lead to better options available in the 

market for consumers with hearing loss? 

Given the pace of technology 

advancement, would such an approach 

be feasible for manufacturers and 

service providers? Would it be more 

straightforward and thus (i) easier for 

manufacturers and service providers to 

implement; (ii) easier for consumers to 

understand; and (iii) easier for the 

Commission to enforce? 

82. The Commission seeks comment 

on the differences between its 

grandfathering proposal and this 

alternative approach, including the 

costs and benefits of each option, and 

how either approach might impact 

transition time. Should the Commission 

consider a hybrid of the two, such as a 

phased approach that would enable it to 

reach a 100% benchmark using 

grandfathered handset models within a 

shorter period of time, with the ultimate 

goal of 100% of handset models meeting 

the 2019 ANSI Standard (or newer ANSI 

standards as they are developed)? For 

example, after one year, 75% of handset 

models could be grandfathered; after 

two years, 50%; after three years, 25%; 

and after four years, no grandfathered 

handset models could be counted 

towards the 100% benchmark. 

83. Volume Control Benchmark. 

Under either the Commission’s 

grandfathering proposal or the 

alternative 100% 2019 ANSI Standard 

approach, how should the Commission 

incorporate the volume control 

requirement into its benchmarks? As 

noted above, under the Commission’s 

current rules, as of December 5, 2023, 

handset models can no longer be 

certified as hearing aid-compatible 

using the older 2011 ANSI Standard that 

does not include a volume control 

requirement. After this date, handset 

models can only be certified as hearing 

aid-compatible if they meet the 

requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard 

and the related TIA 5050 Standard that 

sets forth volume control requirements 

for wireless handset models. The 

recently issued HAC Waiver Order, 

however, modified these requirements 

by allowing handset models to be 

certified as hearing aid-compatible if the 

handset model meets the limited 

volume control standard set out in that 

order and all other aspects of the 2019 

ANSI Standard. This waiver remains in 

effect for a two-year period that ends on 

September 29, 2025. 

84. If the Commission adopts an 

approach where all handset models 

must be certified as hearing aidcompatible using the 2019 ANSI 

Standard, as modified by the HAC 

Waiver Order, should it include a 100% 

volume control requirement at the end 

of the transition period? On the other 

hand, if the Commission allows 

manufacturers and service providers to 

meet the 100% requirement using 

grandfathered handset models, as it 

proposes above, should it impose a 

requirement that a certain percentage of 

handset models must meet the volume 

control portion of the 2019 ANSI 

Standard, as modified by the HAC 

Waiver Order? Or should the 

Commission limit the volume control 

requirement to all new handset models 

certified as hearing aid compatible using 

the 2019 ANSI Standard, as modified by 

the HAC Waiver Order, without setting 

an overall volume control benchmark 

for the portfolio? How would the 

grandfathering approach—which means 

that not all available handset models 

would meet a volume control 

requirement—impact consumers with 

hearing loss? 

85. How should the Commission 

handle the volume control requirement 

if the Commission adopts a new volume 

control standard to replace the TIA 5050 

Standard, as modified by the HAC 

Waiver Order? Under these 

circumstances, should the Commission 

allow a limited grandfathering of 

handset models that meet the HAC 

Waiver Order’s volume control standard 

and all other aspects of the 2019 ANSI 

Standard, but not the requirements of 

the new volume control standard? 

Should the Commission impose a 

requirement that these types of handset 

models should be eliminated from 

handset portfolios over a certain time 

period, such as two years from the 

effective date of the new volume control 

standard? Alternatively, should the 

Commission just allow these types of 

handset models to be phased-out over 

the handset model’s normal product life 

cycle? What are the costs and benefits 

to consumers and manufacturers of 

permitting these types of handset 

models to be grandfathered? 

86. Telecoil/Bluetooth Benchmarks. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

implementing its proposed 85/15% split 

between telecoil and Bluetooth 

connectivity under the two alternatives 

discussed above (i.e., its grandfathering 

proposal and the 100% 2019 ANSI 

Standard approach), as well as some 

alternative approaches to setting 

benchmarks for telecoil and Bluetooth 

coupling. In this regard, the 

Commission notes that members of the 

HAC Task Force have recently reiterated 

their commitment to working towards 

the goal of including Bluetooth 

connectivity as an alternative to telecoil 

coupling in a certain percentage of 

handset models as described in the HAC 

Task Force’s Final Report. Under either 

approach, how does the Commission 

enforce a requirement that at least 85% 

of handset models must meet telecoil 

requirements and at least 15% must 

meet a Bluetooth connectivity standard? 

Should the Commission allow a handset 

model that meets telecoil certification 

requirements and Bluetooth 

connectivity requirements to be counted 

as meeting both the telecoil and 

Bluetooth connectivity requirements? 

Should the Commission allow for some 

fluctuation within a range close to an 

85/15% split, or should it strictly 

enforce that number? For example, 

should the Commission require that a 

manufacturer or service provider offer at 

least 85% of handset models that meet 

the telecoil requirements and the rest of 

the handset models offered meet a 

Bluetooth connectivity standard, 

without imposing a 15% minimum? If a 

manufacturer releases one new handset 

model a year, how many years after the 

transition date will it take for the 85/ 

15% split to be reached? 

87. Instead of its proposed 85/15% 

split between telecoil and Bluetooth 

connectivity, the Commission seeks 

comment on a number of alternative 

approaches to establishing a telecoil and 

Bluetooth coupling benchmark. 

• Under the first alternative, instead 

of the Commission’s proposed 85/15% 

split, should it continue to require all 

handset models to meet the 2019 ANSI 

Standard’s telecoil requirements? This 

approach would require 100% 

compliance with all three aspects of the 

2019 ANSI Standard (acoustic coupling, 

telecoil coupling, and volume control) 

and would ensure that consumers who 

use telecoils in their hearing aids could 

purchase any new handset model on the 

market without having their selection of 

handset models reduced by an 85% 

benchmark. This approach would not 

require a certain percentage of handsets 

to meet a Bluetooth connectivity 

requirement. 

• Under the second alternative, 

should the Commission require 100% of 

new handset models to meet all three 

aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard and 

impose an additional requirement that 

15% of these handset models must also 

meet a Bluetooth connectivity 

requirement? 

• Under the third alternative, should 

the Commission set a deadline for 50% 

or more of handset models to 

incorporate Bluetooth connectivity 

technology, while retaining an 85% 

telecoil requirement? This alternative 

reflects the fact that Bluetooth 

connectivity is popular among 

consumers with hearing loss and that 

56% of handset models already support 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5165 

some form of Bluetooth connectivity. 

Would this approach create redundancy 

in coupling requirements or provide 

consumers with hearing loss much 

needed flexibility to connect with 

hearing devices? 

• Under the fourth alternative, 

instead of an 85/15% split, should the 

Commission impose a different telecoil/ 

Bluetooth split such as a 75/25% or 60/ 

40% split or should the Commission’s 

rules provide for a gradual change in the 

split over a period of years that results 

in a more even split between the telecoil 

and Bluetooth coupling requirements? 

• Under the fifth alternative, should 

the Commission avoid imposing a 

precise percentage and give 

manufacturers and service providers 

more flexibility to follow market 

demands and determine the percentage 

of handset models that they offer that 

meet either telecoil or Bluetooth 

connectivity requirements? Would such 

a flexible approach benefit or harm 

consumers with hearing loss and how 

would the Commission monitor and 

evaluate whether the split that develops 

is appropriate or harmful to consumers 

with hearing loss? 

88. The Commission seeks comment 

on these alternative approaches. Is there 

a significant additional cost to 

incorporating both forms of connectivity 

in a single handset model (even though 

most new handsets today offer both 

technologies)? Would any of these 

approaches impede the development or 

improvement of handset model 

technology, either for consumers in 

general or for consumers with hearing 

loss? The Commission seeks comment 

on this issue in light of the Task Force’s 

statement that consumers prefer 

Bluetooth coupling over telecoil 

coupling. Is one of these approaches 

more in the interest of consumers while 

allowing more opportunity for handset 

manufacturers to innovate? What are the 

costs and benefits of each of these 

approaches or an approach that 

gradually evens the split between 

telecoil and Bluetooth coupling 

requirements over a period of years and 

what should the period of years be? 

D. Transition Periods for 100% Hearing 

Aid Compatibility 

89. The Commission proposes to 

establish a 24-month transition period 

for handset manufacturers to meet the 

100% benchmark, running from the 

effective date of an amended rule 

adopting the 100% requirement, and a 

30-month transition period for 

nationwide service providers. Further, 

the Commission proposes a 42-month 

transition period for non-nationwide 

service providers. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. 

90. While the Commission’s proposed 

transition periods are shorter than the 

four-year transition period the HAC 

Task Force recommends for handset 

manufacturers and the five-year 

transition period it recommends for 

service providers, the Commission 

previously has relied on a two-year 

transition period when transitioning to 

new technical standards and the 

Commission proposes that establishing 

a two-year transition period again 

would be appropriate to balance the 

product development cycles for 

manufacturers and service providers 

with the needs of consumers with 

hearing loss. The longer transition 

periods the Commission proposes for 

service providers will allow new 

handset models certified using the latest 

certification standards to flow 

downstream and be available for 

providers to offer for sale. 

