`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89832-89868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25088]



[[Page 89831]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 219

November 13, 2024

Part III





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 20





Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 89832]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 23-388; FCC 24-112; FR ID 257122]


Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid Compatibility

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(``Commission'') adopts a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement 
that applies to all future wireless handset models offered for sale or 
use in the United States and implementation provisions related to this 
100% requirement, including a Bluetooth coupling requirement.

DATES: Effective December 13, 2024, except for amendatory instructions 
3 and 4 which are delayed indefinitely. The Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective dates of 
these amendments. The incorporation by reference of certain 
publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register as of June 3, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli Johnson, [email protected], 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure Policy 
Division, (202) 418-1395.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, in WT Docket No. 23-388; FCC 24-112, adopted October 17, 
2024, and released on October 18, 2024. The full text of the document 
is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-112A1.pdf. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, 
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format, etc.), and reasonable accommodations (accessible format 
documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) may be requested by 
sending an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530. 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 prepared a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule 
changes contained in this final rule.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. The requirements in revised Sec.  
20.19(b)(3)(iii), (f), (h), and (i)(4) and (5) constitute new or 
modified collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. They will be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the 
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements 
contained in this proceeding. This document will be submitted to OMB 
for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. In addition, the 
Commission notes that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, it previously sought, but did not receive, specific 
comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees. The Commission describes impacts that might affect small 
businesses, which includes more businesses with fewer than 25 
employees, in the FRFA.
    Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
Commission will include a copy of the Report and Order in a report sent 
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    Synopsis:

I. Introduction

    In this final rule, we advance our goal of ensuring that all 
Americans can access communications services on an equal basis by 
fulfilling the Commission's longstanding commitment to establish a 100% 
hearing aid compatibility requirement that applies to all future 
wireless handset models offered for sale or use in the United States. 
By our actions in this final rule, 48 million Americans with hearing 
loss will be able to choose among the same handset models that are 
available to consumers without hearing loss. No longer will they be 
limited in their choice of technologies, features, and prices available 
in the handset model marketplace. Further, our rules will encourage 
handset manufacturers to move away from proprietary Bluetooth coupling 
standards and ensure more universal connectivity between handset models 
and hearing aids, including over-the-counter hearing aids. In order to 
ensure that older hearing aid compatible handset models, which tend to 
be lower priced, continue to be available for consumers to purchase, we 
provide for a phase-out period while these handset models are gradually 
replaced with new handset models that meet the latest certification 
standards. In addition, we strengthen wireless handset accessibility to 
encompass not only compatibility that benefits consumers who use 
hearing aids, but also a 100% volume control requirement for new 
handsets that benefits all consumers with hearing loss. Finally, we 
adopt revised labeling and website posting requirements that allow 
consumers to have access to the information that they need to make 
informed handset model purchasing decisions.
    The revisions that we adopt to our hearing aid compatibility rules 
are based in part on the collaborative efforts of members of the 
Hearing Aid Compatibility Task Force (HAC Task Force), who worked 
together over a period of years to reach a consensus on how the 
Commission could achieve its long held goal of a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility benchmark for all handset models offered for sale or use 
in the United States. The HAC Task Force, an independent organization 
composed of groups who represent the interests of people with hearing 
loss, wireless service providers, and wireless handset manufacturers, 
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 HAC Task Force's Final 
Report represents consensus recommendations for how the Commission can 
achieve this objective.
    We are committed to continuing to ensure that our wireless hearing 
aid compatibility provisions evolve to keep pace with technological 
advances in the ways handset models pair with hearing aids, and we will 
continue to monitor and update our hearing aid compatibility rules as 
circumstances warrant.
    The ANSI C63.19 standards, developed by IEEE, are referenced in the

[[Page 89833]]

amendatory text (Sec.  20.19) of this document; they were previously 
approved for incorporation by reference in that section.

II. Summary

    Based on the HAC Task Force's recommendations and the record in 
this proceeding, we determine that requiring 100% of all handset models 
to be certified as hearing aid-compatible is consistent with section 
710(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, amended. As part of this 
determination, we adopt the forward-looking definition of hearing aid 
compatibility that the HAC Task Force recommends, and we incorporate 
this definition into our rules. In order to keep pace with consumer 
pairing preferences, we adopt a coupling requirement based on Bluetooth 
technology standards that meet the requirements of our expanded 
definition of hearing aid compatibility and certain functional 
requirements. Further, as we proposed in the 100% HAC Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (100% HAC NPRM), 89 FR 5152 (January 26, 2024), we 
require handset manufacturers to transition to our 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement within a 24-month transition period and 
nationwide service providers to do so within a 30-month transition 
period. We will allow non-nationwide service providers to transition to 
our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement over a 42-month 
transition period. These robust transition periods will ensure that 
consumers with hearing loss promptly receive the benefits of our 100% 
hearing aid compatibility requirement.
    After the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition 
period ends, all handset models offered for sale or use in the United 
States must be hearing aid-compatible. Any non-hearing aid compatible 
handset models cannot obtain a certification under 47 CFR part 2, 
subpart J, and handset manufacturers and service providers must remove 
all non-hearing aid-compatible handset models from their portfolios 
without exceptions. Further, after passage of the relevant transition 
period, handset manufacturers and service providers must ensure that 
each handset model in their portfolios has at least two ways to pair 
with hearing aids. Specifically, after the relevant transition period 
is completed, 100% of all handset models in a portfolio must meet 
acoustic coupling standards and 85% of these same handset models must 
also meet telecoil coupling standards. The remaining 15% of these 
handset models must meet our new Bluetooth coupling requirement, along 
with acoustic standards; these handsets may also contain telecoils, but 
they are not required to include them.
    We also adopt a 48-month transition period to a non-proprietary 
Bluetooth coupling requirement. During this 48-month transition period, 
handset manufacturers and service providers may meet our 15% Bluetooth 
coupling requirement using either proprietary or non-proprietary 
Bluetooth coupling technology. Once the 48-month transition period 
expires, only non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets 
our new definition of hearing aid compatibility and specified Bluetooth 
functionality requirements will satisfy our 15% Bluetooth coupling 
requirement. The non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology must be 
completely independent of proprietary standards and could be met, for 
example, by using such standards as Bluetooth Low Energy Audio 
(Bluetooth LE Audio) and the related Bluetooth Hearing Access Profile 
(Bluetooth HAP). Our approach will benefit consumers by ensuring more 
universal connectivity between handset models and hearing aids, 
including over-the-counter hearing aids, and will help to address the 
issue of certain handset models only being able to pair with certain 
hearing aids.
    After the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period 
ends, any new handset model that handset manufacturers and service 
providers add to their handset model portfolios must meet applicable 
volume control requirements, as well as the other technical 
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard that is currently used for 
certification purposes. The volume control requirement may be met using 
the volume control waiver standard adopted by the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) in September 2023 (``HAC Waiver 
Order''), 88 FR 70891 (October 13, 2023), as long as it remains in 
effect. This decision to impose a 100% volume control benchmark on 
handset models added to handset model portfolios after the applicable 
100% hearing aid compatibility transition period ends allows handset 
manufacturers and service providers to continue to offer handset models 
certified under the 2011 ANSI Standard or older standards. Handset 
manufacturers and service providers will be able to count as hearing 
aid-compatible those handset models certified under the 2011 ANSI 
Standard or older standards for handset model deployment purposes as 
long as those handset models were being offered for sale or use in the 
United States prior to the expiration of the relevant 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period. Rather than requiring handset models 
certified under the 2011 ANSI Standard or older standards to be removed 
from handset model portfolios, these handset models will be gradually 
replaced with new handset models that meet 2019 ANSI Standard 
requirements, including volume control requirements, through the 
typical handset model product cycle. This approach will ensure that 
older hearing aid compatible handset models, which tend to be lower 
priced, continue to be available for consumers to consider for purchase 
during the remaining product cycle.
    In addition to the above handset model requirements, we adopt other 
updates and revisions to our wireless hearing aid compatibility rules 
that are consistent with our decision to adopt a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement and the related handset model deployment 
benchmarks and transition periods. These changes include:
     After the expiration of the handset manufacturer 100% 
hearing aid compatibility transition period, handset manufacturers must 
ensure that all new handset models by default come out-of-the-box with 
acoustic coupling and volume control certification requirements fully 
turned on. We will allow, however, secondary settings to turn on the 
handset model's telecoil or Bluetooth coupling functions, depending on 
the secondary capability included in a particular handset model.
     We revise our handset model external printed package label 
requirements and our related requirements concerning information that 
must be included within the handset model's packaging in the form of 
either a printed insert or a printed handset manual. We update these 
requirements to reflect our new coupling standards to ensure that 
consumers are fully informed about the pairing capabilities of handset 
models they are considering for purchase.
     We continue to require the use of external printed package 
labels, but will allow the information that must be included within a 
handset model's packaging, either in the form of a printed insert or a 
printed handset manual, to be delivered using digital labeling 
technology as long as companies choosing this option maintain publicly 
accessible websites where consumers can easily locate the required 
information and the information is presented in a straight-forward 
fashion using plain language. Handset manufacturers and service 
providers choosing this option must provide consumers with both a 
Quick-

[[Page 89834]]

Response (QR) code and the related website address where the required 
information can be found.
     We determine that in cases where a handset manufacturer or 
service provider recertifies a handset model using an updated 
certification standard, the company does not need to assign the handset 
model a new model number designation, unless the handset model's 
hardware or software has been physically altered in form, features, or 
capabilities in order to meet the requirements of the new certification 
standard.
     As part of our implementation of a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement, we revise our website posting and record 
retention requirements to ensure that handset manufacturers and service 
providers comply with our new standard and to ensure that consumers 
have access to the information that they need to make informed 
purchasing decisions.
     After the handset manufacturer's 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period ends, we will eliminate FCC Form 655 
that handset manufacturers currently file for reporting purposes and 
instead require handset manufacturers to annually file FCC Form 855 for 
compliance purposes. Beginning at the time handset manufacturers start 
filing FCC Form 855, we will align their compliance filing deadline and 
reporting period for this form with those used for service providers 
who will continue to annually file this form, as updated to reflect our 
new hearing aid compatibility requirements.
     We decline to adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendation 
that we permit service providers to rely on the information linked to 
in the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse as a legal safe harbor 
for purposes of meeting handset model deployment benchmarks. We further 
decline to adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendation that we establish 
a 90-day shot clock for resolving hearing aid compatibility waiver 
requests.
     We require handset manufacturers and service providers to 
post on their publicly accessible websites point-of-contact information 
that consumers can use to contact knowledgeable company employees with 
hearing aid compatibility questions about the company's handset models.
     We eliminate the de minimis exception in our hearing aid 
compatibility rules for handset manufacturers and service providers 
using a three-step process that is consistent with the 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition periods.
     We revise the heading of Sec.  20.19 of our rules from 
``Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets'' to ``Hearing loss compatible 
wireless handsets,'' or ``HLC'' for short, in order to ensure that the 
heading more accurately reflects the scope of the section.
     Finally, we determine that our decision to adopt a 100% 
hearing aid compatibility requirement is consistent with and furthers 
our goal to advance digital equity and inclusion for all.

III. Background

    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, 81 FR 60625 (September 2, 2016), 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 and related 
transition periods. In October 2018, the handset model deployment 
benchmark for handset manufacturers increased to 66%, and in October 
2021 it increased to 85%. Similarly, in April 2019 the handset model 
deployment benchmark for nationwide service providers increased to 66%, 
and in April 2022 it increased to 85%. Likewise, in April 2020 the 
handset model deployment benchmark for non-nationwide service providers 
increased to 66%, and in April 2023 it increased to 85%. Currently, the 
generally applicable handset model deployment benchmark is 85% for 
handset manufacturers and service providers, unless they qualify for de 
minimis status.
    In that 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 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 added 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, stakeholders convened the independent 
HAC Task Force and filed progress updates with the Commission.
    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, 83 FR 8624 
(February 28, 2018), 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 adopted 
a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. 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.''
    In February 2021, the Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard for 
determining hearing aid compatibility (86 FR 23614 (May 4, 2021)). The 
2019 ANSI Standard was to replace the existing 2011 ANSI Standard after 
a 24-month 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 incorporates by reference the 
TIA 5050 Standard that addresses volume control requirements

[[Page 89835]]

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.''
    In December 2022, the HAC Task Force filed with the Commission its 
Final Report, 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.
    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 HAC 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.
    On March 23, 2023, WTB released a Public Notice in WT Docket No. 
15-285 seeking comment on the HAC Task Force's Final Report (DA 23-
251). 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. The Commission 
received three comments and three replies in response to the Public 
Notice.
    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 (88 FR 25286 (April 26, 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 was essential as the Commission moves to its 
goal of all handset models being hearing aid compatible.
    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 (88 FR 70891 (October 13, 2023)). 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 HAC Waiver Order as well as all 
other aspects of the 2019 ANSI Standard. This waiver will remain in 
place for 24 months from the release date of the Order to allow time 
for the development of a new, full volume control standard and for its 
incorporation into the wireless hearing aid compatibility rules.
    Subsequently, on December 14, 2023, the Commission released a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (100% HAC NPRM) seeking to develop a 
record with respect to the HAC Task Force's proposal on how the 
Commission can achieve its long held goal of a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility benchmark for all handset models offered for sale or use 
in the United States. The 100% HAC NPRM proposed to adopt the HAC Task 
Force's proposal with certain modifications in order to ensure that all 
handset models provide full accessibility for those with hearing loss 
while at the same time ensuring that our rules not discourage or impair 
the development of improved technology. Specifically, the 100% HAC NPRM 
tentatively concluded 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 100% HAC NPRM sought comment on 
adopting the more flexible ``forward-looking'' definition of hearing 
aid compatibility that the HAC Task Force recommends, and proposed to 
broaden the current definition of hearing aid compatibility to include 
Bluetooth coupling technology, and to require at least 15% of offered 
handset models to pair with hearing aids through Bluetooth coupling 
technology. The 100% HAC NPRM sought comment on the Bluetooth coupling 
technology that the Commission should adopt to meet this requirement 
and how it should incorporate this requirement into the Commission's 
hearing aid compatibility rules.
    Further, the 100% HAC NPRM explored ways to reach the 100% hearing 
aid compatibility benchmark and proposed 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 compatibility 
requirement for all handset models offered for sale or use in the 
United States. In addition, the 100% HAC NPRM sought comment on certain 
implementation proposals and updates to the hearing aid compatibility 
rules related to the proposed 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement. These proposals included 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 revising the heading of Sec.  20.19 of the 
Commission's rules to better reflect the scope of its requirements.

IV. Discussion

A. Establishing a 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirement

    We find that establishing a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement for all handset models offered for sale or use in the 
United States meets the requirements of section 710(e) of the 
Communications Act. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we stated that we would use a 
section 710(e) analysis to evaluate whether a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement is achievable, and we tentatively concluded 
that requiring 100% of all handset models to be certified as hearing 
aid-compatible is an achievable objective. In reaching this tentative 
conclusion, we noted that the Commission had previously decided that it 
would make a determination of whether a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement is achievable utilizing a section 710(e) analysis.
    We find that section 710(e) provides the appropriate standard for 
evaluating whether 100% hearing aid compatibility is an achievable 
objective. The Commission has used a section 710(e) analysis when 
considering whether to adjust handset model deployment benchmarks. 
Continuing to use this standard to determine whether to adopt a 100% 
hearing aid compatibility

[[Page 89836]]

requirement is consistent with Commission precedent, and the record 
supports our decision. Commenters agree that adopting a 100% hearing 
aid compatibility requirement is consistent with the requirements of 
section 710(e) and that adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement will benefit consumers with hearing loss. Further, 
commenters state that adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement will encourage the use of currently available technology 
and will not discourage or impair the development of improved 
technology.
    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.'' Section 
710(e) 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.
    We find that the benefits of adopting a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement for all handset models offered for sale or 
use in the United States will exceed the costs. As the record reflects, 
a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement will provide significant 
benefits to those with hearing loss by ensuring that all handset models 
offered for sale or use in the United States are hearing aid-compatible 
rather than only a certain percentage of these handset models. Under 
this final rule, consumers with hearing loss will be able to consider 
any handset model for purchase rather than just a limited number of 
handset models. We agree with Accessibility Advocates that, given that 
two-thirds of all households are wireless only and that most people, 
including those with hearing loss, rely solely on wireless handsets for 
their telecommunication needs, a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement has become essential. Further, we do not anticipate any 
costs for those with or without hearing loss if non-compliant handset 
models are discontinued, considering the overwhelming share of wireless 
handset models already meet acoustic and telecoil standards and most 
include some form of Bluetooth coupling technology. In addition, given 
our decision below to allow the grandfathering of existing hearing aid-
compatible handset models, we do not find that our 100% compliance 
standard will reduce the affordability of lowest-cost handset models or 
adversely affect low-income persons.
    With respect to the costs and benefits for handset manufacturers 
and service providers, Accessibility Advocates and the Competitive 
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) state that the benefits 
of a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement will exceed its costs 
for these types of companies. We find that the costs to handset 
manufacturers and service providers should be minimally different than 
they are now. The vast majority of new handset models are already 
hearing aid-compatible, and, in fact, the great majority of handset 
manufacturers and service providers are already at the 100% standard. 
The HAC Task Force states that as of August 2022, about 93% of wireless 
handset models offered by manufacturers were already certified as 
hearing aid-compatible under the 2011 ANSI Standard or an older ANSI 
standard, which exceeds the benchmarks in the Commission's current 
rules.
    In addition, as required by section 710(e), we find that a 100% 
compliance standard will encourage the use of currently available 
technology and will not discourage or impair the development of 
improved technology. The HAC Task Force, Accessibility Advocates, and 
CTIA agree with this conclusion. Handset manufacturers, service 
providers, and consumer organizations that compose the HAC Task Force 
all unanimously support its consensus proposal for achieving 100% 
compliance. The HAC Task Force's Final Report and the record in this 
proceeding provides no indication or evidence that adopting this new 
standard will discourage the use of currently available coupling 
technologies, such as acoustic and telecoil coupling, or the 
development of improved coupling technologies. Further, as discussed 
below and consistent with the HAC Task Force's recommendation, we are 
adopting a new Bluetooth coupling requirement that commenters indicate 
will encourage the use of currently available Bluetooth coupling 
technology and the development of new and advanced Bluetooth coupling 
technology.
    Further, we conclude that adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
compliance standard in conjunction with the transition periods and 
handset model deployment benchmarks that we adopt below is consistent 
with the requirements of section 710(e) The transition periods that we 
adopt below will allow sufficient time to expand access to hearing aid-
compatible handset models while giving handset manufacturers and 
service providers sufficient notice and lead time to build hearing aid 
compatibilities into all future handset models rather than into just a 
certain percentage of future handset models. Handset manufacturers are 
familiar with the 2019 ANSI Standard, which is the exclusive testing 
standard for determining capability. Handset manufacturers are already 
using this standard to certify new handset models as hearing aid 
compatible. Similarly, the new Bluetooth coupling requirement allows 
handset manufacturers to continue to use Bluetooth coupling technology 
that they already include in their current handset models. As a result, 
the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods that we adopt 
below take into consideration technical feasibility and will ensure a 
smooth transition to a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement.
    Finally, the handset model deployment benchmarks we adopt below 
take into consideration that, while many consumers prefer Bluetooth 
over telecoil coupling, there are still those who prefer telecoil 
coupling. Our handset model deployment benchmarks ensure the 
marketability of new handset models by adopting the HAC Task Force's 
recommendation on the appropriate split between future handset models 
that should be required to include Bluetooth coupling technology and 
those that should be required to include telecoils. In addition, the 
Bluetooth coupling functionality requirements that we adopt below will 
encourage the development of advanced Bluetooth coupling technologies 
that will further benefit consumers with hearing loss. As a result, we 
find that our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement properly 
considers technical feasibility and ensures the marketability and 
availability of new hearing aid compatibility technology.

B. Expanding the Definition of Hearing Aid Compatibility

    We adopt the HAC Task Force's expanded definition of hearing aid 
compatibility, which defines a hearing aid-compatible handset model as: 
(1) having an internal means for compatibility; (2) meets established 
technical standards for hearing aid coupling or compatibility; and (3) 
is usable. Further, we adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendations on 
how we

[[Page 89837]]

should define each of these terms. This expanded definition of hearing 
aid compatibility allows us to continue to use ANSI certification 
standards that we incorporate by reference into our hearing aid 
compatibility rules to objectively measure acoustic, telecoil, and 
volume control compatibility. Further, this revised definition allows 
us to adopt a coupling requirement that is based on Bluetooth coupling 
technologies that meet certain functional requirements that we 
expressly incorporate into the Commission's hearing aid compatibility 
rules without also expressly incorporating a specific Bluetooth 
coupling technology, such as Bluetooth LE Audio and the related 
Bluetooth HAP standards.
    In the 100% HAC NPRM, we observed that our existing hearing aid 
compatibility rules do not contain an express definition of hearing aid 
compatibility in the definition section of the rules. Rather, we stated 
that our hearing aid compatibility rules provide that a handset model 
is considered to be hearing aid-compatible if it has been certified as 
such under a Commission-approved technical standard that the Commission 
has expressly incorporated by reference into the hearing aid 
compatibility rules through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. 
In the 100% HAC NPRM, we sought comment on defining 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 the rules. 
Specifically, we sought comment on whether we should adopt what the HAC 
Task Force calls a more forward-looking, flexible definition of hearing 
aid compatibility that reflects changing coupling technologies. This 
definition would 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.
    Commenters urge us to adopt the HAC Task Force's flexible and 
forward-looking revised definition of hearing aid compatibility. In its 
comments, the HAC Task Force asserts that this revised definition of 
hearing aid compatibility benefits consumers with hearing loss and 
meets the needs of handset manufacturers and service providers. We find 
that this revised definition of hearing aid compatibility allows the 
Commission's rules to keep pace with evolving coupling technologies and 
to ensure that consumers with hearing loss have access to the latest 
handset models with the most current coupling technology. Further, we 
find this revised definition is consistent with our 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement because it allows for a wider range of 
coupling technologies. As discussed below, it permits us to mandate a 
Bluetooth coupling requirement without specifying a specific Bluetooth 
coupling technology and gives us the ability to expand our coupling 
requirements in the future without having to incorporate a specific 
coupling standard into the hearing aid compatibility rules, as the 
Commission presently does with respect to acoustic, telecoil, and 
volume control certification requirements.
    We also adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendations for defining 
each of the terms that comprise the three parts of our new definition 
of hearing aid compatibility. Commenters support this approach, 
asserting that the revised definition should be broadly construed to 
ensure increased innovation that meets the needs of consumers with 
hearing loss. Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) states that in 
order to ensure the strongest compatibility framework, the definition 
must allow for the express incorporation of alternative and innovative 
coupling technologies.
    Part 1: ``Having an Internal Means of Compatibility.'' We adopt the 
HAC Task Force's recommendation that we define ``having an internal 
means for compatibility'' to mean that the compatibility 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 the same manufacturer. This definition is consistent 
with section 710(b)(1) of the Communications Act which requires the 
Commission to ensure that handset models have an internal means for 
effective use with hearing aids. Further, this definition is consistent 
with the Commission's past interpretation of this statutory language. 
In the 2003 HAC Order, 68 FR 54173 (September 16, 2003), the Commission 
interpreted this statutory language 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. Further, the Commission stated that 
many consumers find the use of accessory devices such as neck loops or 
hands-free headsets to be unduly restrictive because they are 
cumbersome, inconvenient, and expensive.
    Accessibility Advocates and the Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) 
recognize that this definition of internal compatibility is consistent 
with our current requirements concerning acoustic and telecoil 
connectivity, as well as volume control functionality, because these 
forms of hearing aid compatibility are built into handset models. 
Further, Accessibility Advocates state that relying on external 
compatibility solutions does not give consumers with hearing loss equal 
access to the functionality of handset models that internal solutions 
provide. Accessibility Advocates also state that external wireless 
solutions have never been construed as providing ``equal access'' and 
should not be now. We agree. As required by section 710(b)(1), we will 
continue to require that hearing aid capability features in handset 
models provide an internal means for effective use with hearing aids.
    Part 2: ``Meets Established Technical Standards for Hearing Aid 
Coupling or Compatibility.'' We also adopt the HAC Task Force's 
recommendation for how we should define the term ``meets established 
technical standards for hearing aid coupling or compatibility.'' Like 
the first part of our expanded definition of hearing aid compatibility, 
this part of our revised definition also incorporates the requirements 
of section 710(b)(1) of the Communications Act. This section requires 
the Commission to ensure that handsets must meet established technical 
standards for effective use of handset models with hearing aids. The 
Commission interprets this directive to require that handset models 
work with hearing aids through built-in functionality that is testable 
to a technical standard to ensure that the compatibility can be 
objectively measured. The Commission's current rules utilize ANSI 
standards to satisfy this requirement, which the Commission has 
incorporated by reference into the hearing aid compatibility rules. 
ANSI standards provide measurement methodologies and performance 
criteria testing requirements that are used to objectively measure 
acoustic and telecoil connectivity and volume control functionality.
    The HAC Task Force acknowledges that the reference to established 
technical standards in our expanded definition of hearing aid 
compatibility allows the Commission to continue to rely on ANSI 
standards as currently provided in Sec.  20.19(b) of the Commission's 
rules. The Commission

[[Page 89838]]

has recognized, however, that section 710(e) of the Communications Act 
requires that the Commission's regulations not discourage or impair the 
development of improved technology. It is with this statutory directive 
in mind that we expand our definition of hearing aid compatibility to 
allow for the use of technical standards that require the effective use 
of handset models with hearing aids that the Commission does not 
specifically incorporate by reference into the hearing aid 
compatibility rules. In these circumstances, the Commission will ensure 
effective use by adopting functionality requirements that include 
performance requirements. We agree with the HAC Task Force that these 
types of technical standards should ensure that the hearing aid 
compatibility technology is interoperable, non-proprietary, and adopted 
by industry and consumers alike. Consistent with the HAC Task Force's 
recommendation, we will consider factors such as ease-of-use, 
reliability, industry adoption, and consumer use and adoption when 
evaluating whether technical standards defined by functionality 
requirements provide for effective use of handset models with hearing 
aids.
    Part 3: ``Is Usable.'' Finally, we adopt the HAC Task Force's 
recommendation for how we should define the term ``is usable.'' We 
agree with the HAC Task Force that this term should mean that consumers 
with hearing loss must have adequate information on how to operate 
their handset models and access to the full functionality and 
documentation for their handset models, including instructions, product 
information (including accessible feature information), documentations, 
bills, and technical support which is provided to individuals without 
hearing loss. As Accessibility Advocates recognize, these requirements 
are consistent with sections 255 and 716 of the Communications Act. 
Section 255(b) provides that ``[a] manufacturer of telecommunications 
equipment or customer premises equipment shall ensure that the 
equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to 
and usable by individuals with disabilities, if ready achievable.'' 
Further, section 255(c) provides that ``[a] provider of 
telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is accessible 
to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily 
achievable.'' In addition, section 716(a)(1) of the Communications Act 
provides that ``a manufacturer of equipment used for advanced 
communications services, including end user equipment, network 
equipment, and software, shall ensure that the equipment and software 
that such manufacturer offers for sale or otherwise distributes in 
interstate commerce shall be accessible to and usable by individuals 
with disabilities, unless the requirements . . . are not achievable.'' 
Usability is critically important to consumers with hearing loss, and 
we will consider usability to be a significant factor in deciding 
whether to expand our rules to allow for new coupling methodologies 
that we do not necessarily specifically incorporate into our rules.

C. Adopting a Bluetooth Coupling Requirement

    We adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement that is based on 
Bluetooth coupling technology that meets the requirements of our 
expanded definition of hearing aid compatibility that we adopted above 
and certain functional requirements that we adopt below. In the 100% 
HAC NPRM, we sought comment on the HAC Task Force recommendation that 
the Commission adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement and that the 
Commission expand the definition of hearing aid compatibility to allow 
for this requirement. We find that adopting a Bluetooth coupling 
requirement is consistent with section 710 of the Communications Act. 
We therefore adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement that is based on 
our expanded definition of hearing aid compatibility and on a 
functional definition of Bluetooth coupling technology.
    Sections 710(a) and (c) of the Communications Act require the 
Commission to establish regulations ``to ensure reasonable access to 
telephone service by persons with impaired hearing'' and to ``establish 
or approve such technical standards as are required'' to do so. Section 
710(c) also provides that the Commission is the final arbiter as to 
whether standards meet technical standard requirements. The Commission 
relies on this statutory authority when it incorporates by reference 
new ANSI standards into the hearing aid compatibility rules. When a new 
ANSI standard becomes available, the ANSI committee petitions the 
Commission to adopt the new standard. The Commission seeks comment on 
the petition and implementation issues related to the new standard. 
After considering the views of all interested parties, including 
members of the public with hearing loss, the Commission decides whether 
to incorporate the new standard into the hearing aid compatibility 
rules along with any related implementation provisions. The Commission 
followed this process when it determined to incorporate by reference 
the 2019 ANSI Standard into the hearing aid compatibility rules.
    In the present case, the HAC Task Force recommends that the 
Commission adopt Bluetooth coupling methods such as Bluetooth Classic, 
Made-for-iPhone (MFi), and Audio Streaming for Hearing Aids (ASHA) into 
the hearing aid compatibility rules for a period of transition. The 
Commission has twice sought comment on this recommendation. First, WTB 
issued a Public Notice in WT Docket No. 15-285 asking for comment on 
the HAC Task Force's Final Report, including its Bluetooth coupling 
recommendation (DA 23-251 (March 23, 2023)). Based on these comments, 
we released the 100% HAC NPRM in which we proposed to expand the 
definition of hearing aid compatibility to include a Bluetooth coupling 
requirement. As required by sections 710(a) and (c) of the 
Communications Act, we sought comment on this proposal and on 
suggestions for how we should implement it. Commenters support this 
proposal to adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement and provide comments 
on how we should implement the requirement. Based on this record, we 
adopt the HAC Task Force's Bluetooth coupling recommendation.
    Bluetooth is an umbrella term for a group of related technical 
profiles that enable devices to communicate wirelessly with each other 
over a short distance. Bluetooth coupling has become a popular way to 
pair wireless handset models with hearing aids, as compared to acoustic 
and telecoil coupling methods. Bluetooth coupling technology is 
incorporated into handset models using internal chipsets and antennas. 
Unlike telecoils, Bluetooth audio transmission methods are expressly 
designed to transmit and facilitate audio. The vast majority of current 
handset models include some type of Bluetooth coupling technology. 
Bluetooth transmission power is generally limited to 2.5 milliwatts, 
which gives it a limited range of approximately 33 feet. It uses Ultra 
High Frequency (UHF) radio waves in the Industrial, Scientific, and 
Medical (ISM) bands from 2.402 GHz to 2.48 GHz. Once a handset is 
paired with hearing aids, the handset will remember the hearing aids 
and automatically pair with the hearing aids if the user disconnects 
the handset from the hearing aids in order to connect the hearing aids 
to another device, unless the user asks the handset model to forget the 
pairing.
    The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG) is a standards 
setting