91. Given that the Commission 

adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard in 

February 2021 and that WTB has 

conditionally granted ATIS’s volume 

control waiver request, the Commission 

believes that these transition periods are 

reasonable. Handset manufacturers have 

been on notice since February 2021 of 

the requirements of the new standard 

and WTB granted ATIS’s request to 

adjust the volume control testing 

requirements by waiver, based on the 

conditions set out in the ATIS Ex Parte 

Letter. Is there any reason why handset 

manufacturers cannot meet a two-year 

transition requirement assuming that 

the volume control testing requirements 

are those recently approved by WTB 

and the Commission does not adopt a 

new volume control standard before the 

end of the manufacturer transition 

period? Since the current volume 

control testing requirements are based 

on ATIS’s request, is there a reason why 

manufacturers cannot meet ATIS’s 

requested testing methodology by the 

end of a two-year transition period? 

92. In order to meet the 2019 ANSI 

Standard’s requirements and related 

volume control requirements, is it 

simply a matter of testing existing 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

under the new standards or is there 

reason to believe that handset models 

need to be redesigned to meet the new 

standards? If handset models have to be 

redesigned to meet the new standards, 

would this process already be 

underway? The Commission notes that 

the Task Force indicates that part of the 

reason it is supporting the 85/15% split 

is because the 2019 ANSI Standard’s 

telecoil testing requirements are ‘‘more 

difficult’’ to meet than the 2011 ANSI 

Standard’s telecoil requirements. Given 

that the Task Force is accounting for the 

new telecoil testing standards in its 

proposed 85/15% split, why does this 

not support a two-year transition period 

for manufacturers? Commenters arguing 

that the new telecoil testing standard 

requires a longer transition period 

should explain why adjusting the split 

downward is not a better solution then 

drawing out the transition period. 

93. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether manufacturers and service 

providers can achieve compliance with 

a 100% requirement within the 

proposed timeframes, and if not, about 

potential alternative timeframes. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

steps manufacturers and service 

providers must take to meet a 100% 

compliance standard and the scope and 

timeline of any necessary changes. 

What, if any, obstacles do manufacturers 

or service providers anticipate facing? 

Given the significant public interest in 

moving quickly to achieve 100% 

compliance as well as the current 

extensive availability of hearing aidcompatible handset models, any 

commenters proposing longer transition 

periods should provide specific 

information about why more time is 

needed. 

94. The Commission seeks comment 

on how the two alternatives outlined 

above for reaching 100% compatibility 

(i.e., the grandfathering proposal or the 

100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach) 

would impact transition times. Would 

the 100% 2019 ANSI Standard approach 

require a longer transition period to 

100% hearing aid compatibility than its 

grandfathering proposal? What impact 

would that longer period have on 

consumers with hearing loss? If the 

Commission requires 100% of handset 

models to meet only certain aspects of 

the 2019 ANSI Standard (or future ANSI 

standards adopted by the Commission), 

is a 24-month transition period for 

manufacturers and a 30-month or 42- 

month transition period for service 

providers feasible? Alternatively, if the 

Commission adopts the 100% 2019 

ANSI Standard approach, should it 

impose the transition period proposed 

by the Task Force—four years for 

manufacturers and five years for service 

providers? Instead of a single timeline, 

should the Commission develop 

separate timelines for reaching different 

aspects of hearing aid compatibility, 

such as 100% compliance on acoustic 

coupling, as compared to reaching 

100% compliance for ‘‘magnetic/ 

wireless coupling’’ (i.e., the 85/15% 

proposal for telecoil coupling and 

Bluetooth connectivity), and another 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5166 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

timeline for reaching 100% for volume 

control? 

E. Handset Settings for Hearing Aid 

Compatibility 

95. The Commission’s wireless 

hearing aid compatibility rules do not 

address whether a handset model by 

default must come out-of-the-box with 

its hearing aid compatibility functions 

fully turned on, or whether it is 

permissible for a manufacturer to 

require a consumer to turn these 

functions on by going into the handset’s 

settings. Further, the Commission’s 

rules do not address whether a handset 

model can have two different settings: 

one setting that turns on acoustic 

coupling and volume control, but not 

telecoil coupling, and a second separate 

setting that turns on the handset 

model’s telecoil coupling capabilities. In 

addition, the Commission’s rules do not 

address whether a handset model in 

telecoil mode has to continue to fully 

meet acoustic and volume control 

requirements. 

96. While the Commission’s hearing 

aid compatibility rules do not address 

this issue, staff has informally advised 

handset manufacturers that handset 

models cannot have separate selections 

for volume control compliance and 

another for RF interference and telecoil 

compliance. Staff has stated that only 

one hearing aid compatibility selection 

is permitted and multiple selections are 

not permitted. Recently, staff has been 

asked whether this informal advice 

could be modified to allow two hearing 

aid compatibility modes of operation in 

a handset model and whether a handset 

model in telecoil mode must continue to 

fully meet acoustic coupling and 

volume control requirements. 

97. The HAC Task Force’s Final 

Report does not address this hearing aid 

compatibility handset model setting 

issue. The Task Force does recommend, 

however, that the Commission require 

acoustic coupling in all handset models 

and adopt a Bluetooth connectivity 

requirement as an alternative coupling 

method to telecoil coupling in a certain 

percentage of handset models. If the 

Commission adopts this Bluetooth 

proposal, then a handset model certified 

as hearing aid compatible under the 

2019 ANSI Standard would have to 

meet at least three hearing aid 

compatibility requirements. The 

handset model would have to meet 

acoustic coupling and volume control 

requirements and—depending on the 

handset model—would also have to 

meet either a telecoil coupling or 

Bluetooth connectivity requirement. It is 

also conceivable that a handset model 

might meet acoustic, telecoil, and 

Bluetooth coupling requirements as well 

as the volume control requirements that 

WTB recently addressed. 

98. Given these potential alternative 

coupling methods and informal 

manufacturer requests that the 

Commission allow more than one mode 

of operation for hearing aid 

compatibility in a handset model and 

detail what each mode of operation 

must include, the Commission believes 

stakeholders would benefit from the 

establishment of a rule, and it seeks 

comment on this issue. The Commission 

proposes that after the expiration of the 

manufacturer transition period, all 

handset models must by default come 

out-of-the-box with acoustic coupling 

and volume control certification 

requirements fully turned on. The 

Commission further proposes to permit 

handset models to have a specific 

setting that turns on the handset 

model’s telecoil or Bluetooth coupling 

function, depending on the secondary 

capability included in a particular 

handset model. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals as well as 

whether a handset model operating in 

telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode 

must also continue to meet acoustic 

coupling and volume control 

requirements or some aspects of these 

requirements. 

99. In this regard, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it is 

necessary for a handset model in 

telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode to 

continue to fully meet acoustic and 

volume control requirements. Should 

the Commission allow handset models 

operating in telecoil or Bluetooth 

coupling mode to automatically turn off 

acoustic coupling or the volume control 

function, or should it require these 

functions to remain on or some portion 

of these functions to remain on? Is it 

technically feasible for a handset model 

in telecoil or Bluetooth coupling mode 

to meet the 2019 ANSI Standard’s 

acoustic and volume control 

requirements in full or even necessary 

from a consumer’s perspective for a 

handset model in telecoil mode or 

Bluetooth coupling mode to meet these 

requirements? Should a handset model 

that meets all four hearing aid 

compatibility requirements be required 

to meet all aspects of acoustic and 

volume control requirements or only 

some part of those requirements when it 

is operating in telecoil or Bluetooth 

coupling mode? If it is technically 

feasible for a handset model to operate 

with telecoil and/or Bluetooth coupling 

at the same time as meeting the acoustic 

coupling and volume control 

requirements, should the Commission 

require all available coupling options to 

be turned on in the handset model’s 

default mode? 

100. If the Commission determines to 

allow more than one hearing aid 

compatibility mode of operation, it is 

concerned with how difficult it might be 

for consumers to discover these features 

and to understand their functionality. In 

this regard, should the Commission 

establish standard hearing aid 

compatibility settings that would be 

consistent across all hearing aidcompatible handset models? Would it 

be helpful if the Commission were to 

establish uniform, industry-wide 

nomenclature for compatibility modes 

in handset models? If the Commission 

allows a handset model to have two 

compatibility modes, what should it call 

these modes? Should the default mode 

be called HAC mode and the second 

mode be called Telecoil or Bluetooth 

mode, depending on the handset model? 

What if a handset model meets all four 

hearing aid compatibility requirements? 

Under these circumstances, should it 

allow three different modes of 

compatibility and, if so, what should the 

Commission require each of these 

modes to be called, and what hearing 

aid compatibility functions should it 

require to be included in each mode? 

101. Commenters should fully explain 

why they support or oppose the 

Commission’s proposals for different 

modes of operations and why the 

Commission’s proposals are in the 

public interest or not in the public 

interest. What are the costs and benefits 

of each of the Commission’s proposals? 

What are the advantages and the 

disadvantages of the Commission’s 

proposals in terms of their impact on 

handset manufacturers and consumers? 

F. Consumer Notification Provisions 

1. Labeling and Disclosure 

Requirements 

102. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to revise the labeling and 

disclosure requirements in § 20.19(f). As 

stated above, the Commission proposes 

that, after the expiration of the 

applicable transition period for handset 

manufacturers, all handset models must 

be certified as hearing aid compatible. 

Further, the Commission proposes that 

at least 85% of these handset models 

must meet a telecoil coupling 

requirement and that at least 15% of 

these handset models must meet the 

Commission’s new Bluetooth coupling 

requirement. The Commission proposes 

using either its grandfathering proposal 

or a 100% 2019 ANSI Standard 

alternative. Under either approach, the 

Commission proposes that all new 

handset models must be certified using 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5167 

the 2019 ANSI Standard’s acoustic 

coupling requirements and the related 

volume control requirements, and that 

all new handset models must meet 

either the standard’s telecoil coupling 

requirement or a Bluetooth requirement. 