[[Page 89839]]

body that manages and oversees the Bluetooth standard. Handset 
manufacturers must meet Bluetooth SIG standards in order to market 
their products as Bluetooth enabled devices. A network of patents 
applies to the technology, which is licensed to individual qualifying 
devices. Bluetooth SIG works with handset and hearing aid manufacturers 
when formulating new Bluetooth pairing standards. Recently, Bluetooth 
SIG worked with hearing aid manufacturers to standardize wireless 
coupling and wireless streaming for hearings aids using Bluetooth 
pairing technology that ensures that users have the best opportunity to 
pair their hearing aids with their handsets. As a result of this work, 
Bluetooth SIG has introduced Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and the 
Public Access Profile specification for coupling with Auracast 
(Bluetooth Auracast) that allows wireless broadcast audio streaming 
from audio sources in public locations. Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth 
HAP, and Bluetooth Auracast are non-proprietary, low energy Bluetooth 
coupling standards.
    We find that adopting a Bluetooth coupling requirement is supported 
by the record and is consistent with our revised definition of hearing 
aid compatibility. Bluetooth coupling technology uses an internal means 
of pairing handsets with hearing aids without altering the physical 
shape of the handset or requiring additional equipment. It relies on 
chipsets and antennas located within a handset model that allow the 
handset model to wirelessly connect to hearing aids over short 
distances. The chipsets use a codec to control audio quality, and the 
Bluetooth LE Audio standard utilizes an updated codec. Bluetooth 
coupling technology provides a built-in pairing functionality that is 
not dependent on any add-on components. As a result, we find that 
Bluetooth coupling technology satisfies the internal requirement of our 
revised definition of hearing aid compatibility.
    We also find that our Bluetooth coupling requirement is based on 
established technical standards for hearing aid compatibility that 
provide for effective use of handsets with hearing aids. The Bluetooth 
standard is maintained and overseen by the Bluetooth SIG standards 
setting body, which relies on handset and hearing aid manufacturer 
input when establishing or modifying the standard. The standard uses a 
measurable performance standard that provides an objective measurement 
of interoperability to ensure the effective use of handsets with 
hearing aids. The term ``Bluetooth'' is a registered trademark, and the 
Bluetooth SIG enforces the trademark through a license enforcement 
program. Handset and hearing aid manufacturers cannot include the 
registered trademark on their products without ensuring that their 
products are properly qualified. The Bluetooth SIG monitors the 
marketplace to ensure that all products being sold as including 
Bluetooth pairing technology have successfully completed the Bluetooth 
Qualification Process. For these reasons, we find that our Bluetooth 
coupling requirement meets the established technical standard for 
effective use of handsets with hearing aids as required by our revised 
definition of hearing aid compatibility.
    Further, we find that Bluetooth coupling technology is usable, as 
required by our revised definition of hearing aid compatibility. The 
record indicates that many consumers prefer to pair their handsets to 
their hearing aids using a Bluetooth connection rather than an acoustic 
or telecoil connection. This fact demonstrates that consumers find 
Bluetooth coupling usable and that they have the information that they 
need to connect their handsets to their hearing aids. Bluetooth 
coupling technology is widely included in many, if not most, current 
handsets, is well known to consumers, and is easy to use in terms of 
pairing handsets to hearing aids. The new Bluetooth HAP standard is 
specifically designed to enable handset models to connect directly to 
hearing aids using Bluetooth LE Audio. Bluetooth coupling technology 
gives consumers with hearing loss the same access to the functionality 
of their handsets as consumers without hearing loss. Consumers with 
hearing loss can connect and disconnect to their hearing aids in the 
same fashion and in the same time frame as consumers without hearing 
loss might connect their handsets to earbuds or an external speaker.
    Further, unlike with acoustic or telecoil coupling, Bluetooth 
coupling does not require users to hold the handset next to their ears. 
Rather, users can place the handset nearby and keep their hands free. 
This flexibility may in part account for the popularity of Bluetooth 
coupling. Bluetooth coupling also gives consumers with hearing loss the 
flexibility to disconnect their handsets from their hearing aids and to 
easily reconnect their handsets to their hearing aids at a later time. 
Bluetooth technology remembers established pairings. Finally, Bluetooth 
coupling delivers a high-quality audio signal that is purposely 
designed for audio transmission. The quality of this connection is the 
same for consumers with hearing loss as it is for consumers without 
hearing loss. For these reasons, we find that Bluetooth coupling 
technology is usable and meets the requirements of ease-of-use, 
reliability, industry adoption, and consumer use and adoption.
    While we adopt a Bluetooth coupling requirement that is not based 
on a specific Bluetooth standard, we agree with Accessibility Advocates 
that handset manufacturers must consider certain functional 
requirements when determining which specific Bluetooth coupling 
technology to include in their future handset models in order to 
satisfy our new Bluetooth coupling requirement. In order to meet our 
new Bluetooth coupling requirement, we require handset manufacturers to 
include Bluetooth coupling technology in their future handset models 
that: (1) utilizes a global, low power wireless technology standard for 
high quality audio voice streaming; (2) is a standalone non-proprietary 
implementation; (3) is a qualified implementation that has undergone 
testing to verify that the product conforms to the specifications it 
claims to support; (4) offers full interoperability between hearing 
aids and handset models to enable inter-network, inter-provider, inter-
platform, and inter-handset manufacturer functionality; and (5) uses a 
design that meets broad, generic hearing aid requirements that 
addresses needed features when coupling to handset models for all forms 
of voice calls and associated handset model use. Below we adopt the 
Bluetooth handset model deployment benchmark that the HAC Task Force 
recommends, and we adopt a Bluetooth transition period that allows 
handset manufacturers and service providers sufficient time to adjust 
their handset model portfolios to meet our new Bluetooth coupling 
requirement.
    Finally, we note that section 710(c) of the Communications Act 
requires the Commission to establish or approve such technical 
standards as are required to ensure the compatibility of handsets 
models with hearing aids. To verify our Bluetooth compatibility 
requirements, we require handset manufacturers to provide, as part of 
the statement required pursuant to Sec.  2.1033(d) of our rules, a 
sworn declaration attesting to the handset model's compliance with our 
Bluetooth compatibility requirements. These sworn declarations must be 
in accordance with Sec.  1.16 of our rules and provide: (1) the 
specific Bluetooth coupling standard included in each handset model; 
(2) that the relevant handset model has been tested to ensure 
compliance with the

[[Page 89840]]

designated Bluetooth coupling standard; and (3) after the transition to 
a non-proprietary Bluetooth requirement, that the included Bluetooth 
coupling technology is consistent with our Bluetooth functionality 
requirements.
    In addition, as the Commission has in the past, we will continue to 
monitor the use of Bluetooth coupling technology as an effective means 
of pairing handsets to hearing aids and should we become aware of an 
issue with Bluetooth coupling, we will initiate a proceeding to review 
the requirement. We will monitor compliance with our Bluetooth coupling 
requirement in part through the Commission's consumer complaint 
process.

D. Handset Model Deployment Benchmarks

    After the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition 
period ends, all handset models offered for sale or use in the United 
States must be hearing aid-compatible. Any non-hearing aid compatible 
handset models cannot obtain a certification under 47 CFR part 2, 
subpart J, and handset manufacturers and service providers must remove 
all non-hearing aid-compatible handset models from their portfolios 
without exception. Further, after passage of the relevant transition 
period, handset manufacturers and service providers must ensure that 
each handset model in their handset model portfolios have at least two 
ways to pair with hearing aids. Specifically, after the relevant 
transition period is completed, 100% of all handset models in a handset 
model portfolio must meet acoustic coupling standards and 85% of these 
same handset models must also meet telecoil coupling standards. The 
remaining 15% of these handset models must meet our new Bluetooth 
coupling requirement, along with acoustic standards. The 15% of handset 
models that must meet the Bluetooth coupling requirement, along with 
acoustic requirements, can also contain telecoils, but they are not 
required to do so. If they do include telecoils, then these handset 
models would meet three pairing requirements, but the 15% requirement 
only requires these handset models to meet acoustic and Bluetooth 
coupling requirements.
    Further, after the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition period ends, any new handset model that handset 
manufacturers and service providers add to their handset model 
portfolios must meet applicable volume control requirements, as well as 
the other technical requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard that is 
currently used for certification purposes. We will allow the volume 
control requirement to be met using the volume control waiver standard 
adopted in the HAC Waiver Order, as long as it remains in effect. This 
decision to impose a 100% volume control benchmark on handset models 
added to handset model portfolios after the applicable 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period ends allows handset manufacturers and 
service providers to continue to offer handset models certified under 
the 2011 ANSI Standard or older standards and to count these handset 
models for handset model deployment purposes, as long as these handset 
models were being offered for sale or use in the United States prior to 
the expiration of the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition period. Finally, we will allow proprietary, as well as non-
proprietary, Bluetooth coupling standards to satisfy our new Bluetooth 
pairing requirement during a 48-month transition period to an 
exclusively non-proprietary Bluetooth pairing requirement.
    In the 100% HAC NPRM, we sought comment on the HAC Task Force's 
recommendation that we require all handset models offered for sale or 
use in the United States to have at least two forms of coupling. Based 
on the HAC Task Force's recommendation, we proposed to require that: 
(1) 100% of handset models be required to meet an acoustic coupling 
requirement; and (2) 100% of handset models 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 coupling requirement. Handset models meeting the Bluetooth 
coupling requirement could include telecoils, but would not be required 
to include telecoils. We also proposed to allow handset manufacturers 
and service providers to continue to be able to offer for sale or use 
handset models certified as hearing aid-compatible under the 2011 ANSI 
Standard or older standards after the end of the relevant transition 
periods, as long as the handset models were being offered for sale or 
use prior to the expiration of the relevant transition periods. In 
addition, we sought comment on whether we should adopt a volume control 
handset model deployment benchmark.
    The record supports our adoption of the handset model deployment 
benchmarks that we proposed in the 100% HAC NPRM. This support includes 
requiring handset manufacturers and service providers to remove from 
their handset model portfolios all non-hearing aid-compatible handset 
models after the expiration of the relevant 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition periods. The HAC Task Force's Final Report 
provides that after passage of the relevant transition period ``All 
handset models must be hearing aid-compatible . . . .'' The HAC Task 
Force states that all of its members support 100% hearing aid 
compatibility, and Accessibility Advocates confirm that 100% hearing 
aid compatibility was an area of consensus among members of the HAC 
Task Force. The HAC Task Force's Final Report provides that 93% of the 
handset models offered by handset manufacturers for the reporting 
period July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, were rated as hearing aid-
compatible and more recent reports indicate that this number is higher 
than 93%. In fact, many handset manufacturers and service providers 
report that all of the handset models in their handset model portfolios 
are rated as hearing aid compatible. As a result, the removal of non-
hearing aid-compatible handset models from the marketplace has been 
ongoing for years and is part of the natural progression of handset 
model development.
    With respect to acoustic coupling, there is no disagreement in the 
record that we should adopt a 100% acoustic coupling benchmark. These 
same commenters also support our adopting the proposed 85/15% split 
between telecoil and Bluetooth coupling. One commenter, however, 
supports a 100% benchmark for telecoil coupling claiming that consumers 
``who are hard of hearing prefer telecoil technology over Bluetooth 
technology. We determine to maintain the current 85% benchmark 
requirement for telecoil coupling. This percentage is supported by the 
HAC Task Force and other commenters, including Accessibility Advocates. 
According to a survey the HAC Task Force conducted, most consumers 
prefer to use Bluetooth connectivity for pairing handsets to hearing 
aids, as compared to telecoils. The HAC Task Force found that telecoil 
use is stagnating. The record indicates that consumers prefer Bluetooth 
coupling over telecoil coupling and that as consumers age into hearing 
loss they are likely to be more familiar with Bluetooth coupling than 
with telecoil coupling. Rather than revising the 85% telecoil coupling 
benchmark at this time, we will maintain it and, as commenters suggest, 
monitor this issue going forward. In the meantime, maintaining the 85% 
telecoil coupling requirement gives handset manufacturers space in 15% 
of their

[[Page 89841]]

handset models for technological innovation if they wish to use it for 
something other than telecoils.
    In monitoring this issue going forward, we will consider such 
factors as consumer and technology trends for Bluetooth and telecoil 
coupling and take into consideration consumer preferences and trends, 
changes in the marketplace, and developments in research and technical 
standards pertaining to hearing aid compatibility. We will monitor this 
issue in the years leading up to the end of the Bluetooth non-
proprietary transition period and continue to monitor the issue 
thereafter. If we become aware that an adjustment to the handset model 
deployment benchmarks for telecoil and Bluetooth coupling might be 
warranted, we will take appropriate action. As always, we are committed 
to continuing to ensure that our wireless hearing aid compatibility 
provisions keep pace with technological advances and marketplace 
realities.
    After the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition date 
ends, handset manufacturers and service providers must ensure that 15% 
of the total number of handset models in their handset model portfolios 
meet our new Bluetooth coupling requirement, along with the applicable 
acoustic coupling requirement. While this set of handset models may 
include telecoils, they must meet the Bluetooth coupling requirement. 
We will allow handset manufacturers and service providers to meet the 
Bluetooth coupling requirement using either proprietary or non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards during the 48-month transition 
period to a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement, as 
discussed below. This decision to permit the use of proprietary 
Bluetooth coupling standards during the 48-month transition period 
reflects the marketplace reality that Apple and Android handset models 
use the proprietary Bluetooth coupling technologies MFi and ASHA 
standards, respectively, and that non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling 
standards, such as Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and the related 
Bluetooth Auracast, are newer standards that are now gaining market 
share.
    Allowing the continued use of proprietary Bluetooth coupling 
standards is consistent with section 710(e) of the Communications Act, 
which requires the Commission to ``ensure that [hearing aid 
compatibility] regulations . . . encourage the use of currently 
available technology and do not discourage or impair the development of 
improved technology.'' The HAC Task Force and Accessibility Advocates 
state that Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP will require some time 
to be universally adopted and that, in the meantime, we should allow 
the use of proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards during a transition 
period to a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard. The HAC Task 
Force asserts that the non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards 
Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP will become widely available in 
handset models in a few years. Consistent with the requirements of 
section 710(e), therefore, we will allow the use of currently available 
technology by allowing the use of proprietary Bluetooth coupling 
standards without discouraging or impairing the development of improved 
coupling technology such as Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP.
    We will not require handset manufacturers and service providers to 
stop offering handset models certified under the 2011 ANSI Standard or 
older standards after passage of the relevant 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition periods, if these handset models were being 
offered for sale or use in the United States prior to the expiration of 
the relevant transition period. This approach is consistent with our 
traditional grandfathering rule that allows handset models certified as 
hearing aid-compatible to continue to be used to satisfy handset model 
deployment benchmarks as long as the handset models were being offered 
for sale or use in the United States prior to the transition date for 
exclusive use of the new certification standard. We will allow handset 
manufacturers and service providers to keep offering handset models 
that meet this grandfathering requirement in their handset model 
portfolios, and we will allow them to count these handset models for 
purposes of complying with the 100% acoustic coupling requirement and 
the 85% telecoil coupling requirement. We will also allow these handset 
models to be counted for purposes of meeting the 15% Bluetooth coupling 
requirement if these grandfathered handset models contain Bluetooth 
coupling technology that meets our Bluetooth coupling requirements.
    With respect to the volume control benchmark, we adopt a 100% 
volume control benchmark requirement that applies to all new handset 
models that handset manufacturers and service providers add to their 
handset model portfolios after the passage of the relevant 100% hearing 
aid compatibility transition period. The 2019 ANSI Standard is 
currently the exclusive certification standard, and this standard 
includes a volume control requirement. After the relevant 100% hearing 
aid compatibility transition period ends, all new handset models that 
handset manufacturers and service providers add to their handset model 
portfolios must meet the requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard, 
including the volume control requirements. By taking this approach we 
allow handset manufacturers and service providers to maintain 
grandfathered handset models in their handset model portfolios until 
they are replaced with handset models meeting the requirements of the 
2019 ANSI Standard. As these grandfathered handset models are replaced 
through the natural handset model product cycle, an increasing number 
of handset models in handset model portfolios will meet volume control 
requirements. This result will benefit consumers by giving them more 
handset model options to choose from that meet volume control 
requirements.
    We disagree with CTIA that it is premature to adopt a volume 
control benchmark, and that we should wait until the Commission adopts 
a new volume control standard before adopting a volume control 
benchmark. The 2019 ANSI Standard is the exclusive certification 
standard in effect at this time, and this standard includes volume 
control certification requirements. In order to be certified as hearing 
aid-compatible, new handset models must meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's 
acoustic and telecoil certification requirements, as well as the 
standard's volume control requirements as recently modified by the HAC 
Waiver Order. As of now, a new handset model cannot be certified as 
hearing aid-compatible without meeting volume control requirements. 
Therefore, adopting a 100% volume control benchmark for all new handset 
models added to handset model portfolios after passage of the relevant 
100% hearing aid compatibility transition period is consistent with 
current certification requirements.
    We also agree with those commenters who argue that if we adopt a 
volume control benchmark it should be based on the volume control 
waiver standard adopted in the HAC Waiver Order. We will allow the 
volume control requirements to be met using the volume control waiver 
standard, as long as that standard remains in effect. Specifically, we 
will allow new handset models that handset manufacturers and service 
providers add to their handset model portfolios to meet the volume 
control waiver standard as long as it remains in effect, as well as the 
full

[[Page 89842]]

volume control standard or any new volume control standard the 
Commission adopts in the future. We agree with Accessibility Advocates 
that a volume control requirement is particularly important for 
consumers with hearing loss who primarily rely on acoustic coupling or 
who do not use hearing aids.
    CTIA expresses concern that ``there is likely to be a gap between 
the expiration of the current waiver and recognition by the Commission 
of the new ANSI volume control standard.'' CTIA requests that the 
Commission direct WTB to extend the waiver deadline as appropriate 
pending adoption of the new volume control standard. We decline to take 
this step at this time. The 100% HAC NPRM did not seek comment on the 
issue of extending the volume control waiver deadline. We do not have a 
record on which to evaluate the merits of this request and to determine 
whether it is consistent with the public interest. Accessibility 
Advocates have also responded to CTIA's request and asked that the 
Commission conduct a thorough review of the facts and circumstances 
before granting an extension to the waiver. We encourage CTIA and its 
members to continue actively working towards the development of a new 
volume control standard. If CTIA believes that the Commission should 
extend the waiver deadline, it can file a waiver request asking the 
Commission to take this step and WTB will evaluate the request based on 
the waiver standard in the Commission's rules.
    We will not require handset models certified under the 2011 ANSI 
Standard or older standards to be recertified under the 2019 ANSI 
Standard. These handset models were not designed to meet the testing 
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and, in order for these handset 
models to pass the 2019 ANSI Standard's testing requirements, they 
might have to be physically altered. Requiring these handset models to 
be physical altered would be costly and burdensome to handset 
manufacturers and inconsistent with our traditional grandfathering 
rule. In addition, older hearing aid-compatible handset models tend to 
be lower priced than newer hearing aid-compatible handset models and 
requiring them to be removed from the marketplace or physically altered 
would deprive consumers of low price options.
    We also emphasize that consistent with past practice, handset 
manufacturers and service providers that choose to offer compliant 
handset models through a central distribution point, rather than 
through individual retail outlets, must do so in a timely fashion. 
Specifically, the Commission has stated that it expects service 
providers to make their best efforts to provide compliant handset 
models to consumers that order them within 48 hours to an address 
designated by the consumer. The Commission has specifically stated that 
using a central distribution point does not alter a service provider's 
existing obligation to provide compliant handset models in their retail 
stores for consumers to test as set forth in Sec.  20.19(c)(4). To the 
contrary, the central distribution point approach merely provides the 
flexibility to offer compliant handset models through a central 
distribution point. As a result, handset manufacturers and service 
providers may not simply list a handset model as available on its 
website in order to meet our handset model deployment benchmarks. 
Rather, handset manufacturers and service providers must make their 
best efforts to ensure that all of the handset models they offer can be 
in the hands of consumers within 48 hours of the consumer ordering the 
handset model. Further, all handset manufacturers and service providers 
must use their best efforts to make available all hearing aid-
compatible handset models that they offer for sale or use to consumers 
to test, in each retail store owned or operated by the handset 
manufacturer or service provider. We take these steps to ensure that 
the hearing aid-compatible handset models that handset manufacturer and 
service providers indicate that they offer for sale or use are actually 
available to consumers to test and purchase.
    CTIA objects to handset manufacturers being required to make 
available for consumers to test, in each retail store owned or operated 
by the handset manufacturer, all hearing aid-compatible handset models 
that they offer for sale or use. In addition, CTIA objects to handset 
manufacturers and service providers being required to make their best 
efforts to ensure that all of the handset models they offer can be in 
the hands of consumers within 48 hours of the consumer ordering the 
handset model. We note that service providers are already required to 
make available for consumers to test, in each retail store owned or 
operated by the service provider, all of its handset models that are 
hearing aid-compatible under the Commission's hearing aid compatibility 
rules. In addition, the Commission adopted the 48-hour policy in the 
2003 HAC Order and handset manufacturers and service providers have 
been required to abide by this requirement for over twenty years.
    We acknowledge CTIA's concerns about the practical effect of the 
in-store testing requirement now that 100% of handset models offered 
for sale or use in the United States must be hearing aid compatible. 
Given supply chain challenges, it may be difficult for service 
providers and handset manufacturers to make available all of their 
handset models in every retail store at all times. On the other hand, 
we agree with the Accessibility Advocates on the value of in-store 
testing ``so that consumers can make informed decisions about which 
phones will meet their HAC needs.'' Accordingly, while we maintain an 
in-store testing requirement, we will modify the rule to require 
handset manufacturers and service providers to use best efforts to make 
available for consumers to test, in each retail store owned or operated 
by the service provider, all of its handset models that are hearing 
aid-compatible under the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules. 
If a handset model is not available in-store for testing, the handset 
manufacturer or service provider must use its best efforts to make the 
handset model available for the consumer to test within 48 hours either 
by shipping the handset model to the store or to the consumer's home. 
We maintain the 48-hour central distribution policy and include it in 
our rules to make clear the obligation that service providers and 
handset manufacturers that choose to offer compliant handsets through a 
central distribution point, rather than through individual retail 
outlets, must do so in a timely fashion.
    We find these requirements to be reasonable because if a handset 
manufacturer or service provider lists a handset model as available for 
sale or use in the United States on its publicly accessible website or 
counts the handset model for handset model deployment benchmark 
purposes, then the handset model should be available to consumers with 
hearing loss in a timely manner for testing and purchase. We also note 
that the Commission's mandatory handset model disclosure language 
requires handset manufacturers and service providers to notify 
consumers when a handset model includes air interfaces or frequency 
bands not covered by the applicable certification standard and ``to try 
the different features of this phone thoroughly and in different 
locations, using your hearing aid or cochlear implant, to determine if 
you hear any interference noise.'' As the Commission has previously 
stated, in-store testing ensures that persons with hearing aids have a 
meaningful opportunity to identify and become comfortable with a

[[Page 89843]]

handset model. Further, in-store testing allows consumers to evaluate 
volume and interference levels of a given handset model they are 
considering for purchase and may allow consumers to avoid restocking 
fees. We also continue to encourage 30-day trial periods and flexible 
return policies for consumers seeking to obtain hearing aid-compatible 
handset models, as well as the use of in-store call-out cards that 
provide information about the compatibility of handset models.
    Finally, we will allow handset manufacturers and service providers 
to round down to the nearest whole number of handset models to meet the 
85% telecoil benchmark requirement and to round up to the nearest whole 
number of handset models to meet the 15% Bluetooth coupling 
requirement. We will allow rounding in order to avoid the partial 
compliance issue that would result without rounding. For instance, if a 
handset manufacturer or a service provider adds three new handset 
models to its handset model portfolio that already includes two handset 
models, four of these five handset models would have to meet the 
telecoil certification requirement and the remaining one would have to 
meet the Bluetooth coupling requirement. Each of these handset models 
would also have to meet the relevant acoustic coupling requirement and, 
if certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard, volume control requirements. 
After the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period 
passes, any rounding for the 85/15% split must still ensure that a 
handset manufacturer or service provider's entire handset model 
portfolio meets the requirement that all handset models in the 
portfolio include at least two forms of coupling. In other words, all 
handset models in a handset manufacturer or service provider's handset 
model portfolio must meet either: (1) the relevant acoustic and 
telecoil coupling requirements or (2) the relevant acoustic and 
Bluetooth coupling requirements. A handset model could meet all three 
coupling requirements, but it is only required to meet two of the 
coupling requirements.

E. Transition Periods for 100% Hearing Aid Compatibility

    We adopt the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods that 
we proposed in the 100% HAC NPRM. Specifically, we adopt a 24-month 
transition period for handset manufacturers to meet the 100% hearing 
aid compatibility requirement, starting from the effective date of the 
amended rule adopting the 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, 
and a 30-month transition period for nationwide service providers. 
Further, we adopt a 42-month transition period for non-nationwide 
service providers. Once the applicable transition period ends, handset 
manufacturers and service providers must meet the handset model 
deployment benchmarks discussed above. Handset manufacturers and 
service providers must remove all non-hearing aid-compatible handset 
models from their handset model portfolios without exception.
    In the 100% HAC NPRM, we recognized that our proposed transition 
periods were shorter than the 48-month transition period the HAC Task 
Force recommends for handset manufacturers and the 60-month transition 
period it recommends for service providers. The Commission noted, 
however, that it has previously relied on 24-month transition periods 
when transitioning to new technical standards and that the Commission 
has previously found that 24-month transition periods provide the 
appropriate balance between product development cycles for handset 
manufacturers and the needs of consumers with hearing loss to receive 
the benefits of the new technical standard. The Commission also 
observed that the transition periods it was proposing for service 
providers would allow these companies to make handset models certified 
using the latest certification standards available to consumers faster 
than would be the case if the Commission accepted the HAC Task Force's 
longer 60-month transition period recommendation.
    While the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods that we 
are adopting are shorter than the 48- and 60-month transition periods 
proposed by the HAC Task Force, we agree with Accessibility Advocates 
that the transition periods are reasonable. Despite CTIA's assertion 
that the 48- and 60-month transition periods were carefully negotiated 
and represent a consensus position, we note that Hearing Loss 
Association of America (HLAA), which was a member of the HAC Task 
Force, supports our shorter transition periods. Further, contrary to 
CTIA's assertion, we find our transition periods reflect real-world 
realities. Our transition periods are based on handset manufacturers 
being able to use: (1) the existing 2019 ANSI Standard for acoustic and 
telecoil certification requirements; (2) the volume control waiver 
standard adopted in the HAC Waiver Order; and (3) a Bluetooth standard 
of their own choosing, including the continued use of proprietary 
Bluetooth standards during a 48-month transition period to a non-
proprietary requirement, as discussed below.
    The Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard in February 2021, and 
it has been the exclusive hearing aid compatibility testing standard 
since December 5, 2023. Further, in September 2023, WTB granted a 
limited waiver of the 2019 ANSI Standard's volume control testing 
requirements at the request of handset manufacturers and service 
providers. Therefore, the current hearing aid compatibility testing 
standards are well known to handset manufacturers and will have been in 
place well before our 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods 
start to run. Indeed, new handset models can only be certified as 
hearing aid-compatible using the 2019 ANSI Standard and new handset 
models are already being marketed as meeting the requirements of the 
2019 ANSI Standard. In addition, we are allowing handset manufacturers 
to satisfy our new Bluetooth coupling requirement using Bluetooth 
coupling standards that they already include in their current handset 
models. This allowance includes both proprietary and non-proprietary 
Bluetooth coupling standards.
    The vast majority of handset models currently being offered for 
sale or use in the United States already meet current hearing aid 
compatibility certification requirements and include some form of 
Bluetooth coupling technology. By adopting our proposed transition 
periods, we are ensuring that the benefits of our revised hearing aid 
compatibility rules reach consumers sooner than would be the case using 
the HAC Task Force's longer transition periods of 48 months for handset 
manufacturers and 60 months for service providers. Further, as the 
Commission has previously found when adopting new technical standards, 
we find that a 24-month transition period for handset manufacturers 
provides the appropriate balance between product development cycles and 
ensuring that consumers with hearing loss gain the benefits of our new 
standards in a timely manner. In addition, the transition periods we 
adopt for nationwide and non-nationwide service providers will allow 
these companies time to adjust their handset model portfolios to meet 
our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement while also ensuring 
faster consumer access to the latest hearing aid-compatible handset 
models than would be the case using the HAC Task Force's longer 60-
month transition period recommendation.

[[Page 89844]]

F. Non-Proprietary Bluetooth Standard Benchmark and Transition Period

    With respect to the Bluetooth coupling requirement, we adopt a 48-
month transition period from the effective date after which handset 
manufacturers and service providers will have to ensure that 15% of the 
handset models in their handset model portfolios include non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our new definition 
of hearing aid compatibility and our Bluetooth functionality 
requirements. After this 48-month transition period ends, we will not 
allow proprietary Bluetooth coupling technologies to meet the 15% 
Bluetooth coupling requirement. Only handset models with non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our new definition 
of hearing aid compatibility and our Bluetooth functionality 
requirements will be allowed to satisfy the 15% requirement. These 
handset models may also include proprietary Bluetooth coupling 
technology if technically feasible, but they must contain a non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard that is completely separate 
from the proprietary standard.
    The HAC Task Force recommends allowing the use of both proprietary 
and non-proprietary Bluetooth standards, at least through a transition 
period to a non-proprietary Bluetooth requirement. The HAC Task Force, 
however, does not recommend a transition period for transitioning to a 
non-proprietary Bluetooth requirement. Rather, the HAC Task Force 
states that the Commission should assess whether new non-proprietary 
Bluetooth specifications have become more widespread. In the 100% HAC 
NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should mandate that only non-
proprietary Bluetooth standards could be used to meet our proposed new 
Bluetooth coupling requirement. We further sought comment on whether we 
should permit the use of proprietary Bluetooth standards on an interim 
basis as the industry transitions to full use of non-proprietary 
standards, such as Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and the related 
Bluetooth Auracast. In response to the 100% HAC NPRM, MWF and Samsung 
argue that the Commission should allow the use of proprietary Bluetooth 
standards at least on an interim basis in order to allow new handset 
models with non-proprietary Bluetooth standards to come to market. 
Neither commenter, however, states how long of a transition period we 
should allow.
    As the HAC Task Force requests, we have assessed the development of 
non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards and based on this 
assessment, we adopt a 48-month transition period after which only non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our new definition 
of hearing aid compatibility and our Bluetooth functionality 
requirements may be used to satisfy the Bluetooth coupling requirement. 
The HAC Task Force states that it ``anticipates that handset and 
hearing device manufacturers will widely adopt the Bluetooth LE Audio 
framework and HAP specification.'' In fact, the HAC Task Force cites a 
report that annual Bluetooth LE Audio device shipments will reach three 
billion by 2027. Further, the HAC Task Force states that Bluetooth LE 
Audio and Bluetooth HAP specifications are recognized industry 
standards, are non-proprietary, and will be interoperable across many 
devices. Further, the HAC Task Force asserts that ``[o]ngoing 
improvements to Bluetooth LE Audio add functionality that has the 
potential to greatly benefit hearing device users and enhance 
compatibility, namely standardized profiles for Bluetooth hearing aids, 
a modern codec (LC3), and multi-stream support and broadcast audio.''
    Bluetooth SIG states that Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and 
the related Bluetooth Auracast coupling technologies are currently in 
place and freely available. Bluetooth SIG confirms that these standards 
are non-proprietary, low energy coupling standards that directly 
support and will satisfy the Commission's 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement. Further, Bluetooth SIG asserts that these 
coupling standards were developed with open participation from mobile 
handset and hearing aid manufacturers. Bluetooth SIG states that that 
these coupling standards will not impact the affordability of low-cost 
handset models or adversely affect low-income consumers. Similarly, 
Accessibility Advocates assert that it is anticipated that the 
communications industry will adopt Bluetooth LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP 
profiles going forward. Accessibility Advocates state that if Bluetooth 
LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP are rolled out as a universal solution to 
Bluetooth coupling with hearing aids, it has every reason to expect 
wide consumer adoption and use of these coupling standards.
    Based on the above comments, we find that adopting a non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement after a 48-month transition 
period is supported by the record. Commenters indicate that Bluetooth 
LE Audio and Bluetooth HAP will be widely available in handset models 
over the next few years. Permitting the use of proprietary Bluetooth 
coupling technology, during this 48-month transition period simply 
reflects the marketplace reality that Apple and Android handsets use 
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology for hearing aid coupling. 
According to the HAC Task Force, 56% of the handset models that they 
analyzed supported one of the proprietary Bluetooth coupling methods 
and that this support was increasing over time. Further, the HAC Task 
Force states that: ``All models of iPhone support Apple's MFi protocol 
(available since 2013), and most recent Android handsets support the 
Google ASHA protocol (available on handsets since 2018).''
    While the HAC Task Force does not recommend a transition period to 
a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement, it does recommend 
that we adopt a 48-month transition period before we require handset 
manufacturers to meet our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. 
Our 48-month transition period to a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling 
requirement is consistent with this 48-month transition recommendation. 
Given that the average handset model development cycle is 24 months, we 
find that a 48-month transition period should provide more than enough 
time for handset manufacturers to produce new handset models that 
include non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology meeting our 
requirements. In addition, adopting a 48-month transition period will 
encourage handset manufacturers to incorporate non-proprietary 
Bluetooth standards, such as Bluetooth LE Audio, Bluetooth HAP, and 
Bluetooth Auracast, into their handset models. This result will benefit 
consumers with hearing loss by ensuring the development of more 
universal connectivity between handset models and hearing aids, 
including over-the-counter hearing aids, and reduce the issue of 
certain handset models only being able to pair with certain hearing 
aids. Our 48-month transition period will reduce fragmentation in the 
marketplace and will benefit consumers by giving them a wider selection 
of handset models that will pair with their hearing aids.
    At the end of the 48-month transition period, handset manufacturers 
will continue to have the freedom to choose which non-proprietary 
Bluetooth coupling technology they incorporate into their handset 
models, as long as the technology meets our new definition of