If the Commission adopts these 

proposed changes, it tentatively 

conclude that it should revise the 

package labeling provisions in 

§ 20.19(f)(1) of the Commission’s rules 

to reflect these changes. Specifically, it 

tentatively concludes that the handset 

model’s package label must state 

whether the handset model includes 

telecoil coupling capability that meets 

certification requirements; includes 

Bluetooth connectivity as a replacement 

for meeting telecoil certification 

requirements; or includes both. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

revising the package labeling rule in this 

way would be sufficient to ensure that 

consumers can easily determine from 

looking at a handset model’s package 

label whether the handset model has the 

coupling ability that meets their needs. 

103. The Commission also tentatively 

concludes that it should make a 

corresponding change to the package 

insert and handset user manual 

requirements in § 20.19(f)(2) to require 

information in a package insert or user 

manual about whether a handset model 

meets telecoil certification 

requirements; replaces this requirement 

with Bluetooth coupling ability; or 

includes both. Section 20.19(f)(2) 

establishes labeling and disclosure 

requirements for manufacturers and 

service providers and requires them to 

include certain information about the 

hearing aid compatibility of each 

handset model in a package insert or 

user manual for the handset. For new 

handset models that use Bluetooth 

coupling rather than telecoil coupling to 

meet Commission requirements, the 

Commission proposes to require that the 

package insert or handset model user 

manual explain that the handset model 

does not meet telecoil certification 

requirements and instead couples with 

hearing aids using a Bluetooth standard 

and provide the name of that Bluetooth 

standard. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether revising the rule 

in this way would provide sufficient 

information for consumers. 

104. Further, if the Commission 

allows handset models to have default 

and secondary hearing aid compatibility 

modes of operation, it tentatively 

concludes that it should modify its 

handset package insert and user manual 

requirements to require an explanation 

of each of these modes, what each mode 

does and does not include, and how to 

turn these settings on and off. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. How can the Commission 

ensure that consumers can easily 

understand these modes of operation 

and what each mode of operation 

includes and does not include? Besides 

the name of the mode, how does the 

Commission ensure that consumers can 

easily find these modes in a handset 

model’s setting and that the modes are 

not buried in subheadings? Commenters 

supporting this modification should 

provide examples of what the package 

insert or user manual rule should state. 

Commenters supporting or opposing 

this change should explain why this 

change is or is not in the public interest 

and why this change is consistent or 

inconsistent with section 710(d) of the 

Act. 

2. Digital Labeling Technology 

105. As an additional proposed 

change to § 20.19(f)(2), the Commission 

proposes to permit manufacturers and 

service providers to provide the 

information required under this section 

to consumers through the use of digital 

labeling technology (e.g., quick response 

(QR) codes) on handset boxes rather 

than through a package insert or user 

manual. A QR code is a type of barcode 

that can be read easily by a digital 

device, such as a handset with a camera, 

and is typically used for storing 

Uniform Resource Locator (URL) 

information. Companies often use QR 

codes to link consumers to a company’s 

web page in order to provide consumers 

with additional information on a 

company product. 

106. When the Commission adopted 

the requirement for package inserts, it 

considered requests from industry to 

give manufacturers and service 

providers more flexibility in the 

methods used to convey information on 

a handset model’s hearing aid 

compatibility and volume control 

capabilities, including providing this 

information online rather than in the 

packaging insert or user manual. The 

Commission found, however, that 

consumers may not necessarily visit 

service provider websites before going 

to a service provider’s store and 

purchasing a hearing aid-compatible 

handset. Therefore, the Commission 

required that package inserts and user 

manuals be provided with hearing aidcompatible handset models and that this 

information not just be provided online. 

107. The Commission proposes to 

reconsider its determination and allow 

manufacturers and service providers to 

meet the requirements of § 20.19(f)(2) 

through the use of digital labeling 

technology such as QR codes on handset 

boxes, or other accessible formats. When 

the Commission required manufacturers 

and service providers to include this 

information in package inserts or user 

manuals and declined to permit this 

information to be provided online, it 

based its decision on its finding that 

consumers may not necessarily visit 

service provider websites before going 

to a service provider’s store and 

purchasing a hearing aid-compatible 

handset. By contrast, permitting service 

providers and manufacturers to include 

QR codes on handset packaging would 

not require consumers to visit a website 

before purchasing a handset and instead 

would provide consumers with access 

to relevant information at the point of 

sale while consumers are in stores 

making purchasing decisions. Further, 

permitting manufacturers and service 

providers to use QR codes on a handset 

model’s package as an alternative to 

including a paper insert or user manual 

with the required hearing aid 

compatibility information could help 

ensure that consumers receive more up 

to date information, while saving paper 

and helping to streamline packaging. 

108. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal and whether permitting 

the use of QR codes would be an 

effective alternative approach for 

ensuring that consumers with hearing 

loss receive relevant hearing aid 

compatibility information when 

purchasing their mobile devices. Would 

allowing the use of QR codes provide a 

more consumer friendly approach then 

continuing to require the use of paper 

inserts and user manuals? How familiar 

are consumers with QR codes? Are there 

enough consumers that are not familiar 

with QR codes that the Commission 

should continue to require the use of 

paper inserts and user manuals in 

addition to allowing the use of QR 

codes? Do consumers have the ability to 

scan a QR code before purchasing a 

handset, or would they have to rely on 

store employees to scan the code for 

them so that they could read the 

information? 

109. Do paper inserts and user 

manuals have benefits that QR codes 

cannot provide? If so, what are these 

benefits? Along these same lines, are 

there other types of digital labeling 

technology that the Commission should 

consider permitting as either an 

alternative to or in conjunction with the 

use of QR codes? What are these other 

digital labeling technologies? Further, if 

the Commission allows the use of digital 

labeling technology as an alternative to 

paper inserts and user manuals, how 

can it ensure that these methods of 

labeling do not become obsolete before 

it can update the labeling rules? Finally, 

what are the costs and benefits of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5168 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

permitting the use of QR codes or other 

types of digital labeling as an alternative 

to continuing to require the use of paper 

inserts and user manuals? 

3. Handset Model Number Designation 

110. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to update its rule on handset 

model number designations. Section 

20.19(g) of the Commission’s rules 

requires that ‘‘where a manufacturer has 

made physical changes to a handset that 

result in a change in the hearing aid 

compatibility rating under the 2011 

ANSI standard or an earlier version of 

the standard, the altered handset must 

be given a model designation distinct 

from that of the handset prior to its 

alteration.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on how this rule should apply 

in cases where a handset model that has 

passed the 2011 ANSI Standard and has 

an assigned model number subsequently 

passes the 2019 ANSI Standard. Under 

the current rule, if there have been no 

physical changes to the handset model 

(i.e., no changes in hardware or 

software) a new model number would 

not be required, but the handset 

manufacturer may issue the handset 

model a new model number if it chooses 

to. 

111. In these cases, where a handset 

model that is already certified as 

hearing aid compatible is re-certified 

under an updated ANSI standard, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to revise the rule to require a 

manufacturer to issue a new model 

number even if there is no physical 

change to the handset model. Would 

revising the rule to require 

manufacturers to issue a new model 

number for such handset models benefit 

consumers with hearing loss by making 

it easier for them to identify the handset 

models that have been certified under 

updated standards? How would 

consumers be able to discern which 

models have been certified under 

updated standards otherwise? Would 

the costs or other burdens associated 

with such an approach be significant 

enough to outweigh the potential 

benefits for consumers? 

G. Website, Record Retention, and 

Reporting Requirements 

1. Website and Record Retention 

Requirements 

112. After the end of the applicable 

transition periods, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that it should 

require handset manufacturers and 

service providers to identify on their 

publicly accessible websites which 

handset models in their handset 

portfolios meet telecoil certification 

requirements. For those handset models 

that do not meet telecoil certification 

requirements, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

must affirmatively state that the handset 

model does not meet telecoil 

certification requirements and identify 

which Bluetooth connectivity standards 

the handset model meets instead. The 

Commission also tentatively concludes 

that handset manufacturers and service 

providers must identify on their 

publicly accessible websites the 

conversational gain with and without 

hearing aids for each handset model that 

they offer regardless of whether the 

handset model meets telecoil 

certification standards or includes 

Bluetooth connectivity instead. The 

posting of a handset model’s 

conversational gain with and without 

hearing aids is consistent with the 

Commission’s current handset model 

package label rule. The Commission 

believes that all of this information is 

essential for consumers to have access 

to in order to purchase handset models 

that meet their individual needs. 

113. The Commission seeks comment 

on these tentative conclusions. 

Commenters opposing these tentative 

conclusions should clearly explain why 

these tentative conclusions are not in 

the public interest. What are the costs 

and benefits of these tentative 

conclusions? The Commission notes 

that if it allows the use of QR codes or 

other digital labeling technology as an 

alternative to paper inserts or user 

manuals, this may be the only way a 

consumer might be able to access some 

of this information. Further, consumers 

might research this information online 

before going to a store or may actually 

buy the handset online without going to 

the store. Commenters should provide a 

detailed explanation as to why they 

support or oppose these tentative 

conclusions. 

114. Further, if the Commission 

adopts a 100% hearing aid compatibility 

requirement, it seeks comment on 

whether to streamline other components 

of the website and record retention 

requirements in the Commission’s rules. 