[[Page 89845]]

hearing aid compatibility and the related Bluetooth functionality 
requirements. These functionality requirements mean that after the 48-
month transition period ends, the Bluetooth coupling requirement may 
only be met using Bluetooth coupling technology that: (1) utilizes a 
global, low power wireless technology standard for high quality audio 
voice streaming; (2) is a standalone non-proprietary implementation; 
(3) is a qualified implementation that has undergone testing to verify 
that the product conforms to the specifications it claims to support; 
(4) offers full interoperability between hearing aids and handset 
models to enable inter-network, inter-provider, inter-platform and 
inter-handset manufacturer functionality; and (5) uses a design that 
meets broad, generic hearing aid requirements that addresses needed 
features when coupling to handset models for all forms of voice calls 
and associated handset model use.
    After the transition period, handset manufacturers and service 
providers will be able to continue to include proprietary Bluetooth 
coupling technology in their handset models, as long as 15% of their 
handset models in their handset model portfolios include non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our requirements. 
We will also allow handset models to include both proprietary and non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology if technically feasible, but 
only non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that meets our 
requirements can be used to satisfy the 15% Bluetooth coupling 
requirement. After the 48-month transition period ends, handset 
manufacturers and service providers must ensure that 15% of the handset 
models in their handset model portfolios include non-proprietary 
Bluetooth coupling technology that complies with our requirements. We 
will not allow handset manufacturers and service providers to use 
handset models with only proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology to 
meet our 15% non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement. If we were 
to allow it, we would undercut our non-proprietary requirement and our 
goal of increasing universal connectivity between handset models and 
hearing aids.
    We are aware that proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards are 
extensions of non-proprietary Bluetooth standards, such as Bluetooth 
Classic. We will not allow a proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard, 
however, to satisfy our non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement 
on the basis that the proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard is simply 
an extension of a non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard. 
Proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards, such as the MFi and ASHA 
standards, cannot be used to satisfy our 15% non-proprietary Bluetooth 
coupling requirement. After the 48-month transition period, the 15% 
non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling requirement may only be satisfied by 
an exclusively non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling standard that meets 
our new definition of hearing aid compatibility and our Bluetooth 
functionality requirements.

G. Hearing Aid Compatibility Settings for Handset Models

    After the expiration of the handset manufacturers' 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period, we require that all new handset models 
must come out-of-the-box with their hearing aid compatibility related 
acoustic coupling and volume control functions turned on by default. We 
will allow, however, secondary settings to turn on the handset model's 
telecoil or Bluetooth coupling functions, depending on the secondary 
capability included in a particular handset model. If one of these 
secondary settings is turned on by the consumer, we will allow the 
hearing aid compatibility related acoustic coupling function to be 
turned off. We will also allow volume control compliance to be altered 
to the extent technically necessary to meet full telecoil connectivity 
requirements as long as consumers and the Commission are fully informed 
of this alteration. We will not allow volume control functionality to 
be altered to meet Bluetooth or acoustic coupling requirements. We 
require handset manufacturers to ensure that their handset models have 
settings for acoustic, telecoil, or Bluetooth coupling (depending on 
the coupling functionality included) and volume control functionality 
that are clearly labeled and allow consumers to easily find these 
settings and to turn these functions on or off as they desire.
    In the 100% HAC NPRM, we observed that our 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 handset manufacturers 
to require users to turn these functions on by going into the handset 
model's settings. We also observed that our rules do not address 
whether a handset model can have two different settings--one setting 
that turns on acoustic coupling and volume control, but not telecoil 
coupling, and a second separate setting that turns on the handset 
model's telecoil coupling capabilities. Further, we observed that our 
rules do not address whether a handset model in telecoil mode has to 
continue to fully meet acoustic and volume control requirements. 
Finally, we observed that while the HAC Task Force did not address this 
settings issue, the HAC Task Force recommends that the Commission adopt 
an additional form of connectivity in the form of a Bluetooth coupling 
requirement. This recommendation means that handset models would have 
to meet acoustic coupling and volume control requirements and--
depending on the handset model--would also have to meet either a 
telecoil or Bluetooth coupling requirement. As a result of these 
potential alternative coupling requirements, we sought comment on the 
related handset model settings issue.
    Accessibility Advocates state that they ``support a requirement for 
handset models to come out-of-the-box with their acoustic and telecoil 
functions fully turned on as default features so long as this is 
technically feasible.'' Accessibility Advocates also assert that 
``[a]dditionally, phones should be in compliance with the acoustic RF 
and volume control requirements right out-of-the-box.'' MWF argues that 
flexibility and options are in the best interests of consumers and 
states that there should be separate settings for acoustic, telecoil, 
and Bluetooth coupling. MWF further argues that it does not support 
Accessibility Advocates' position that handset models should come out-
of-the-box with their acoustic and telecoil functions turned on by 
default. MWF expresses concern that having these functions turned on 
out-of-the-box could lead to acoustic shock and to higher battery usage 
than the user might anticipate. MWF believes that a better course of 
action is for users to opt-in to the features offering higher volume 
and telecoil operation.
    After considering the record on this issue, we decide that, after 
the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility transition 
period ends, all handset models must come out-of-the-box with acoustic 
coupling and volume control certification requirements fully turned on 
by default. This decision is consistent with our proposal in the 100% 
HAC NPRM. We find that having handset models come out-of-the-box with 
acoustic coupling and volume control functionality turned on by default 
benefits consumers with hearing loss who use hearing aids and those 
consumers with hearing loss who do not use hearing aids. This 
requirement will

[[Page 89846]]

improve the listening experience of consumers who have hearing loss, 
and it does not impact the listening experience of consumers who do not 
use hearing aids or do not have hearing loss.
    Further, requiring volume control functionality to be fully turned 
on by default allows all consumers, regardless of whether they have 
hearing loss, to adjust the speech level of their handsets during voice 
calls to their preferred, comfortable listening level. Volume control 
functionality provides a range over which the level of speech can be 
increased and decreased to a level that meets the needs of consumers no 
matter whether they use hearing aids or have hearing loss. Further, 
requiring volume control functionality to be turned on by default 
benefits consumers who do not use hearing aids and, therefore, might 
not know to look under a setting marked as hearing aid compatibility to 
turn on the handset model's volume control functionality. While we 
require handset models to come out-of-the-box with volume control 
functionality turned on by default, we will allow handset models to 
have a setting whereby consumers can turn this functionality off. This 
requirement allays concerns with respect to acoustic shock and battery 
usage. Consumers will have the ability not only to adjust the volume of 
their handset models to meet their listening needs, but also to turn 
this function off if they so desire.
    In addition to these default out-of-the-box requirements, handset 
models may have a separate setting that turns on a handset model's 
hearing aid compatibility related telecoil coupling functionality if 
the handset model includes telecoil coupling capability. Acoustic and 
telecoil coupling represent two separate ways for handset models to 
pair with hearing aids. Hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling 
mode receive sounds through a microphone and then amplify all sounds 
surrounding the consumer, including both desired and unwanted ambient 
noise. Hearing aids operating in telecoil coupling mode turn off their 
microphone to avoid amplifying unwanted ambient noise, and instead use 
a telecoil to receive only audio signal-based magnetic fields generated 
by telecoil coupling capable handset models. When a handset model is 
paired with hearing aids using telecoils it is not necessary for the 
handset's acoustic coupling function to be left on because the hearing 
aids microphone has been turned off.
    We will also allow a separate setting for Bluetooth coupling that 
is a distinct setting from the default out-of-the-box acoustic and the 
alternative telecoil settings. This approach is consistent with 
allowing consumers to have a choice as to how they pair their handsets 
with their hearing aids. Most consumers are already familiar with how 
to connect their handsets to their hearing aids using Bluetooth 
coupling and, therefore, there is less concern about consumers being 
able to locate this feature as compared to the other two methods of 
pairing handsets with hearing aids. Since Bluetooth coupling represents 
an alternative way to pair handsets to hearing aids, we will allow 
handset models in Bluetooth coupling mode to turn off acoustic and 
telecoil coupling functionality. Handset models only need to pair with 
hearing aids through one coupling method at a time.
    As discussed above, we require new handset models to come out-of-
the-box with volume control functionality turned on by default. This 
requirement means that, if a new handset model is paired to hearing 
aids using acoustic, telecoil, or Bluetooth coupling technology the 
handset model's volume control functionality must be turned on, unless 
the consumer has turned it off. While the handset model must have a 
setting that allows the consumer to turn this functionality off, the 
handset model must meet volume control certification requirements in 
each of these pairing modes. We are aware, however, that when a handset 
model is paired to hearing aids using telecoil coupling, not all volume 
control certification requirements may be met. In that situation, we 
will allow a slight deviation from volume control certification 
requirements only to the extent absolutely necessary to meet full 
telecoil coupling requirements. Any handset model that does not meet 
full volume control requirements in telecoil coupling mode must fully 
disclose this information to consumers and explain how this affects the 
handset model's operations in telecoil mode. A consumer must be able to 
understand that the handset model in telecoil coupling mode does not 
meet full volume control certification requirements and understand how 
this deviation affects the handset model's operation in telecoil mode. 
Further, we require that handset manufacturers disclose this 
information in their handset model equipment certification 
authorization application along with supporting documentation 
explaining why the handset model cannot meet full volume control 
functionality in telecoil coupling mode and how much of a deviation 
there is from fully meeting the volume control requirement.
    We are not aware of a similar issue with respect to volume control 
functionality when a handset model is paired with hearing aids using 
Bluetooth coupling technology. We did not receive any comments on this 
issue even though the 100% HAC NPRM sought comment on the issue. 
Therefore, we require handset models to meet the full volume control 
standard that the handset model was certified as meeting when paired 
with hearing aids using Bluetooth coupling technology. Given that 
Bluetooth coupling is similar to acoustic coupling in that neither 
method requires any additional equipment, as compared to telecoil 
coupling, we do not anticipate any issues with handset models meeting 
the full volume control requirement that the handset model was 
certified as meeting when pairing with hearing aids using the Bluetooth 
coupling mode.
    After the handset manufacturers' 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition date ends, we require handset manufacturers to ensure that 
all new handset models that they add to their handset model portfolios 
have settings for each coupling method included in the handset model, 
as well as a setting for volume control functionality, if the handset 
model is certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard. Each of these settings 
must be clearly labeled and usable. Consumers must be able to easily 
find these settings without the settings being obscured or hidden by 
sub-menus. The settings must allow consumers to be able to turn each of 
these functions on or off as they wish in order to meet their 
individual listening needs. At this time, we will not establish 
standard hearing aid compatibility settings or nomenclature for each 
setting. We will continue to allow handset manufacturers flexibility in 
this manner as long as the settings are easy to find and allow 
consumers the freedom to adjust the settings as they wish. We also note 
that below we establish updated labeling and disclosure requirements, 
as well as website posting requirements, for handset manufacturers and 
service providers. These requirements ensure that consumers have the 
information they need to understand the hearing aid compatibility 
functions of their handset models and how to find and use these 
compatibility features.

H. Consumer Notification Provisions

1. Labeling and Disclosure Requirements
    We revise our external printed package label requirements and our 
related requirements concerning

[[Page 89847]]

information that must be included within the handset model's packaging 
in the form of either a printed insert or a printed handset manual. We 
update these requirements to reflect our new handset model 
certification standards related to our 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement. Section 20.19(f) of the Commission's rules provides that 
certain handset model information must be included on a handset model's 
external printed package label and additional handset model information 
must be include within a handset model's packaging. In the 100% HAC 
NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we would revise these requirements 
to require a handset model's external printed package label to state 
whether the handset model includes telecoil or Bluetooth coupling 
technology or both types of coupling technology and, if the handset 
model includes Bluetooth coupling technology, which Bluetooth coupling 
technology the handset model includes. We also tentatively concluded 
that we should revise the consumer information that must be included 
within a handset model's packaging to require the printed insert or the 
printed handset manual to include this same information. Further, we 
tentatively concluded that, if we decided to allow handset models to 
have default and secondary compatibility settings, we would modify our 
internal packaging requirements to require the printed insert or 
printed handset manual to include an explanation of each of these 
settings, what each setting does and does not include, and how to turn 
these settings on and off.
    Accessibility Advocates and MWF support modifying our labeling and 
disclosure requirements to include information about a handset model's 
telecoil and Bluetooth coupling technology. Accessibility Advocates 
argue, however, that we should modify our proposal to require the 
handset model's external package label and the related internal 
packaging material to indicate whether or not the handset model 
includes telecoil coupling capability that meets certification 
requirements. Similarly, Accessibility Advocates argue that we should 
modify our proposal to require the handset model's external package 
label and the related internal packaging material to indicate whether 
or not the model includes Bluetooth coupling technology as a 
replacement for meeting telecoil certification requirements or whether 
the handset model meets both telecoil and Bluetooth coupling 
requirements. Accessibility Advocates support our proposal that if we 
allow handset models to have a secondary hearing aid compatibility 
setting, the printed package insert or printed handset manual must 
provide an explanation of each of these settings, what each setting 
does and does not include, and how to turn these settings on and off. 
CTIA, however, states that we should reject calls to expand our 
labeling requirements. CTIA argues that requiring additional, granular 
information creates additional burdens without consumer benefits, 
especially as the industry transitions to a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement.
    Based on our tentative conclusion and the record, we revise our 
external printed package label requirements to incorporate our 
tentative conclusion with modifications to address Accessibility 
Advocates' comments. We require a handset model's external printed 
package label to provide: (1) that the handset model is certified as 
hearing aid compatible; (2) whether or not the handset model meets 
telecoil or Bluetooth coupling requirements or both requirements and, 
in the case of Bluetooth coupling requirements, which Bluetooth 
coupling standard the handset model includes; and (3) the handset 
model's actual conversational gain with and without hearing aids, if 
certified under the 2019 ANSI standard, with the actual conversational 
gain that is displayed being the lowest rating assigned to the handset 
model for any covered air interface or frequency band.
    Further, based on our tentative conclusion and the record, we 
revise the information that must be included inside a handset model's 
packaging, either in the form of a printed insert or a printed handset 
manual (or through the use of digital labeling, as discussed below), to 
include the following new information:
     An explanation of what it means that the handset model is 
certified as hearing aid-compatible and which ANSI standard was used 
for certification purposes;
     An explanation of what acoustic, telecoil, and Bluetooth 
coupling are and which of these coupling capabilities the handset model 
includes and, in the case of Bluetooth coupling, which Bluetooth 
coupling standard the handset model includes;
     If the handset model was certified under the 2019 ANSI 
standard, an explanation of the handset model's volume control 
capabilities, an affirmative statement of the handset model's 
conversational gain with and without hearing aids, and an explanation 
of how to turn the handset model's volume control capabilities on and 
off;
     An explanation of how to turn each of the handset model's 
coupling functions on and off and an explanation that by default the 
handset model comes with its acoustic and volume control functions 
turned on;
     If the handset model has been certified as hearing aid-
compatible under special testing circumstances or contains operations 
or frequency bands that are not certified as hearing aid-compatible, an 
explanation of how this affects the handset model's operations. Under 
these circumstances, the included printed package insert or printed 
handset manual must include the following disclosure statement:

    This phone has been tested and certified for use with hearing 
aids for some of the wireless technologies that it uses. However, 
there may be some newer wireless technologies used in this phone 
that have not been tested yet for use with hearing aids. It is 
important to try the different features of this phone thoroughly and 
in different locations, using your hearing aid or cochlear implant, 
to determine if you hear any interfering noise. Consult your service 
provider or the handset manufacturer of this phone for information 
on hearing aid compatibility. If you have questions about return or 
exchange policies, consult your service provider or phone retailer.

    We find that these external and internal labeling and disclosure 
requirements are consistent with section 710(d) of the Communications 
Act, which directs the Commission to establish requirements for 
labeling ``as are needed to provide adequate information to consumers 
on the compatibility between telephones and hearing aids.'' Our revised 
external printed package label rule ensures that the most pertinent 
handset model information appears on the handset model's printed 
package label. Consumers can read the external package label and 
determine the coupling technology that the handset model includes and, 
if it includes Bluetooth coupling technology, which standard the 
handset model incorporates. In addition, for handset models certified 
as hearing aid-compatible under the 2019 ANSI Standard, consumers can 
easily ascertain the conversational gain that the handset model 
provides both with and without hearing aids. Consumers can use this 
information to determine whether a handset model meets their listening 
needs and to compare handset models when considering which handset 
model to purchase. We continue to allow handset manufacturers and 
service providers

[[Page 89848]]

flexibility in designing their handset model printed package labels as 
long as the labels include the required information in a clear and 
straight-forward fashion that consumers can easily find and understand.
    Our revised internal printed package insert or printed handset 
manual requirements allow consumers who are interested in more detailed 
information about a handset model's hearing aid compatibility to find 
this additional information in the printed package insert or the 
printed handset manual--whichever the handset manufacturer or service 
provider chooses to include in the handset model's packaging. Consumers 
can consult the included printed insert or printed handset manual to 
understand what type of coupling technology the handset model includes 
and how to turn these coupling functions on and off, and, if 
applicable, how to turn the volume control function on and off. In 
addition, consumers will be able to determine whether the handset model 
has been certified under special testing circumstances, what this means 
in terms of the handset model's operations, and whether the handset 
model includes frequency bands or air interfaces that are not certified 
as hearing aid compatible. As with our external printed package label 
requirements, we continue to require that printed inserts or printed 
handset manuals included inside a handset model's packaging be written 
in a clear, straight-forward fashion using plain language that 
consumers can easily understand. We find all of these requirements to 
be consumer friendly and, therefore, in the public interest, and 
consistent with section 710(d) of the Communications Act.
    We disagree with CTIA concerning our revised external and internal 
package labeling content requirements. We find that these revised 
content requirements are consistent with section 710(d) of the 
Communications Act, which requires the Commission to establish 
requirements for labeling ``as are needed to provide adequate 
information to consumers on the compatibility between telephones and 
hearing aids.'' The information that we are requiring handset 
manufacturers and service providers to provide to consumers allows 
consumers to be fully informed about a handset model's functions and 
capabilities and to make informed purchasing decisions. Further, we 
disagree with CTIA's statement that ``[c]onsumers today do not shop for 
modern phones by picking up boxes in the store . . . .'' The HAC Task 
Force specifically states that one of the ways consumers can learn 
about the hearing aid compatibility of a handset model is to look at 
the handset's packaging. While we require handset manufacturers to 
provide hearing aid compatibility information about their handset 
models through other means too, it is reasonable to assume that 
consumers might read the information provided on a handset model's 
external printed package label and to compare this information with the 
information on a competing handset model's external printed package 
label. Our labeling requirements allow us to ensure that consumers have 
adequate information about the hearing aid compatibility of the handset 
models they are considering for purchase.
    We decide, however, to eliminate one current requirement from our 
printed package insert or printed handset manual requirements. We will 
no longer require the printed package insert or the printed handset 
manual to provide the M/T ratings of handset models certified under the 
2011 ANSI Standard or older ANSI standards or to provide an explanation 
of the ANSI M/T rating system. The 2019 ANSI Standard does not use the 
M/T rating system that older versions of the ANSI standard used. Under 
the 2019 ANSI Standard handset models are certified without an assigned 
rating. Currently, the 2019 ANSI Standard is the exclusive testing 
standard for determining hearing aid compatibility. As a result, we 
find the M/T rating requirements to be outdated and unnecessary, given 
the fact that all new handset models must be compliant with the 2019 
ANSI Standard. We are concerned that continuing to require this 
outdated information to be included in printed package inserts or 
printed handset manuals will confuse consumers. We eliminate this 
requirement as handset manufacturers continue to certify handset models 
under the 2019 ANSI Standard. By doing so, we reduce regulatory burden 
on handset manufacturers and service providers and avoid confusing 
consumers with outdated and unnecessary information.
    Transition Period for Revised Labeling and Disclosure Requirements. 
As requested by CTIA, in order to align the effective date of the 
revised labeling requirements with the start of the handset 
manufacturer's 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, we will make 
the effective date of our revised labeling requirements the later of 
either the date the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal 
Register announcing that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
concluded its review of these requirements or the effective date of the 
handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. We 
take this step to reduce regulatory burden and consumer confusion. The 
handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement will be 
effective 25 months after a summary of the Report and Order is 
published in the Federal Register. This delayed effective date relates 
only to the revised rules that will be in Sec.  20.19(f)(1) and (2) of 
the Commission's rules and does not apply to the effective date of the 
other revised paperwork requirements requiring OMB review. These other 
revised paperwork requirements include the new digital labeling 
requirements in Sec.  20.19(f)(3) of the Commission's rules. The 
digital labeling requirements will become effective with the rest of 
the paperwork requirements (other than Sec.  20.19(f)(1) and (2)) once 
the Commission publishes a notification in the Federal Register 
announcing OMB has completed its review of these requirements.
2. Use of Digital Labeling Technology
    We will continue to require the use of external printed package 
labels, but will allow the handset model information that must be 
included inside a handset model's packaging to be delivered using 
digital labeling technology as an alternative to including either a 
printed insert or printed handset manual as long as the company using 
this option maintains a publicly accessible website where consumers can 
easily locate the required information. Handset manufacturers and 
service providers choosing this option must provide consumers with both 
a Quick-Response (QR) code and the related website address where the 
required handset model information can be found. The required 
information must be presented in a straight-forward fashion using plain 
language that is easy for consumers to understand. Handset 
manufacturers and service providers choosing this option must update 
the required information within 30 days of any relevant changes, and 
they must ensure that they are in full compliance with our website 
posting requirements.
    As discussed above, Sec.  20.19(f) of the Commission's rules 
requires the use of an external printed package label and either an 
internal printed insert or printed handset manual. In the 100% HAC 
NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should permit handset 
manufacturers and service providers to use digital labeling technology, 
such as QR codes, as an alternative to external printed package labels 
and internal printed inserts or printed handset manuals. We noted that 
the Commission previously considered whether to allow

[[Page 89849]]

the use of websites as an alternative to printed materials, but decided 
not to adopt this approach because consumers may not necessarily visit 
a handset manufacturer's or service provider's website before 
purchasing a handset. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we proposed to reconsider 
this decision and allow handset manufacturers and service providers to 
meet the information requirements of Sec.  20.19(f) through the use of 
digital labeling technology.
    External Printed Package Labels. After considering the record in 
this proceeding, we continue to require handset manufacturers and 
service providers to use external printed package labels to deliver the 
handset model information that we require to be on external package 
labels. Accessibility Advocates agree with this decision. As we 
discussed above, we require the most important handset model 
information to be on external printed package labels. This approach 
allows consumers with hearing loss to pick-up a handset model in its 
original packaging and read its external label. This label will allow 
consumers to easily ascertain whether a handset model they are 
considering for purchase will meet their listening needs and to easily 
compare the hearing aid compatibility features of one handset model 
with another handset model by reading the information required to be on 
the external labels. We continue to believe that requiring an external 
printed package label serves the interest of consumers. We, therefore, 
will continue to require the use of external printed package labels to 
deliver the handset model information that we require to be on a 
handset model's external package label. We will not allow handset 
manufacturers and service providers to deliver this information to 
consumers using digital labeling technology.
    Internal Packaging Information. While we require the continued use 
of external printed package labels, we will allow handset manufacturers 
and service providers to use digital labeling technology to deliver to 
consumers the information that would otherwise have to be provided 
using a printed insert or printed handset manual, as long as companies 
utilizing this approach maintain publicly accessible websites where 
consumers can easily find the information required by our rules. The 
information that handset manufacturers and service providers can 
provide to consumers using digital labeling technology is the same 
information that they would otherwise have to deliver to consumers 
using printed package inserts or printed handset manuals. Handset 
manufacturers and service providers choosing this option must provide 
consumers with both a QR code and the related website address where the 
required information can be found. We require both a QR code and the 
related website address in order to ensure that consumers who may not 
be comfortable using QR codes have another way to access the on-line 
information. In addition to providing this information using QR codes 
and website addresses, handset manufacturers and service providers 
choosing to use this option must comply with all of our other website 
posting requirements. Further, they must ensure that consumers can 
easily find the required information and that the required information 
is presented in a clear, straight-forward fashion using plain language 
that consumers can easily understand.
    When the Commission previously determined not to allow the use of 
digital labeling technology, the Commission based its decision on 
finding that consumers may not necessarily visit the websites of 
handset manufacturers or service providers before going to the 
company's store and purchasing a hearing aid-compatible handset. We 
find in this final rule, however, that digital labeling is ubiquitous 
and can be found on many consumer products, including electronic 
products. Further, the use of digital labeling technology allows 
consumers to visit a company's publicly accessible website and access 
the required information at the point-of-sale while consumers are in 
stores making purchasing decisions. We agree with commenters that 
consumers are now more familiar with digital labeling and accessing a 
company's website using their handsets. QR codes are easy to use and 
merely require hovering a handset's camera over the QR code and tapping 
the website that appears or, under our digital labeling rule, consumers 
can type the required website link into their handset's web browser.
    We agree with the commenters who state that digital labeling is a 
more consumer friendly way to deliver the information that is required 
to be included in a printed insert or printed handset manual. Digital 
labeling allows consumers to get up-to-date product information and 
embedded website links can be used to provide additional information or 
to define terms. For instance, companies can use embedded links to 
define terms such as ``air interface,'' ``ANSI standards,'' ``codecs,'' 
``conversational gain,'' ``frequency bands,'' and values such as ``MHz/
GHz,'' and ``dBm.'' By using embedded links to define legal and 
technical terms and to provide additional information, handset 
manufacturers and service providers can use plain and clear language to 
meet their disclosure requirements. In addition, digital labeling 
allows consumers to use the accessibility features on their handsets to 
review hearing aid compatibility information. Printed package inserts 
and printed handset manuals tend to be small, use tiny print, and be 
difficult to read. Allowing the use of digital labeling will allow 
consumers, especially older consumers, to use their handsets to enlarge 
the print online. Further, consumers often throw away or misplace 
package inserts and handset manuals, and are used to using a company's 
website to look up information when necessary.
    Accessibility Advocates caution the Commission that older people 
may not be comfortable or familiar with using QR codes, and that it is 
concerned that if QR codes are the only means of acquiring information 
that some people will not be able to independently access needed 
information. We find, however, that just as consumers are familiar with 
Bluetooth coupling as they age into hearing loss they will also be 
familiar with QR codes and searching handset manufacturers' and service 
providers' publicly accessible websites for handset model hearing aid 
compatibility information. Further, we find that digital labeling will 
help senior citizens who might find the size and print of printed 
inserts and printed handset manuals difficult to read. Senior citizens 
will be able to use their handsets to enlarge print to make it easier 
to read, or they could use the type-to-speech function of their 
handsets to have the information read to them. To the extent that a 
senior citizen or a consumer has difficulty using digital labeling or 
does not possess a smartphone, a store employee at the point-of-sale 
can help the senior citizen or the consumer with the process. 
Alternatively, senior citizens or consumers can directly contact 
handset manufacturers or service providers using our new point-of-
contact information to have their hearing aid compatibility questions 
answered. This new contact information requirement includes a texting 
option that Accessibility Advocates requested that we adopt to help 
ensure that those who may have difficultly hearing a phone conversation 
can contact a company by texting the company. We find, therefore, that 
electronic labeling will help consumers access handset model hearing 
aid compatibility information, and that we are providing multiply

[[Page 89850]]

ways for consumers to access handset model hearing aid compatibility 
information.
    Our decision to allow the use of digital labeling as an alternative 
to printed inserts or printed handset manuals is consistent with our 
revised website posting requirements. Consumers can go to handset 
manufacturers' and service providers' publicly accessible websites to 
find hearing aid compatibility information about each handset model 
that these companies offer for sale or use in the United States. 
Further, digital labeling is less burdensome on handset manufacturers 
since they do not have to align testing, certification, and printing 
schedules, and it saves paper, making it a more environmentally 
friendly way of providing information. We will not require handset 
manufacturers and service provides who choose to use this digital 
labeling option to also continue to include a printed insert or printed 
handset manual within the handset model's packaging. Such an approach 
would be duplicative and would undercut our findings concerning the 
benefits of allowing digital labeling to be used to deliver the 
information required to be included within a handset model's packaging. 
We remind handset manufacturers and service providers, however, that 
our rules require these companies to ensure access to information and 
documentation it provides to its customers, if readily achievable. Our 
rules also require handset manufacturers to provide end-user product 
documentation, including accessibility and compatibility information, 
in alternate formats or alternate modes upon request at no additional 
charge, if readily achievable. We also encourage handset manufacturers 
and service providers who use digital labeling to provide the required 
information in languages in addition to English, such as Spanish.
3. Handset Model Number Designation Requirements
    We determine that in cases where a handset manufacturer or service 
provider recertifies a handset model using an updated certification 
standard, the company does not need to assign the handset model a new 
model number designation, unless the handset model has been physically 
altered to meet the requirements of the new standard. Currently, Sec.  
20.19(g) of the Commission's rules provides that ``[w]here a 
manufacturer has made physical changes to a handset that result in a 
change in the hearing aid compatibility rating under the 2011 ANSI 
standard or an earlier version of the standard, the altered handset 
must be given a model designation distinct from that of the handset 
prior to its alteration.'' The 100% HAC NPRM sought 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. MWF, the only party to comment on this issue, 
states that handset models that are recertified under updated 
certification standards should not be required to have a new model 
number as long as there is no physical change to the handset model. 
Instead, MWF states that consumers can be notified of this 
certification change by updating the handset model's labeling, and that 
it is not necessary to also update the handset model number 
designation.
    We agree with MWF that, unless the handset model is physically 
altered to meet the updated certification standard, there is no need to 
give the recertified handset model a new model number designation. 
Consistent with established Commission precedent, we will continue to 
define a physical change to a handset model to be a change in the 
handset model's hardware or software that causes a variation in the 
form, features, or capabilities of the handset model. As long as the 
handset manufacturer or service provider does not physically alter the 
handset model through a hardware or software change that causes a 
variation in the form, features, or capabilities of the handset model, 
the handset manufacturer or service provider does not need to assign 
the handset model a new model number designation. While we will not 
require the handset model to be assigned a new model number 
designation, we do require that the handset manufacturer or the service 
provider update the handset model's labeling, disclosures, and website 
posting information to reflect the handset model's updated 
certification and to explain how this updated certification affects the 
handset model's operations. We agree with MWF that our consumer 
notification provisions are sufficient under these circumstances to 
notify consumers of the certification change and that there is no need 
to also assign the handset model a new model number designation.
    While handset manufacturers and service providers do not have to 
assign unaltered handset models new model number designations, they may 
assign handset models new designation numbers if they choose to for 
business reasons. We are aware that handset manufacturers and service 
providers sometimes assign handset models different model number 
designations to distinguish units sold to different service providers, 
or for other reasons that are not related to the handset model's form, 
features, or capabilities. If, under these circumstances, a handset 
manufacturer or a service provider chooses for its own business reasons 
to assign a handset model multiple model number designations, the 
company may only count the handset model once for purposes of our 
handset model deployment benchmarks. As the Commission has previously 
found, ``for purposes of the hearing aid compatibility rules, a 
manufacturer may not characterize as separate models any devices that 
do not in fact possess any distinguishing variation in form, features, 
or capabilities.'' As a result, unless the handset models are 
distinguishable in form, features, or capabilities, the handset model 
can only be counted once for purposes of our handset model deployment 
benchmarks.
    While we allow hearing aid-compatible handset models to be 
recertified under updated certification standards, we note that handset 
models may not be certified as hearing aid-compatible using parts of 
two different ANSI standards. A handset model must meet all aspects of 
the updated certification standard in order to be certified as hearing 
aid-compatible under the updated standard. We also note that hearing 
aid-compatible handset models cannot be modified through a software 
push that results in the handset model no longer meeting hearing aid 
compatibility certification standards. Consumers purchase hearing aid-
compatible handset models with the understanding that the handset model 
meets certain hearing aid compatibility certification standards, and 
handset manufacturers and service providers may not modify handset 
models through a software push that results in the handset model no 
longer meeting hearing aid compatibility certification standards after 
the software push is installed. We also emphasize that if a software 
push adds operations or frequency bands that are not covered by the 
applicable ANSI standard and, therefore, these new operations or 
frequency bands do not meet hearing aid compatibility certification 
standards, handset manufacturers and service providers must inform 
consumers of this fact before they choose to update their handset 
model's software.
    Finally, handset manufacturers and service providers may not lower 
a handset model's conversational gain