In 2018, the Commission imposed new 

website posting requirements for service 

providers and required providers to 

retain information necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

Commission’s wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules. Under these 

requirements, each manufacturer and 

service provider that operates a 

publicly-accessible website must make 

available on its website a list of all 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

currently offered, the ANSI standard 

used to evaluate hearing aid 

compatibility, the ratings of those 

handset models under the relevant 

ANSI standard, if applicable, and an 

explanation of the rating system. In 

addition, service providers must post on 

their websites: a list of all non-hearing 

aid-compatible handset models 

currently offered, as well as a link to the 

current FCC web page containing 

information about the wireless hearing 

aid compatibility rules and service 

providers’ obligations. Each service 

provider must also include the 

marketing model name/number(s) and 

FCC ID number of each hearing aidcompatible and non-hearing aidcompatible handset model currently 

offered. 

115. Service providers must also 

retain on their website a link to a thirdparty website as designated by the 

Commission or WTB, with information 

regarding hearing aid-compatible and 

non-hearing aid-compatible handset 

models or, alternatively, a clearly 

marked list of hearing aid-compatible 

handset models that have been offered 

in the past 24 months but are no longer 

offered by that provider. The rules also 

require that the information on a 

manufacturer’s or service provider’s 

website must be updated within 30 days 

of any relevant changes, and any 

website pages containing information so 

updated must indicate the day on which 

the update occurred. 

116. Further, the rules require service 

providers to retain internal records for 

discontinued handset models, to be 

made available upon Commission 

request of: (1) handset model 

information, including the month year/ 

each hearing aid-compatible and nonhearing aid-compatible handset model 

was first offered; and (2) the month/year 

each hearing aid-compatible handset 

model and non-hearing aid-compatible 

handset model was last offered for all 

discontinued handset models until a 

period of 24 months has passed from 

that date. 

117. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether to streamline these 

requirements by eliminating the 

requirement to post or retain 

information about non hearing aidcompatible handset models. If the 

Commission requires that 100% of 

handset models be hearing aid 

compatible, it does not anticipate that 

there would continue to be a need for 

providers to post information about non 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

on their websites. Do commenters 

disagree? Should the Commission 

continue to require service providers to 

post information and keep records about 

the non-hearing aid-compatible handset 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5169 

models they offered previously? Would 

doing so provide useful information for 

consumers? If the Commission adopts 

the 100% compliance standard, would 

the website and record retention rules 

continue to be necessary to help ensure 

compliance with the hearing aid 

compatibility requirements? 

2. FCC Form 655 and 855 

118. In this section, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that after the 

handset manufacturer 100% transition 

period ends, it will revise the handset 

manufacturer annual reporting 

requirement by eliminating the 

requirement that a manufacturer use 

FCC Form 655 for reporting purposes 

and instead replace this requirement 

with the requirement that it use FCC 

Form 855 for reporting purposes. FCC 

Form 855 is the same form that service 

providers presently file to show 

compliance with the Commission’s 

wireless hearing aid compatibility 

provisions. The Commission also 

tentatively concludes that after the 

expiration of the manufacturer 

transition period, it will change the 

reporting deadline for handset 

manufacturers from July 31 each year to 

January 31 each year. Along with 

requiring handset manufacturers to file 

the same form as service providers, this 

change would align the filing deadline 

for handset manufacturers with the 

current filing deadline for service 

providers. The Commission seeks 

comment on these tentative conclusions 

below. 

119. Background. Under § 20.19(i), 

handset manufacturers are presently 

required to submit FCC Form 655 

reports on their compliance with the 

Commission’s hearing aid compatibility 

requirements each year. FCC Form 655 

requires manufacturers to provide 

information on: (i) handset models 

tested since the most recent report, for 

compliance with the applicable hearing 

aid compatibility technical ratings; (ii) 

compliant handset models offered to 

service providers since the most recent 

report, identifying each model by 

marketing model name/number(s) and 

FCC ID number; (iii) for each compliant 

model, the air interface(s) and frequency 

band(s) over which it operates, the 

hearing aid compatibility ratings for 

each frequency band and air interface 

under the ANSI standard (if applicable), 

the ANSI standard version used, and the 

months in which the model was 

available to service providers since the 

most recent report; (iv) non-compliant 

models offered to service providers 

since the most recent report, identifying 

each model by marketing model name/ 

number(s) and FCC ID number; (v) for 

each non-compliant model, the air 

interface(s) over which it operates and 

the months in which the model was 

available to service providers since the 

most recent report; (vi) total numbers of 

compliant and non-compliant models 

offered to service providers for each air 

interface as of the time of the report; 

(vii) any instance, as of the date of the 

report or since the most recent report, in 

which multiple compliant or noncompliant devices were marketed under 

separate model name/numbers but 

constitute a single model for purposes of 

the hearing aid compatibility rules, 

identifying each device by marketing 

model name/number and FCC ID 

number; (viii) status of product labeling; 

(ix) outreach efforts, and (x) if the 

manufacturer maintains a public 

website, the website address of the 

page(s) containing the required 

information regarding handset models. 

120. Section 20.19(i) also requires that 

service providers submit FCC Form 855 

each year certifying under penalty of 

perjury their compliance with the 

Commission’s hearing aid compatibility 

requirements. Certifications filed by 

service providers must include: (i) the 

name of the signing executive and 

contact information; (ii) the 

company(ies) covered by the 

certification; (iii) the FCC Registration 

Number (FRN); (iv) if the service 

provider maintains a public website, the 

website address of the page(s) 

containing the required information 

regarding handset models; (v) the 

percentage of handset models offered 

that are hearing aid compatible; and (vi) 

a statement certifying that the service 

provider was in or was not in full 

compliance with the hearing aid 

compatibility provisions for the 

reporting period. 

121. Prior to the 2018 HAC Order, the 

Commission required service providers 

to show compliance with the 

Commission’s wireless hearing aid 

compatibility provisions by filing FCC 

Form 655 just as handset manufacturers 

are presently required to do. In the 2018 

HAC Order, however, the Commission 

took steps to reduce regulatory burden 

on service providers by eliminating 

annual service reporting requirements 

and allowing service providers to 

instead file a streamlined annual 

certification stating their compliance 

with the Commission’s hearing aid 

compatibility requirements. The 

Commission found that many of the 

benefits of annual status reporting by 

service providers had become 

increasingly outweighed by the burdens 

that such information collection placed 

on those entities. The Commission 

noted that the action it was taking 

would streamline ‘‘the Commission’s 

collection of information while 

continuing to fulfill the underlying 

purposes of the current reporting 

regime.’’ 

122. While the 2018 HAC Order did 

not change the reporting requirements 

for handset manufacturers, the 

Commission noted that in the 100% 

hearing aid compatibility docket it was 

considering broader changes to the 

hearing aid compatibility rules that may 

be appropriate in the event it required 

100% of covered handset models to be 

hearing aid compatible. The 

Commission indicated that the website, 

record retention, and certification 

requirements it was adopting as part of 

the 2018 HAC Order would remain in 

place unless and until the Commission 

took further action in the 100% hearing 

aid compatibility docket and that its 

decisions did not ‘‘prejudge any further 

steps we may take to modify our 

reporting rules in that proceeding.’’ 

123. Currently, handset manufacturer 

compliance filings are due by July 31 

each year and cover the reporting period 

from the previous July 1 to June 30. 

Service providers compliance filings are 

due by January 31 of each year and 

cover the previous calendar year— 

January 1 through December 31. 

124. Discussion. The Commission 

seeks comment on its tentative 

conclusions to require handset 

manufacturers to file FCC Form 855 

instead of FCC Form 655 and to align 

the filing deadline for handset 

manufacturers to the January 31 

deadline that currently applies to 

service providers. Is moving handset 

manufacturers to FCC Form 855 after 

the end of the manufacturer transition 

period consistent with a 100% hearing 

aid compatibility standard? If the 

Commission requires all handset models 

to be hearing aid compatible, would 

requiring manufacturers to submit 

information on the more detailed FCC 

Form 655 still be necessary? After the 

transition period expires, handset 

manufacturers will no longer be 

permitted to offer non-hearing-aid 

compatible handset models. Is there any 

reason why the Commission would 

need to continue to collect information 

about handset models such as the 

marketing name or model number, air 

interface, or months offered? 

125. Is it in the public interest to 

move handset manufacturers to FCC 

Form 855 once the handset 

manufacturer transition period ends? 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

relative costs and benefits of moving 

handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855 

rather than continuing to require them 

to file FCC Form 655. Would moving 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5170 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturers to FCC Form 855 be 

sufficient to emphasize to 

manufacturers the importance of 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules while reducing the burdens of 

gathering, formatting, and submitting 

data for FCC Form 655? Similarly, 

would aligning the manufacturer 

compliance filing deadline with the 

current January 31 deadline for service 

providers provide for efficiencies or 

create any difficulties for handset 

manufacturers or service providers? 

126. As discussed above, as part of its 

proposal for a 100% hearing aid 

compatibility benchmark, the 

Commission proposes to require that at 

least 85% of handset models offered 

meet a telecoil coupling requirement 

and that at least 15% of handset models 

offered meet a Bluetooth connectivity 

requirement. If the Commission adopts 

these proposed benchmarks, should it 

retain the FCC Form 655 reporting 

obligation for handset manufacturers so 

that it can monitor manufacturers’ 

compliance, or would it be sufficient to 

require manufacturers to certify that 

they are in compliance with these 

requirements and all other requirements 

by filing under penalty of perjury FCC 

Form 855 as service providers presently 

do? Given the Commission’s proposal 

that handset manufacturers would have 

to indicate on their websites which of 

their offered handset models meet 

telecoil certification standards and 

which do not, would such a 

requirement eliminate the need to 

require manufacturers to file FCC Form 

655 and allow the Commission to 

replace this requirement with a 

requirement that they file FCC Form 

855? 