[[Page 89851]]

through a software push, subject to a de minimis exception as described 
below. Just as consumers purchase hearing aid-compatible handset models 
with the expectation that the handsets meet certain certification 
standards, consumers purchase handsets with the understanding that the 
handsets provide a certain level of conversational gain. This 
expectation may be especially true for consumers with hearing loss who 
do not use hearing aids. CTIA suggests that the Commission should allow 
software pushes that lower a handset model's conversational gain in 
ways that are ``immaterial'' or ``imperceptible.'' CTIA, however, does 
not define or explain what handset manufacturers or service providers 
might consider as an immaterial or imperceptible reduction in a handset 
model's conversational gain or whether such a reduction would be 
permissible under the Commission's permissive change rules. In 
addition, Accessibility Advocacy and Research Organizations ``oppose 
any changes that would allow software updates to alter the model's HAC 
rating, certification, or capability.'' We are concerned that 
perceptibly lowering the conversational gain of handset models through 
software pushes could frustrate the expectations of consumers who may 
have purchased a specific handset model because it provides a certain 
level of conversational gain, including representations of that level 
on the handset model's printed external package label or 
representations of that level on a handset manufacturer's or service 
provider's publicly accessible website. At the same time, we recognize 
CTIA's concerns that there may be necessary software pushes that have a 
minimal impact on volume control. Given these facts, we conclude that 
our rule should prohibit handset manufacturers or service providers 
from lowering a handset model's conversational gain through a software 
push, except for software pushes that would have a de minimis impact on 
the handset model's conversational gain. We seek to minimize the impact 
on consumers with hearing loss while also avoiding unnecessary impacts 
on the flexibility of manufacturers and service providers to deploy 
software updates. We will closely monitor the experiences of consumers, 
manufacturers, and service providers in implementing this rule.
    We delegate authority to WTB, in coordination with the Office of 
Engineering and Technology, to further define the scope of the de 
minimis exception as needed, including through modifications to the 
rule after notice and comment.

I. Website Posting, Record Retention, and Reporting Requirements

1. Website Posting and Record Retention Requirements
    We revise our website posting and record retention requirements to 
ensure handset manufacturer and service provider compliance with our 
100% hearing aid compatibility requirement and to ensure that consumers 
have access to the information that they need to make informed 
purchasing decisions. Section 20.19(h) of the Commission's rules 
requires handset manufacturers and service providers to post on their 
publicly accessible websites certain information and to maintain 
certain records related to the handset models that they offer. In the 
100% HAC NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should revise these 
requirements to require handset manufacturers and service providers to 
identify on their publicly accessible websites those handset models in 
their handset model portfolios that meet telecoil certification 
requirements. For those handset models that do not meet telecoil 
certification requirements, we tentatively concluded that handset 
manufacturers and service providers must affirmatively state that the 
handset model does not meet telecoil certification requirements and 
identify which Bluetooth coupling technology the handset model meets 
instead. We also tentatively concluded 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 that was certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard. 
In addition to seeking comment on these revisions to our website 
posting requirements, we sought comment on ways to streamline our 
website posting and record retention requirements.
    After reviewing the record, we update and streamline our existing 
website posting requirements by adopting our tentative conclusions. As 
a result, once the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition 
period passes, handset manufacturers and service providers are required 
to provide the following information on their publicly accessible 
websites: (1) a list of all currently offered handset models, including 
each model's marketing name/number(s) and the FCC ID number, along with 
the ANSI standard used to certify the handset model as hearing aid-
compatible; (2) for each handset model, an affirmative statement of 
whether or not the handset model meets telecoil certification 
requirements; (3) for each handset model, an affirmative statement of 
whether or not the handset model includes Bluetooth coupling technology 
and, if so, which Bluetooth coupling technology the handset model 
includes; (4) for each handset model certified under the 2019 ANSI 
standard, an affirmative statement of the handset model's 
conversational gain with and without hearing aids with the actual 
conversational gain that is displayed being the lowest rating assigned 
to the handset model for any covered air interface or frequency band; 
(5) if a handset model has been certified as hearing aid-compatible 
under special testing circumstances or contains operations or frequency 
bands that are not certified as hearing aid-compatible, an explanation 
of how this affects the handset model's operations; and (6) a link to 
the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility web page.
    All of this information must be easy for consumers to locate on 
handset manufacturers' and service providers' publicly accessible 
websites and not hidden behind hard to locate links. Further, this 
information must be presented to consumers using plain straightforward 
language that consumers can easily understand. We also require handset 
manufacturers and service providers who choose to utilize digital 
labeling technology as an alternative to printed package inserts or 
printed handset manuals to post the information that is required to be 
included within a handset model's packaging on their publicly 
accessible websites, as discussed above. Further, handset manufacturers 
and service providers must post on their publicly accessible websites 
the company point-of-contact information that we adopt below. The 
digital labeling information and company point-of-contact information 
must be presented to consumers in the same fashion as we require other 
website posting information to be presented to consumers. This 
information must be easy for consumers to locate and displayed in an 
easy to understand straightforward manner using plain language, and we 
encourage handset manufacturers and service providers to provide this 
information in languages in addition to English, such as Spanish. 
Consistent with current website posting requirements, handset 
manufacturers and service providers must update their websites within 
30 days of any relevant changes, and date stamp their website pages. 
This date stamp requirement allows consumers to

[[Page 89852]]

see how current the information is that they are viewing.
    Along with the revisions to our website posting requirements, we 
eliminate the following website posting requirements: (1) handset 
manufacturers and service providers will no longer be required to list 
a handset model's M/T ratings for handset models certified using the 
2011 ANSI Standard or older ANSI standards or provide an explanation of 
the M/T rating system; (2) service providers will no longer be required 
to post a list of all the non-hearing aid-compatible handset models 
that they offer, including the marketing model name/number(s) and FCC 
ID number, or a list of all hearing aid-compatible handset models that 
they offered in the past 24 months but no longer offer; and (3) service 
providers will no longer be required to post a link to a third-party 
website as designated by the Commission or the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, with information regarding hearing aid-
compatible and non-hearing aid-compatible handset models.
    Additionally, we eliminate our record retention requirement that 
requires service providers to retain certain information about handset 
models they no longer offer for sale or use in the United States. 
Specifically, we will no longer require service providers to retain 
internal records for discontinued handset models, and the associated 
information that they presently have to make available to the 
Commission upon request. This handset model information includes: (1) 
the month/year each hearing aid-compatible and non-hearing aid-
compatible handset model was first offered; and (2) the month/year each 
hearing aid-compatible 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. The Commission adopted these 
requirements to ensure that ``service providers meet numerical and 
percentage-based handset deployment obligations.'' Under our 100% 
hearing aid compatibility requirement, however, removing a handset 
model from a service provider's handset model portfolio will not impact 
the service provider's compliance with the 100% handset model 
deployment benchmark the way it might with respect to the current 85% 
benchmark. All of the remaining handset models will be hearing aid-
compatible and to the extent there is an issue with the telecoil and 
Bluetooth coupling requirement, Commission staff can review the FCC ID 
numbers of the remaining handset models to ensure compliance with these 
requirements. Further, as the Commission has previously stated, the 
date that a handset model is first offered and the date that it is 
discontinued is the type of information that service providers would 
retain as part of normal businesses operations independent of the 
Commission's requirements.
    We find that these revisions and modifications to our website 
posting and record retention requirements reduce regulatory burden 
while ensuring that consumers have access to the information that they 
need to make informed handset model purchasing decisions. We are 
updating our website posting requirements to reflect the certification 
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and our new Bluetooth coupling 
requirement. Consumers will be able to consult a handset manufacturer's 
or service provider's publicly accessible website and learn which 
handset models that they offer include telecoil connectivity and which 
do not; which ones include Bluetooth coupling technology and which do 
not; and for those that do include Bluetooth coupling technology, the 
type of Bluetooth coupling technology that is included. Consumers will 
also be able to review the conversational gain that handset models 
certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard offer. In addition, consumers 
will be able to use company point-of-contact information posted on 
handset manufacturers' and service providers' publicly accessible 
websites to contact these companies directly about the hearing aid 
compatibility of the handset models that they offer. Further, our 
revisions ensure that handset manufacturers and service providers only 
have to post pertinent information and not outdated information.
    We eliminate the posting and record retention requirements related 
to non-hearing aid-compatible handset models, as well as information 
about handset models that are no longer offered. Since all handset 
models will be hearing aid-compatible, the website posting and record 
retention requirements related to non-hearing aid-compatible handset 
models will no longer be relevant. Going forward, the Commission will 
be able to review a handset manufacturer's or a service provider's 
publicly accessible website to determine whether a company is currently 
in compliance with our handset model deployment benchmarks. The 
Commission will also be able to rely on the annual certifications that 
handset manufacturers and service providers will be filing to ensure 
compliance with our hearing aid compatibility rules for the previous 
calendar year. To the extent that consumers have questions about 
handset models that are no longer offered, they can use the handset 
manufacturer and service provider point-of-contact information to 
contact these companies to have their questions answered. Our website 
posting and record retention revisions ensure that consumers have the 
relevant information that they need to make informed purchasing 
decisions while also streamlining these requirements to reduce 
regulatory burden and cost on handset manufacturers and service 
providers.
2. FCC Forms 655 and 855 Annual Reporting and Certification 
Requirements
    After the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition period ends, we will eliminate FCC Form 655 that handset 
manufacturers currently must file for reporting purposes and instead 
require handset manufacturers to file FCC Form 855 annually for 
compliance purposes. FCC Form 655 is the form handset manufacturers 
file containing information about the hearing aid compatibility status 
of each handset model offered, functionalities and labeling of hearing-
aid compatible handsets, and the filing company's consumer outreach 
efforts. FCC Form 855 is the form that service providers presently file 
to certify compliance with our hearing aid compatibility requirements, 
and we will require service providers to continue to file this form 
after the relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period 
ends. Further, after the expiration of the manufacturer 100% hearing 
aid compatibility transition period, we will change the reporting 
deadline for handset manufacturers from July 31 each year to January 31 
each year and change the handset manufacturer reporting period to cover 
the period of January 1 to December 31 of the previously calendar year, 
instead of the current period of July 1 of the previous year to June 30 
of the current year. These changes will align the reporting deadline 
and reporting period for handset manufacturers with the reporting 
deadline and reporting period for service providers. We will also 
update FCC Form 855 to reflect our 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement and related requirements.
    In the 100% HAC NPRM, we sought comment on our tentative 
conclusions to move handset manufacturers from FCC Form 655 to FCC Form 
855 after the passing of the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period and to align the filing

[[Page 89853]]

deadline and reporting period for handset manufacturers with the filing 
deadline and reporting period used for service providers. We noted that 
Sec.  20.19(i) of the Commission's rules requires handset manufacturers 
to file FCC Form 655 reports each year and service providers to file 
FCC Form 855 certifications each year to demonstrate compliance with 
the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements. The 100% HAC 
NPRM set forth the information that each form collects and summarized 
the information that handset manufacturers and service providers must 
provide to the Commission in order to demonstrate compliance with our 
hearing aid compatibility rules. With respect to FCC Form 855, we 
specifically noted that our rules require a knowledgeable executive of 
the service provider to sign the form and to certify under penalty of 
perjury the service provider's compliance with the Commission's hearing 
aid compatibility requirements for the relevant reporting period.
    Further, in the 100% HAC NPRM, we noted that prior to the 2018 HAC 
Order the Commission required service providers to demonstrate 
compliance with the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules by 
filing FCC Form 655, but in order to reduce regulatory burden on 
service providers the Commission moved service providers to FCC Form 
855. We further noted that the Commission stated in the 2018 HAC Order 
that this action would streamline ``the Commission's collection of 
information while continuing to fulfill the underlying purposes of the 
current reporting regime.'' Finally, we noted that in the 2018 HAC 
Order the Commission stated that it might take further steps to reduce 
regulatory burden, including modify the reporting rules, if it 
determined to adopt a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement.
    Commenters support moving handset manufacturers from FCC Form 655 
to FCC Form 855 for reporting purposes. We agree with these commenters 
and find that moving handset manufacturers from FCC Form 655 to FCC 
Form 855 after the manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition period ends will eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden. 
With the expiration of the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period, it will no longer be necessary to 
collect the detailed handset model information that FCC Form 655 
collects. Under our revised website posting requirements, handset 
manufacturers will be required to post on their publicly accessible 
websites all relevant handset model information for the handset models 
that they offer for sale or use in the United States. Further, the 
handset model information that FCC Form 655 collects can be found in 
the Commission's Equipment Authorization System.
    We find that moving handset manufacturers to the streamlined FCC 
Form 855 will reduce regulatory burden and cost. The Commission 
estimates that it takes 30 minutes to complete FCC Form 855 as compared 
to two and half hours to complete FCC Form 655. Therefore, contrary to 
CTIA's assertion, moving handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855 will 
reduce regulatory burden for handset manufacturers and not increase 
regulatory burden for service providers. As discussed below, we will 
revise FCC Form 855 to reflect the 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement and to streamline the information that the form will 
collect and to remove outdated questions. The revised form will only 
collect information that is necessary to ensure handset manufacturers' 
and service providers' compliance with our hearing aid compatibility 
rules. In this regard, FCC Form 855 will continue to require a 
knowledgeable company executive to certify under penalty of perjury 
that the company on whose behalf the executive is filing is in full 
compliance with all of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility 
rules, including handset model deployment benchmarks, labeling and 
disclosure requirements, as well as website posting requirements. The 
Commission can rely on these certifications for enforcement purposes, 
if the need arises.
    Accessibility Advocates argue that if the Commission moves handset 
manufacturers to FCC Form 855, the Commission should require handset 
manufacturers to post their handset model information on their publicly 
accessible web pages in order to ensure handset manufacturers are in 
compliance with the Commission's handset model deployment benchmarks. 
We agree with Accessibility Advocates and, as discussed above, we are 
revising our website posting requirements to include this requirement. 
We will be able to review a handset manufacturer's publicly accessible 
website and determine if the manufacturer is in compliance with our 
handset model deployment benchmarks and coupling requirements. We will 
also be able to review these postings to ensure handset manufacturer 
compliance with the 85/15% split between telecoil and Bluetooth 
coupling and, if Bluetooth coupling technology is included in a handset 
model, what kind of Bluetooth coupling technology is included. 
Accessibility Advocates acknowledge that our revised website posting 
and certification requirements address their concerns.
    Further, we note that we continue to require handset manufacturers, 
as well as service providers, to update their web pages within 30 days 
of any relevant changes and to date stamp their web pages with the date 
of the update. As Accessibility Advocates observe, these requirements 
will ensure that the information that is displayed is current. Finally, 
we note that the Commission is adopting a new company point-of-contact 
requirement below that will allow consumers to directly contact handset 
manufacturers and service providers to ask questions about the hearing 
aid compatibility of the handset models that these companies offer for 
sale or use in the United States.
    As part of our decision to move handset manufacturers to FCC Form 
855 after the handset manufacturer's 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition date ends, we will update the form to ensure it collects 
pertinent compliance information for both handset manufacturers and 
service providers. Nationwide service providers will begin filing this 
revised FCC Form 855 after their 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition period ends and, likewise, non-nationwide service providers 
will begin filing the revised form after their 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period ends. Revised FCC Form 855 will require 
the following information to be provided:
     An affirmative statement as to whether the filer is a 
handset manufacturer, a nationwide service provider, or a non-
nationwide service provider;
     In the case of a handset manufacturer, an affirmative 
statement as to whether the filer ceased offering handset models during 
the reporting period or, in the case of a service provider, the filer 
ceased offering wireless service during the reporting period;
     An affirmative statement that the filer did not offer for 
sale or use in the United States non-hearing aid-compatible handset 
models for the reporting period as required Sec.  20.19(c)(2), (4), or 
(6), as applicable to the filer;
     The total number of hearing aid-compatible handset models 
the filer offered for sale or use in the United States for the 
reporting period;
     The number of these handset models that met applicable 
telecoil requirements;
     The number of these handset models that met the applicable 
Bluetooth coupling requirement and a

[[Page 89854]]

statement as to whether the Bluetooth coupling technology was a 
proprietary or non-proprietary implementation, the name of the 
Bluetooth coupling technology, and a statement as to whether the 
Bluetooth technology met the requirements of Sec.  20.19(b)(3)(ii);
     An affirmative statement that all new handset models added 
during the reporting period met volume control certification 
requirements as required by Sec.  20.19(c)(2), (4), or (6), as 
applicable to the filer;
     An affirmative statement that the filer was in full 
compliance with the labeling and disclosure requirements in Sec.  
20.19(f);
     A statement as to whether the filer used digital labeling 
technology to deliver to consumers the information required by Sec.  
20.19(f)(2), as an alternative to including a printed insert or printed 
handset manual;
     If the filer maintains a publicly accessible website, the 
filer must include a link to the website showing compliance with Sec.  
20.19(h) or, if the filer does not maintain a publicly accessible 
website, an affirmative statement that the filer does not maintain a 
publicly accessible website and has included an attachment with its 
filing showing the information required by Sec.  20.19(h)(1);
     The name of the signing executive and contact information;
     The company(ies) covered by the certification;
     The FCC Registration Number (FRN); and
     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 reporting period with the Commission's wireless hearing 
aid compatibility 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.