127. In addition, if the Commission 

adopts its grandfathering proposal for 

the 100% requirement, handset 

manufacturers would have in their 

handset portfolios handset models 

certified under different certification 

standards, including some handset 

models certified under the 2011 ANSI 

Standard and others certified under the 

2019 ANSI Standard. Would 

maintaining the FCC Form 655 reporting 

requirement be necessary to obtain 

information about the different hearing 

aid-compatible handset models that 

manufacturers offer? In this regard, the 

Commission notes that handset 

manufacturers are required to indicate 

on their websites the ANSI standard 

under which a handset model is 

certified. Does this website posting 

requirement eliminate the need to file 

FCC Form 655 because of grandfathered 

handset models? Further, can the 

Commission gather relevant handset 

model information from equipment 

authorization reports instead of from 

FCC Form 655? 

128. Finally, if the Commission 

maintains the FCC Form 655 filing 

requirement for handset manufacturers 

after the end of the manufacturer 

transition period, are there any changes 

that the Commission should make to 

this form in regards to the information 

that the form collects? Further, are the 

any changes that the Commission 

should make to FCC Form 855 in 

regards to the information that this form 

collects either in terms of service 

providers or if it moves handset 

manufacturers to this form, too? 

3. Reliance on Accessibility 

Clearinghouse 

129. The Commission proposes to 

decline the HAC Task Force’s 

recommendation that the Commission 

permit service providers to rely on the 

information linked to in the 

Commission’s Accessibility 

Clearinghouse as a legal safe harbor 

when making a determination of 

whether a handset model is hearing aid 

compatible for purposes of meeting 

applicable benchmarks. 

130. The HAC Task Force’s Final 

Report recommends that service 

providers should be able to rely on the 

information reported in the Global 

Accessibility Reporting Initiative (GARI) 

database, which is linked at the 

Accessibility Clearinghouse website. 

The Report asserts that the GARI 

database would provide a more up-todate snapshot of hearing aid-compatible 

handset models than the annual FCC 

Form 655 report that manufacturers file. 

Presently, the Commission allows 

service providers to rely on the 

information from a handset 

manufacturer’s FCC Form 655 as a safe 

harbor. In its Public Notice, WTB sought 

comment on the HAC Task Force’s 

recommendation. MWF commented that 

its GARI website had ‘‘gained global 

recognition’’ and that the database ‘‘is 

kept up to date with the available 

devices in the marketplace.’’ MWF also 

noted that for the GARI website, ‘‘all 

manufacturer statements’’ are ‘‘subject 

to the legal requirements for accuracy of 

representations to consumers.’’ The 

HAC Task Force, in its reply, argued 

that being able to rely on the GARI 

database ‘‘will provide a user-friendly 

experience for service providers to 

receive timely information, compared to 

the Form 655 reports and Equipment 

Authorization System.’’ 

131. While handset manufacturers 

must certify to the accuracy of their FCC 

Form 655 reports, there is no similar 

requirement with respect to the 

information handset manufacturers 

submit to the GARI database. The GARI 

database is not a Commissionmaintained database, and the 

Commission does not control who can 

access the database and what 

information is added to the database. 

The Commission has no means of 

ensuring that the information in the 

GARI database is accurate, timely, or 

complete. Further, the Commission 

already allows service providers to rely 

on the information from a handset 

manufacturer’s FCC Form 655 as a safe 

harbor, and it is not convinced that it is 

necessary to allow service providers a 

second safe harbor that may not contain 

accurate information. 

132. Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes to decline the Task Force’s 

recommendation that would allow a 

service provider to rely on the 

information linked to in the 

Commission’s Accessibility 

Clearinghouse to determine whether a 

handset model is hearing aid compatible 

for the purpose of meeting applicable 

benchmarks. The Commission seeks 

comment on its proposed 

determination. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether, once the 

transition to 100% hearing aid 

compatibility is completed, its rules 

should continue to require service 

providers to either link to the GARI 

database on their publicly accessible 

websites or provide a list for the past 24 

months of hearing aid-compatible 

handset models that they no longer 

offer. 

133. The Commission also proposes to 

decline the Task Force’s 

recommendation that, if a handset 

model is not in the GARI database, the 

Commission ‘‘automatically and 

immediately upload’’ handset 

manufacturers’ FCC Form 655 reports to 

the Accessibility Clearinghouse after 

they are submitted to the Commission. 

The Commission already posts these 

reports on the Commission’s wireless 

hearing aid compatibility website and 

links to that website on the Accessibility 

Clearinghouse website. The Commission 

seeks comment on its proposed 

determinations. 

4. Contact Information for Consumers 

134. The Commission tentatively 

concludes that it should modify its 

website posting requirements to require 

handset manufacturers and service 

providers to include on their publicly 

accessible websites a point-of-contact 

for consumers to use in order to resolve 

questions they have about a company’s 

hearing aid-compatible handset models. 

Under its tentative conclusion, handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

would provide the name of a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5171 

department or a division that is staffed 

with knowledgeable employees and 

provide an email address, mailing 

address, and a toll free number that 

consumers could contact in order to 

find out information about a hearing 

aid-compatible handset model that the 

company offers or to ask questions 

about how a particular handset model 

links to the consumer’s hearing device. 

The Commission would expect 

manufacturers and service providers to 

be responsive to consumer questions 

and interact with consumers asking 

questions about hearing aid-compatible 

handset models in a manner consistent 

with the Consumer Code for Wireless 

Service that can be found on CTIA’s 

website. 

135. Section 710(a) of the Act requires 

the Commission to ‘‘establish such 

regulations as are necessary to ensure 

reasonable access to telephone service 

by persons with impaired hearing.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

requiring handset manufacturers and 

service providers to post contact 

information on their publicly accessible 

websites is necessary in order to ensure 

that consumers with hearing loss have 

reasonable access to telephone service. 

The Commission believes such a 

requirement might be beneficial to 

consumers in terms of getting their 

questions answered and may help 

handset manufacturers and service 

providers sell new handsets and 

services. Further, by requiring the 

contact information to be provided on 

publicly accessible websites, the 

information can be easily updated and 

is readily accessible to the public; a 

provider’s website is also a place the 

public reasonably expects to find 

contact information for these types of 

inquiries. The Commission’s website 

posting rules require websites to be 

updated within 30 days of a change. 

136. The Commission seeks comment 

on its tentative conclusion that handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

should be required to include contact 

information on their publicly accessible 

websites that consumers can use 

regarding questions that they might 

have on a company’s hearing aidcompatible handset models. How can 

the Commission ensure that handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

display contact information in a 

uniform fashion and in a uniform 

location on their websites? Should the 

Commission require that this 

information be provided on the first 

page of their hearing aid compatibility 

web pages and in a particular location 

on this page, such as the upper righthand corner? Should the Commission 

require that this information be labeled 

as HAC Contact Information or 

something similar? How can the 

Commission ensure that consumers can 

easily find the required contact 

information, and should the 

Commission require additional 

information to be provided beyond what 

it is proposing? 

137. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to require handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

both to provide this contact information 

on their publicly accessible websites, 

and also to provide this contact 

information in their FCC Form 655 and 

855 filings. Under this alternative, the 

Commission would modify these forms 

to provide a space where this contact 

information would be provided. These 

forms contain certification requirements 

to ensure the accuracy of the 

information that is provided; however, 

the forms are only due once a year and 

are not required to be updated within 30 

days of a change as the Commission’s 

website posting rule requires. Further, 

consumers might not be aware of these 

forms or where to access them but are 

likely familiar with company websites 

and understand how to access them. 

Moreover, consumers would expect to 

find this type of contact information on 

a company website. 

138. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it should 

require handset manufacturers and 

service providers to enter the required 

contact information in a Commissionmaintained database. Under this 

approach, the Commission would create 

a database that would contain company 

point-of-contact information for 

consumers who have hearing aid 

compatibility questions related to a 

company’s hearing aid-compatible 

handset models that they offer. 

Companies would be required to enter 

their contact information for hearing aid 

compatibility questions directly into the 

database and to update their contact 

information within 30 days of any 

changes. This database would operate 

similarly to the Commission’s 

Recordkeeping Compliance Certification 

and Contact Information Registry. This 

database could be used to search for a 

company’s representatives who are 

knowledgeable about the company’s 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

that they offer and could answer 

consumer questions related to these 

models. 

139. Commenters supporting or 

opposing the above approaches should 

explain why these proposals are 

consistent or inconsistent with statutory 

requirements. In addition, commenters 

should explain why these proposals are 

or are not in the public interest and 

what the costs and benefits of each of 

these proposals are. Is the Commission’s 

website posting approach more 

beneficial to consumers in terms of 

getting questions answered and to 

companies in terms of selling new 

handsets and services then the other 

approaches outlined above? Are 

consumers familiar with FCC Form 655 

and 855 filings, and do they know 

where to find these filings and how to 

access them? From a consumer’s 

perspective is it necessary for 

consumers to be able to find this contact 

information on the certification forms or 

is being able to locate it on a company’s 

website sufficient? Is the website 

posting approach more consumer 

friendly than adding the contact 

information to FCC Forms 655 and 855 

or the database approach? If the 

Commission adopts a database 

approach, how would consumers know 

about the database or where to find it? 

Are consumers more likely to go to a 

company’s website before exploring 

other options? Further, is there an 

existing Commission database that is 

accessible to consumers that the 

Commission could utilize for purposes 

of requiring handset manufacturers and 

service providers to list customer 

service contact information? 

140. Finally, the Commission 

proposes to delete the last sentence of 

§ 20.19(j) which provides that for state 

enforcement purposes the procedures 

set forth in part 68, subpart E of the 

Commission’s rules should be followed. 

The rules in part 68, subpart E relate to 

sections 255, 716, and 718 of the 

Communications Act rather than section 

610 and the Commission, therefore, 

proposes to delete this sentence. 

H. Sunsetting the De Minimis Exception 

141. In view of its tentative 

conclusion to require 100% of handset 

models to be hearing aid compatible 

after the expiration of the relevant 

transition periods, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that it should 

remove the de minimis exception in 

§ 20.19(e) of the Commission’s rules. 

Under this tentative conclusion, once 

the applicable transition periods expire 

handset manufacturers and service 

providers will no longer be able to claim 

de minimis status. 

142. Section 20.19(e) provides a de 

minimis exception to hearing aid 

compatibility obligations for those 

manufacturers and mobile service 

providers that only offer a small number 

of handset models. Specifically, section 

20.19(e)(1) provides that manufacturers 

and service providers offering two 

handset models or fewer in the United 

States over an air interface are exempt 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5172 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

from the requirements of § 20.19, other 

than the reporting requirement. Section 

20.19(e)(2) provides that manufacturers 

or service providers that offer three 

handset models over an air interface 

must offer at least one compliant model. 

Section 20.19(e)(3) provides that 

manufacturers or service providers that 

offer four or five handset models in an 

air interface must offer at least two 

handset models that are hearing aid 

compatible in that air interface. 

143. The Commission first adopted 

the de minimis rule together with the 

initial wireless hearing aid 

compatibility requirements in 2003, 

based on its recognition that the hearing 

aid compatibility requirements could 

have a disproportionate impact on small 

manufacturers or those that sell only a 

small number of digital wireless handset 

models in the United States, as well as 

on service providers that offer only a 

small number of digital wireless handset 

models. In the 2005 HAC Order, the 

Commission clarified that the de 

minimis rule applies on a per air 

interface basis, rather than across a 

manufacturer’s or service provider’s 

entire product line. In 2010, the 

Commission modified the de minimis 

exception as applied to companies that 

are not small entities by deciding that, 

beginning two years after it offers its 

first handset model over an air interface, 

a manufacturer or service provider that 

is not a small entity, must offer at least 

one model that is hearing aid 

compatible. 

144. The Commission seeks comment 

on its tentative conclusion to remove 

the de minimis exception to its hearing 

aid compatibility rules. Maintaining a 

de minimis exception that would permit 

a manufacturer to certify less than 100% 

of its handset models as hearing aid 

compatible or would allow a service 

provider to maintain a handset portfolio 

that is less than 100% composed of 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

would be inconsistent with the 

Commission’s objective of developing a 

100% compliance standard. While the 

de minimis exception served an 

important purpose when it was 

implemented two decades ago, today 

manufacturers and service providers are 

able to offer more easily a range of 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

using a variety of technologies including 

Bluetooth. Considering the 

developments in hearing aid 

compatibility technologies, and the 

greater availability of hearing aidcompatible handset models, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

maintaining the de minimis exception is 

necessary. Are there reasons why 

smaller manufacturers cannot certify all 

of their handset models as hearing aid 

compatible or why smaller 

manufacturers or wireless providers 

cannot ensure that all of the handset 

models that they offer are hearing aid 

compatible? Do commenters believe that 

maintaining a de minimis exception 

would still be necessary to preserve 

competitive opportunities for small 

entities? 

I. 90-Day Shot Clock for Waivers 

145. The HAC Task Force’s Final 

Report recommends that the 

Commission set a 90-day shot clock for 

the resolution of petitions for waiver of 

the hearing aid-compatibility 

requirements, which would include a 

public notice comment cycle. In the 

Public Notice on the Task Force’s 

recommendations, WTB sought 

comment on this proposal. In its reply 

comments, the Task Force reiterated its 

recommendation. No other commenters 

addressed this issue. 

146. The Commission proposes to 

decline the Task Force’s 

recommendation because it does not 

anticipate that establishing a shot clock 

would be necessary to ensure the timely 

resolution of potential future requests 

for waiver of the hearing aid 

compatibility rules or to ensure that the 

deployment of new technologies is not 

delayed. In addition, given the highly 

technical nature of the questions that 

arise in the hearing aid-compatibility 

proceedings, establishing a 90-day shot 

clock could limit public participation 

and negatively impact staff’s ability to 

work with affected stakeholders to 

develop consensus solutions that serve 

the interest of consumers with hearing 

loss. The Commission notes that not 

only is the 90-day proposal half of what 

it sought comment on, but that the 

Commission also sought comment on 

whether there are situations in which it 

should have the ability to extend the 

waiver deadline. The Commission also 

notes that section 710(f) requires the 

Commission to periodically review the 

regulations established pursuant to the 

Hearing Aid Compatibility Act. This 

statutory obligation should curtail the 

need for waivers. The Commission seeks 

comment on its proposed 

determination. 

J. Renaming Section 20.19 

147. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should revise 

the heading of § 20.19 of its rules to 

better reflect the scope of its 

requirements. Section 20.19 is currently 

titled ‘‘Hearing aid-compatible mobile 

handsets.’’ The rules, however, are 

intended to help ensure access to 

communications services for consumers 

who use hearing aids as well as other 

types of hearing devices such as 

cochlear implants and telecoils as well 

as consumers who have hearing loss but 

do not use hearing devices. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should revise the heading of § 20.19 

to better reflect the scope of the 

requirements. If so, the Commission 

seeks comment on what heading the it 

should adopt. For example, should the 

Commission rename § 20.19 to 

‘‘Accessibility for Consumers with 

Hearing Loss’’ or ‘‘Hearing Loss 

Interoperability Requirements?’’ Are 

there alternative headings the 

Commission should consider? Would 

revising the section heading create 

consumer confusion or provide needed 

clarity? 

K. Promoting Digital Equity and 

Inclusion 

148. To the extent not already 

addressed, the Commission, as part of 

its continuing effort to advance digital 

equity for all, including people of color, 

persons with disabilities, persons who 

live in rural or Tribal areas, and others 

who are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on how its inquiries 

may promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority. 

149. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated in the DATES

section above. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). All filings related to this 

document shall refer to WT Docket No. 

23–388. 

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

150. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 

(RFA), the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 

Written public comments are requested 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5173 

on this IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments provided in the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

151. The Commission’s hearing aid 

compatibility rules ensure that the 

millions of Americans with hearing loss 

will have access to the same types of 

technologically advanced telephone 

handsets as those without hearing loss. 

Both manufacturers and service 

providers, some of which are small 

entities, are required to make available 

handsets that meet specified technical 

criteria for hearing aid compatibility. 

The Commission issued the NPRM to 

develop a record relating to a proposal 

submitted by the Hearing Aid 

Compatibility (HAC) Task Force on how 

the Commission can achieve its goal of 

requiring 100% of handsets offered by 

handset manufacturers and service 

providers to be certified as hearing aid 

compatible. 

152. The NPRM tentatively concludes 

that requiring 100% of all handsets to be 

certified as hearing aid compatible is an 

achievable objective under the factors 

set forth in section 710(e) of the 

Communications Act. As part of this 

determination, the NPRM seeks 

comment on adopting the more flexible 

‘‘forward-looking’’ definition of hearing 

aid compatibility that the HAC Task 

Force recommends. This determination 

also includes a proposal to broaden the 

current definition of hearing aid 

compatibility to include Bluetooth 

connectivity technology and to require 

at least 15% of offered handset models 

to connect to hearing aids through 

Bluetooth technology as an alternative 

to or in addition to a telecoil. The NPRM 

seeks comment on the Bluetooth 

technology the Commission should 

utilize to meet this requirement and 

how to incorporate this requirement 

into the wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules. Additionally, the 

NPRM proposes a 24-month transition 

period for handset manufacturers; a 30- 

month transition period for nationwide 

service providers; and a 42-month 

transition period for non-nationwide 

service providers to transition to a 100% 

hearing aid-compatible handset 

standard for all handset models offered 

for sale in the United States or imported 

for use in the United States. The NPRM 

also seeks comment on certain 

implementation proposals and updates 

to the wireless hearing aid compatibility 

rules related to these proposals. 

B. Legal Basis 

153. The proposed action is 

authorized pursuant to sections 1–4 and 

641–646 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 

and 641–646. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Would Apply 

154. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one which: (1) is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

155. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, 

over time, may affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describe, at 

the outset, three broad groups of small 

entities that could be directly affected 

herein. First, while there are industry 

specific size standards for small 

businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 33.2 million businesses. 

156. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2020, there were approximately 

447,689 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

157. Finally, the small entity 

described as a ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as 

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census 

Bureau data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate there were 90,075 

local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number, there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal, and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, the 

Commission estimates that at least 

48,971 entities fall into the category of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

158. Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing radio and television 

broadcast and wireless communications 

equipment. Examples of products made 

by these establishments are: 

transmitting and receiving antennas, 

cable television equipment, GPS 

equipment, pagers, cellular phones, 

mobile communications equipment, and 

radio and television studio and 

broadcasting equipment. The SBA small 

business size standard for this industry 

classifies businesses having 1,250 

employees or less as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that there 

were 656 firms in this industry that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 

employees. Thus, under the SBA size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

159. Part 15 Handset Manufacturers. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

have developed a small business size 

standard specifically applicable to 

unlicensed communications handset 

manufacturers. Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing is the closest industry 

with a SBA small business size 

standard. The Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing industry is comprised of 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing radio and television 

broadcast and wireless communications 

equipment. Examples of products made 

by these establishments are: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5174 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

transmitting and receiving antennas, 

cable television equipment, GPS 

equipment, pagers, cellular phones, 

mobile communications equipment, and 

radio and television studio and 

broadcasting equipment. The SBA small 

business size standard for this industry 

classifies firms having 1,250 or fewer 

employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2017 show that there were 656 

firms in this industry that operated for 

the entire year. Of this number, 624 

firms had fewer than 250 employees. 

Thus, under the SBA size standard the 

majority of firms in this industry can be 

considered small. 

160. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The SBA size standard for this 

industry classifies a business as small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

there were 2,893 firms in this industry 

that operated for the entire year. Of that 

number, 2,837 firms employed fewer 

than 250 employees. Additionally, 

based on Commission data in the 2022 

Universal Service Monitoring Report, as 

of December 31, 2021, there were 594 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of wireless 

services. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 511 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

161. Wireless Resellers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Wireless 

Resellers. The closest industry with a 

SBA small business size standard is 

Telecommunications Resellers. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications and they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under the SBA size standard 

for this industry, a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

1,386 firms in this industry provided 

resale services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,375 firms operated with 

fewer than 250 employees. Thus, for 

this industry under the SBA small 

business size standard, the majority of 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

162. The Commission expects 

potential rule changes proposed in the 

NPRM, if adopted, could impose some 

new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements on some small 

entities. If the proposals in the NPRM 

are adopted, small and other 

manufacturers and service providers 

would be required to certify that 100% 

of handsets offered are hearing aid 

compatible. Small and other 

manufacturers’ and service providers’ 

handset portfolios would be allowed to 

meet this 100% requirement, with 

grandfathered handsets, or in the 

alternative, could be required to have 

100% of handsets meet aspects of the 

2019 ANSI Standard. Additionally, 

small and other manufacturers’ and 

service providers’ could be subject to a 

compliance requirement that 85% of 

these handsets must meet the 2019 

ANSI standard’s telecoil coupling 

requirements and the remaining 15% of 

these handsets meet a new Bluetooth 

connectivity requirement as a 

replacement for meeting the standard’s 

telecoil requirements. 

163. If adopted, the transition period 

for compliance would allow a 24-month 

transition period for handset 

manufacturers; a 30-month transition 

period for nationwide service providers; 

and a 42-month transition period for 

non-nationwide service providers, 

which are typically small entities, to 

transition to a 100% hearing aidcompatible handset standard for all 

handset models offered for sale in the 

United States or imported for use in the 

United States. 

164. In addition, small and other 

handset manufacturers could be subject 

to compliance requirements should 

certain implementation proposals and 

updates to the wireless hearing aid 

compatibility rules be adopted. For 

example, a revision to the package 

labeling provisions in section 20.19(f)(1) 

of the Commission’s rules could require 

handset manufacturers to have the 

handset package label state whether the 

handset has a telecoil that meets 

certification requirements or instead 

includes Bluetooth connectivity as a 

replacement for meeting telecoil 

certification requirements. Also, if a 

corresponding change to the package 

insert and handset manual requirements 

in section 20.19(f)(2) is adopted, 

manufacturers could be required to 

provide information in a package insert 

or user manual about whether a handset 

meets telecoil certification requirements 

or replaces this requirement with 

Bluetooth coupling ability. 

165. If the proposed rules are adopted 

small and other handset manufacturers 

and service providers would be required 

to identify on their publicly accessible 

websites which handsets in their 

handset portfolios meet telecoil 

certification requirements. For those 

handsets that do not meet telecoil 

certification requirements, handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

would be required to identify which 

Bluetooth connectivity standards these 

handsets include. Handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

would also be required to identify on 

their publicly accessible websites the 

conversational gain with and without 

hearing aids for each handset that they 

offer regardless of whether the handset 

meets telecoil certification standards or 

includes Bluetooth connectivity instead. 

166. Additionally, after the expiration 

of the manufacturer transition period, 

all handsets would be required by 

default to have their acoustic and 

volume control functions on. Handsets 

would also be allowed to I have a 

secondary mode whereby the handset’s 

telecoil is turned on or, for those 

handsets that substitute Bluetooth 

connectivity for telecoil connectivity, 

the Bluetooth function is turned on. In 

addition, proposed modifications of the 

handset package insert and user manual 

requirements could require an included 

explanation of each of these modes, 

what each mode does and does not 

include, and how to turn these settings 

on and off. In view of the proposal to 

require 100% of handsets to be hearing 

aid compatible, should it be adopted, 

the de minimis exception in section 

20.19(e) of the rules would be removed. 

167. Small entities may be required to 

hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or 

other professionals to comply with the 

rule changes proposed in the NPRM, if 

adopted. The Commission does not 

believe, however, that the costs and/or 

administrative burdens associated with 

any of the proposal rule changes will 

unduly burden small entities. While the 

Commission cannot quantify the cost of 

compliance with the potential rule 

changes and compliance obligations 

raised in the NPRM, in its discussion of 

the proposals the Commission has 

requested comments from the parties in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5175 

the proceeding including cost and 

benefit analyses which may help the 

Commission identify and evaluate 

relevant matters for small entities, such 

as compliance costs and burdens that 

may result from the proposed rules and 

the matters on which the Commission 

has requested comments. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

168. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design, standards; and (4) exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

169. In the NPRM, the Commission 

considers specific steps it could take 

and alternatives to the proposed rules 

that could minimize potential economic 

impact on small entities that might be 

affected by the proposed rule changes, 

as well as any other rule changes that 

may be required as a result of comments 

provided by interested parties. The 

Commission proposes a 24-month 

transition period for handset 

manufacturers; a 30-month transition 

period for nationwide service providers; 

and a 42-month transition period for 

non-nationwide service providers, 

which are typically small entities, to 

transition to a 100% hearing aidcompatible 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 nonnationwide providers, which are usually 

small entities. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the proposed 

transition periods are reasonable 

timeframes to allow implementation of 

the 100% compliance standard. 

Alternatively, the Commission 

considered using the longer transition 

periods recommended by the HAC Task 

Force; however, the proposal in the 

NPRM is both more in keeping with 

previous transition periods the 

Commission has utilized for new 

technical standards and serves the 

needs of consumers with hearing loss as 

soon as possible without negatively 

impacting product development cycles 

for manufacturers and service providers. 

170. To limit any potential burdens 

regarding the impact of the proposed 

transition to a 100% compliance 

standard on previously manufactured 

wireless handsets, the Commission 

proposes to allow manufacturers and 

service providers to continue to offer 

handsets that are already certified as 

hearing aid compatible as part of their 

hearing aid-compatible handset 

portfolio. Under this proposal, handsets 

would be grandfathered and 

manufacturers and service providers can 

include these handsets in their 100% 

handset portfolios as long as the 

handsets are still being offered. This 

grandfathering proposal could minimize 

the burdens associated with 

implementing the new standard for 

small entities because they would not 

have to recertify previously approved 

handsets. In developing the proposal, 

the Commission considered 

discontinuing its grandfathering rule, in 

which case 100% of the handset models 

in a manufacturer’s or service provider’s 

handset portfolio would have to be 

certified as hearing aid-compatible 

using the 2019 ANSI Standard’s 

requirements, as modified by a possible 

telecoil and Bluetooth connectivity 

split. The NPRM seeks comment from 

small and other entities on the 

economic impact of adopting such an 

approach. 

171. To reduce potential reporting 

burdens, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether to eliminate 

website and record retention 

requirements that may no longer be 

necessary if it adopts a 100% 

compliance standard. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to eliminate the requirement that service 

providers and manufacturers post or 

retain information about non hearing 

aid-compatible handsets. Additionally, 

the Commission proposes to eliminate 

the annual service reporting 

requirements for manufacturers if the 

Commission adopts a 100% compliance 

standard. Alternatively, the Commission 

considered approaches that would 

retain website and record retention 

requirements as well as annual service 

reporting requirements, but believes the 

proposed approach would better serve 

the needs of small entities for the 

reasons stated above. 

172. The Commission seeks to balance 

the potential economic impact and 

burdens that small entity manufacturers 

and service providers might face in light 

of the 100% compliance requirement 

with the need to ensure that Americans 

with hearing loss can access a wide 

array of handsets with emerging 

technologies. Therefore the NPRM seeks 

comment on alternative obligations, 

timing for implementation, and other 

measures including costs and benefits 

analyses that will allow the Commission 

to more fully consider and evaluate the 

economic impact on small entities. The 

Commission will review the comments 

filed in response to the NPRM and 

carefully consider these matters as it 

relates to small entities before adopting 

final rules in this proceeding. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

173. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

174. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 1–4 and 641–646 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154 and 641– 

646, this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is adopted. 

175. It is further ordered that WT 

Docket No. 15–285 is hereby terminated. 

176. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary, 

shall send a copy of this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, including the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20 

Incorporation by reference, 

Individuals with disabilities, 

Telecommunications, Telephones. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 20 as follows: 

PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 20 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 

155, 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 

303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 

316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, and 

615c, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 20.19 by: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5176 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(3), (c) introductory text, (c)(1) through 

(3); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (e); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (f) 

through (l) as paragraphs (e) through (k); 

■ d. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (e) introductory text, (e)(1), 

and (e)(2) introductory text; 

■ e. Adding paragraph (e)(2)(ix) to 

newly redesignated paragraph (e); 

■ f. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (g)(1); 

■ g. Adding paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (ii) 

to newly redesignated paragraph (h); 

and 

■ h. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (h)(2) introductory text, and 

(h)(2)(iv) through (vi). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile 

handsets. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Handset model compatibility on or 

after December 31, 2026. In order to 

satisfy a manufacturer or service 

provider’s obligations under paragraph 

(c) of this section, a handset model 

submitted for equipment certification or 

for a permissive change relating to 

hearing aid compatibility on or after 

December 31, 2026 must meet: 

(i) The 2019 ANSI standard’s acoustic 

coupling requirements; 

(ii) The 2019 ANSI standard’s volume 

control requirements; and 

(iii) Either the 2019 ANSI standard’s 

telecoil coupling requirements or have 

Bluetooth connectivity technology as a 

replacement for or in addition to 

meeting the standard’s telecoil coupling 

requirements. 

(iv) All such new handset models 

must by default have their acoustic and 

volume control functions on. Such 

handset models may also have a 

secondary mode whereby the handset 

model’s telecoil is turned on or, for 

those handset models that substitute 

Bluetooth connectivity for telecoil 

connectivity, the Bluetooth function is 

turned on. 

(2) Handset model compatibility 

before December 31, 2026. In order to 

satisfy a manufacturer’s or service 

provider’s obligations under paragraph 

(c) of this section, a handset model 

submitted for equipment certification or 

for a permissive change relating to 

hearing aid compatibility before 

December 31, 2026 must meet either: 

(i) The 2019 ANSI standard; or 

(ii) The 2019 ANSI standard’s 

acoustic coupling requirements, 

applicable volume control requirements, 

and either the standard’s telecoil 

coupling requirements or have 

Bluetooth connectivity technology as a 

replacement for or in addition to 

meeting the standard’s telecoil coupling 

requirements. 

(3) Handset models operating over 

multiple frequency bands or air 

interfaces 

(i) Beginning on December 31, 2026, 

a handset model is hearing aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatibility requirements. The 

following applies to each manufacturer 

and service provider that offers handset 

models used to deliver digital mobile 

services as specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(1) Manufacturers—Number of 

hearing aid-compatible handset models 

offered. After December 31, 2026, for 

each digital air interface for which it 

offers handset models in the United 

States or imported for use in the United 

States, one-hundred (100) percent of the 

handset models that the manufacturer 

offers must be certified as hearing aidcompatible. 

(i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of 

those handset models must meet the 

2019 ANSI standard’s telecoil coupling 

requirements or have been certified as 

meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a 

previous ANSI standard; and 

(ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of 

those handset models must have 

Bluetooth connectivity technology as a 

replacement for or in addition to 

meeting the 2019 ANSI standard’s 

telecoil coupling requirements or the T3 

telecoil rating under a previous ANSI 

standard. 

(2) Tier I carriers. After June 30, 2027, 

for each digital air interface for which 

it offers handset models to customers, 

one-hundred (100) percent of the 

handset models that the provider offers 

must be certified as hearing aidcompatible. 

(i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of 

those handset models must meet the 

2019 ANSI standard’s telecoil coupling 

requirements or have been certified as 

meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a 

previous ANSI standard; and 

(ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of 

those handset models must have 

Bluetooth connectivity technology as a 

replacement for or in addition to 

meeting the 2019 ANSI standard’s 

telecoil coupling requirements or the T3 

telecoil rating under a previous ANSI 

standard. 

(3) Service providers other than Tier 

I carriers. After June 30, 2028, for each 

digital air interface for which it offers 

handset models to customers, onehundred (100) percent of the handset 

models that the provider offers must be 

certified as hearing aid-compatible. 

(i) At least eighty-five (85) percent of 

those handset models must meet the 

2019 ANSI standard’s telecoil coupling 

requirements or have been certified as 

meeting the T3 telecoil rating under a 

previous ANSI standard; and 

(ii) At least fifteen (15) percent of 

those handset models must have 

Bluetooth connectivity technology as a 

replacement for or in addition to 

meeting the 2019 ANSI standard’s 

telecoil coupling requirements or the T3 

telecoil rating under a previous ANSI 

standard. 

* * * * * 

(e) Labeling and disclosure 

requirements for hearing aid-compatible 

handset models. 

(1) Package label. For all handset 

models certified to be hearing aidcompatible, manufacturers and service 

providers shall ensure that the handset 

model’s package label states that the 

handset model is hearing aidcompatible 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5177 

consumers through the use of digital 

labeling (e.g., a QR Code) on the handset 

model’s package label, or through the 

use of a package insert, or in the handset 

model’s user manual: 

* * * * * 

(ix) Where applicable, an explanation 

that the handset model does not meet 

telecoil certification requirements and 

instead couples with hearing aids using 

a Bluetooth connectivity standard and 

provide the name of that Bluetooth 

standard. This explanation should also 

indicate that the handset model will, by 

default, have its acoustic and volume 

control functions on and that it may also 

have a secondary mode whereby the 

handset model’s telecoil is turned on or, 

for those handset models that substitute 

Bluetooth connectivity for telecoil 

connectivity, the Bluetooth function is 

turned on. The explanation must 

include an explanation of each of these 

modes, what each mode does and does 

not include, and how to turn these 

settings on and off. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Each manufacturer and service 

provider that operates a publiclyaccessible 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible and non-hearing aidcompatible model currently offered. 

(ii) In addition, each manufacturer 

and service provider must identify on 

their publicly accessible websites, for all 

handset models in their handset 

portfolios that are certified as hearing 

aid compatible under (b) of this section, 

which of those handset models meet 

telecoil certification requirements and 

which have Bluetooth connectivity 

technology. For those handset models 

that do not meet telecoil certification 

requirements, each manufacturer and 

service provider must affirmatively state 

that the handset model does not meet 

the telecoil certification requirements. 

For handset models that have Bluetooth 

connectivity technology as a 

replacement to or in addition to telecoil, 

manufacturers and service providers 

must identify which Bluetooth 

connectivity standards these handset 

models include. 

(iii) Each handset manufacturer and 

service provider must identify on their 

publicly accessible websites the 

conversational gain with and without 

hearing aids for each handset model 

certified as hearing aid compatible that 

they offer regardless of whether the 

handset model meets telecoil 

certification standards or includes 

Bluetooth connectivity instead. 

(iv) Each handset manufacturer and 

service provider must include on its 

website a point-of-contact for consumers 

to use in order to resolve questions they 

have about a company’s hearing aidcompatible handset models. Handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

must provide the name of a department 

or a division that is staffed with 

knowledgeable employees and provide 

an email address, mailing address, and 

a toll free number that consumers could 

contact to find out information about a 

hearing aid-compatible handset model 

that the company offers or to ask 

questions about how a particular 

handset model couples with the 

consumer’s hearing device. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) On or after December 31, 2026, 

manufacturers and service providers 

shall submit Form 855 certifications on 

their compliance with the requirements 

of this section by January 31 of each 

year. Information in each certification 

and report must be up-to-date as of the 

last day of the calendar month 

preceding the due date of each 

certification and report. 

(ii) Before December 31, 2026, service 

providers shall submit Form 855 

certifications on their compliance with 

the requirements of this section by 

January 31 of each year. Manufacturers 

shall submit Form 655 reports on their 

compliance with the requirements of 

this section by July 31 of each year. 

Information in each certification and 

report must be up-to-date as of the last 

day of the calendar month preceding the 

due date of each certification and report. 

(2) Content of manufacturer and 

service provider certifications. 

Certifications filed by service providers 

and manufacturers must include: 

* * * * * 

(iv) If the company is subject to 

paragraph (g) of this section, the website 

address of the page(s) containing the 

required information regarding handset 

models; 

(v) The percentage of handset models 

offered that are hearing aid-compatible 

(companies will derive this percentage 

by determining the number of hearing 

aid-compatible handset models offered 

across all air interfaces during the year 

divided by the total number of handset 

models offered during the year); and 

(vi) The following language: 

I am a knowledgeable executive [of 

company x] regarding compliance with 

the Federal Communications 

Commission’s wireless hearing aid 

compatibility requirements as a 

company covered by those 

requirements. 

I certify that the company was [(in full 

compliance/not in full compliance)] 

[choose one] at all times during the 

applicable time period with the 

Commission’s wireless hearing aid 

compatibility handset model 

deployment benchmarks and all other 

relevant wireless hearing aid 

compatibility requirements. 

The company represents and 

warrants, and I certify by this 

declaration under penalty of perjury 

pursuant to 47 CFR 1.16 that the above 

certification is consistent with 47 CFR 

1.17, which requires truthful and 

accurate statements to the Commission. 

The company also acknowledges that 

false statements and misrepresentations 

to the Commission are punishable under 

Title 18 of the U.S. Code and may 

subject it to enforcement action 

pursuant to Sections 501 and 503 of the 

Act. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–00414 Filed 1–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 02–278, 21–402; FCC 23– 

107; FR ID 194251] 

Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful 

Text Messages; Implementation of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on several 

issues. First, the Commission proposes 

a text blocking requirement following 

Commission notification and seeks 

comment on other options for requiring 

providers to block unwanted or illegal 

texts. Second, the Commission seeks 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1