     If the company selected that it was not in full compliance 
with this section, an explanation of which wireless hearing aid 
compatibility requirements it was not in compliance with, when the non-
compliance began and (if applicable) ended with respect to each 
requirement.
    Collecting this information will aid the Commission in ensuring 
that handset manufacturers and service providers are in full compliance 
with our 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, the related 
handset model deployment benchmarks, and the labeling, disclosure and 
website posting requirements. By moving handset manufacturers from FCC 
Form 655 to FCC Form 855, we reduce regulatory burden and cost for 
handset manufacturers. Handset manufacturers will spend less time and 
resources filing FCC Form 855. The information that the form collects 
is pertinent to ensuring compliance with our 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement and should be readily available to handset 
manufacturers and service providers.
    With respect to handset manufacturers and service providers who do 
not maintain publicly accessible websites, we require these companies 
to include an attachment with their FCC Form 855 certification filings 
that contains all of the handset model information that they would 
otherwise have to post on their publicly accessible websites. This 
requirement includes the following information: (1) a list of all 
currently offered handset models, including each handset model's 
marketing name/number(s) and the FCC ID number, along with the ANSI 
standard used to certify the handset model as hearing aid-compatible; 
(2) for each handset model, an affirmative statement of whether or not 
the handset model meets telecoil certification requirements; (3) for 
each handset model, an affirmative statement of whether or not the 
handset model includes Bluetooth coupling technology and, if so, which 
Bluetooth coupling technology the handset model includes; (4) for each 
handset model certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard, an affirmative 
statement of the handset model's conversational gain with and without 
hearing aids with the actual conversational gain that is displayed 
being the lowest rating assigned to the handset model for any covered 
air interface or frequency band; and (5) if a handset model has been 
certified as hearing aid-compatible under special testing circumstances 
or contains operations or frequency bands that are not certified as 
hearing aid-compatible, an explanation of how this affects the handset 
model's operations. This attachment requirement will allow the 
Commission to review the compliance of handset manufacturers and 
service providers with our hearing aid compatibility rules who do not 
maintain publicly accessible websites.
    Along with transferring handset manufacturers to FCC Form 855 after 
the passing of the handset manufacturer's 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period, we align the handset manufacturer 
filing deadline and reporting period with the service provider filing 
deadline and reporting period. 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 provider compliance 
filings are due by January 31 of each year and cover the previous 
calendar year from January 1 through December 31. By aligning the 
handset manufacturer filing deadline and reporting period with the 
current service provider filing deadline and reporting period, we avoid 
confusion that might develop if we maintained two separate filing 
deadlines and reporting periods for FCC Form 855.
    We are aware that the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement will begin during a reporting period. Rather 
than having these companies file FCC Form 655 to cover part of one 
reporting period and FCC Form 855 to cover part of another reporting 
period, we will require handset manufacturers to file FCC Form 855 to 
cover the entire calendar year that the 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement becomes effective. Likewise, we are aware that this same 
issue will arise with nationwide and non-nationwide service providers. 
We will require these companies to file revised FCC Form 855 to cover 
the entire reporting period that the 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement becomes effective rather than filing the existing FCC Form 
855 for part of the reporting period and revised FCC Form 855 for the 
remaining part of the reporting period. We take these steps to ensure 
an orderly transition to the new compliance filing requirements. When 
reviewing the first FCC Form 855 filings by handset manufacturers and 
the first revised FCC Form 855 by service providers we will recognize 
the transitional nature of these first certification filings and to the 
extent we have questions about the filings we will check the filing 
company's publicly accessible website or attachment to ensure current 
compliance with the 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement.
    Finally, we delegate authority to WTB to revise the information 
that FCC Form 855 collects, as well as other forms and certifications 
under this rule section, to ensure that these forms and

[[Page 89855]]

certifications collect relevant information from handset manufacturers 
and service providers that allows WTB to confirm compliance with the 
hearing aid compatibility rules. These revisions must be consistent 
with existing hearing aid compatibility requirements as reflected in 
the rules and the form and certification modifications must not impose 
new obligations other than the information that must be provided. Any 
revisions to FCC Form 855 will be done in accordance with Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) requirements. These requirements include 
notification requirements. Therefore, the public will have notice of 
any proposed changes to FCC Form 855 and an opportunity to comment on 
these proposed changes before the changes become effective. Further, 
WTB will post revised FCC Form 855 to its wireless hearing aid 
compatibility website once the Office of Management and Budget 
completes its review of the form's revisions.
3. Reliance on Accessibility Clearinghouse Information
    We decline to adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendation that we 
permit service providers to legally rely on the information reported in 
the Global Accessibility Reporting Initiative (GARI) database, which is 
linked to on the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse website. 
Specifically, the HAC Task Force argues that we should allow service 
providers to rely on this information as a legal safe harbor for 
purposes of meeting handset model deployment benchmarks. The HAC Task 
Force asserts that the GARI database provides a more up-to-date 
snapshot of hearing aid-compatible handset models than the annual FCC 
Form 655 reports that handset manufacturers file. Presently, the 
Commission allows service providers to rely on the information found in 
FCC Form 655 reports as a legal safe harbor for handset model 
deployment purposes.
    In the 100% HAC NPRM, we proposed to decline the HAC Task Force's 
recommendation with respect to the GARI database. The Commission 
expressed concern about the accuracy of the information in the GARI 
database and the fact that the Commission does not maintain the 
database. Further, we proposed to decline the HAC 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. In addition, we sought 
comment on whether our rules should continue to require service 
providers to either link to the GARI database on their publicly 
accessible websites or provide a list for the past 24 months of hearing 
aid-compatible handset models that they no longer offer once the 
relevant 100% transition period ends.
    In response to the 100% HAC NPRM, we received comments from MWF, 
who is the developer and administrator of the GARI database, and CTIA. 
MWF and CTIA argue that we should allow service providers to rely on 
information in the GARI database because the database provides more up-
to-date information than FCC Form 655 reports that handset 
manufacturers file each year. MWF argues that the GARI database is more 
user-friendly than FCC Form 655 reports and provides a more complete 
overview of a handset model's accessibility features than FCC Form 655 
reports. MWF also states that it is willing to discuss with the 
Commission ways to address the Commission's reservations concerning the 
accuracy of the database.
    We find this issue to be moot given our decisions above. After the 
handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility transition period 
ends, handset manufacturers will no longer be able to offer non-hearing 
aid-compatible handset models. Service providers who continue to offer 
non-hearing aid-compatible handset models will already have the 
information they need about these models and further will have to stop 
offering these models once their 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition date ends. With respect to hearing aid-compatible handset 
models, service providers will be able to locate the information that 
they need from handset manufacturers' publicly accessible websites or 
from the handset model's package label. Further, the information on 
handset manufacturers' publicly accessible websites will be current 
because we require handset manufacturers to update this information 
within 30 days of any relevant changes and to date stamp their web 
pages to show the date of the last update.
    Further, as we stated in the 100% HAC NPRM, the GARI database is 
not a Commission-maintained database, and the Commission does not 
control who can access the database and what information is added to 
the database. The Commission has no means of ensuring that the 
information in the GARI database is accurate, timely, or complete. 
Moreover, the Commission already allows service providers to rely on 
the information from a handset manufacturer's FCC Form 655 report as a 
safe harbor, and we find it unnecessary to create a second safe harbor 
that may contain inaccurate information. For these reasons, we decline 
the HAC Task Force's request that we allow service providers to rely on 
the information in the GARI database for the purpose of determining 
handset model deployment compliance.
    During the handset manufacturer 100% hearing aid compatibility 
transition period, handset manufacturers will continue to file FCC Form 
655 reports and service providers can continue to rely on the 
information in these reports as a safer harbor. The Commission will 
continue to post these reports on the Commission's wireless hearing aid 
compatibility website and service providers and members of the public 
can review these reports at this website. Further, the Commission's 
Accessibility Clearinghouse website links to the Commission's wireless 
hearing aid compatibility website where the FCC Form 655 reports are 
posted. As a result, there is no need for the Commission to separately 
post these reports on the Accessibility Clearinghouse website. Finally, 
the Commission will post handset manufacturer FCC Form 855 
certifications on the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility 
website just as it presently posts handset manufacturer FCC Form 655 
reports and service provider FCC Form 855 certifications. Members of 
the public, as well as handset manufacturers and service providers, 
will be able to review these certifications after the Commission posts 
them.
    Finally, as discussed above, we will no longer 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. Service 
providers will be required to post all relevant hearing aid 
compatibility information about the handset models they offer on their 
publicly accessible websites where members of the public can review 
this information. Members of the public will also be able to contact 
handset manufacturers and service providers directly with questions 
that they might have about the handset models that these companies 
offer using the point-of-contact information that we adopt below.
4. Company Point-of-Contact Information for Consumer Use
    We require handset manufacturers and service providers to post on 
their publicly accessible websites point-of-contact information that 
consumers can

[[Page 89856]]

use to contact knowledgeable company employees with questions they 
might have about the hearing aid compatibility of handset models that 
these companies offer or to resolve pairing issues they are having with 
one of the company's handset models. Specifically, along with the other 
information that we require these companies to post to their publicly 
accessible websites, we require handset manufacturers and service 
providers to post: (1) the name of a department or a division that is 
staffed with employees knowledgeable about the hearing aid 
compatibility of the handset models that they offer; and (2) an email 
address, mailing address, text number, and a toll free number that 
consumers can use to contact these employees. We also require handset 
manufacturers and service providers to respond to these inquires in a 
timely fashion and in a manner consistent with CTIA's Consumer Code for 
Wireless Service.
    In the 100% HAC NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should 
require this point-of-contact information on handset manufacturers' and 
service providers' publicly accessible websites. As part of our 
tentative conclusion, we stated we would require handset manufacturers 
and service providers to 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 
use to contact these employees. We stated that the purpose of this 
point-of-contact information was to give consumers a way of contacting 
handset manufacturers and service providers about the hearing aid 
compatibility of the handset models that they offer and to have their 
handset model pairing issues resolved. We also stated that we would 
expect handset manufacturers and service providers to be responsive to 
consumer questions and to interact with consumers in a manner 
consistent with the Consumer Code for Wireless Service that can be 
found on CTIA's website. As an alternative to requiring company point-
of-contact information to be posted on company websites, we sought 
comment on whether we should require handset manufacturers and service 
providers to enter the required contact information in a Commission-
maintained database.
    Accessibility Advocates were the only commenter to address our 
tentative conclusion, and they urge us to adopt our main proposal. They 
state that point-of-contact information will help consumers, and that 
it may also help store employees by giving them a resource to assist 
them in better answering consumer questions about the hearing aid 
compatibility of the handset models that their company offers. 
Accessibility Advocates recommend that we modify our proposal to 
include not only a phone requirement, but also a text requirement 
(e.g., text, email, or chat). They argue that adding this additional 
contact information will aid those consumers who have difficulty 
hearing over the phone.
    We find that adopting our tentative conclusion is consistent with 
section 710(a) of the Communications Act that requires the Commission 
to ``establish such regulations as are necessary to ensure reasonable 
access to telephone service by persons with impaired hearing.'' We 
determine that requiring handset manufacturers and service providers to 
post point-of-contact information on their publicly accessible websites 
is consistent with ensuring that consumers with hearing loss have 
reasonable access to telephone service. Consumers with hearing loss 
will be able to use this contact information to ask knowledgeable 
company employees about the hearing aid compatibility of the handset 
models that their company offers and which of these models might best 
meet their listening needs. These consumers will also be able to use 
this contact information to ask knowledgeable company employees about 
pairing issues that they might be having with one of the company's 
hearing aid-compatible handset models and their hearing aids. In 
addition, our point-of-contact requirement may help handset 
manufacturers and service providers reduce consumer frustration and 
help these companies to sell handsets and wireless services.
    We therefore require handset manufacturers and service providers to 
post on their publicly accessible websites the information that we 
tentatively concluded that they should post, as well as the additional 
contact information suggested by Accessibility Advocates. As a result, 
handset manufacturers and service providers must post on their publicly 
accessible websites the name of a department or a division within the 
company that is staffed with knowledgeable employees who can answer 
consumer questions about the hearing aid compatibility of the handset 
models that the company offers and related coupling questions. Handset 
manufacturers and service providers must also post on their publicly 
accessible websites an email address, a mailing address, a text number, 
and a toll free phone number that consumers can use to contact these 
employees. This information must be posted in a manner that is easy for 
consumers to locate and in a straight-forward, easy to understand 
fashion using plain language. Further, consistent with our current 
website posting requirements, we require that handset manufacturers and 
service providers update this point-of-contact information within 30 
days of any relevant changes, and that they date stamp their web pages. 
We also adopt our proposal that consumer inquires must be responded to 
in a timely fashion and in a manner consistent with CTIA's Consumer 
Code for Wireless Service.
    We disagree with CTIA that we should limit the required contact 
information to only one ``text-based option'' and allow handset 
manufacturers and service providers to implement options ``based on 
their business such as text, telephone, email, or chatting.'' Some 
consumers with hearing loss may be more comfortable texting rather than 
emailing or using a chat function. We believe that requiring a broad 
array of ways for consumers with hearing loss to contact handset 
manufacturers and service providers is consistent with the public 
interest. We also note that CTIA's Consumer Code for Wireless Service 
provides that companies should provide customers with a mailing 
address, a toll-free telephone number, an internet method, or through 
other means of communication. In short, providing a broad array of ways 
to contact knowledgeable company employees is in the best interest of 
consumers.
    We will not require handset manufacturers and service providers to 
enter their point-of-contact information in a Commission-maintained 
database. We find that this approach would duplicate our website 
posting requirement and would be burdensome and unnecessary. Further, 
we find that our website posting approach is more consumer friendly 
then creating a Commission-maintained database. Consumers naturally 
expect to find point-of-contact information on handset manufacturer and 
service provider publicly accessible websites and would not intuitively 
look for this contact information in a Commission-maintained database. 
In addition, when looking at handset manufacturer or service provider 
publicly accessible websites, consumers may find the answer to their 
questions on the website without having to contact the company. Our 
revised website posting requirements will ensure handset manufacturers 
and service providers post all relevant information about the handset 
models that they offer,

[[Page 89857]]

including coupling information. A Commission-maintained database would 
not contain specific handset model hearing aid compatibility 
information. We did not receive comments asking us to create a 
Commission-maintained database where handset manufacturer and service 
provider point-of-contact information could be found.
    Finally, we determine to maintain the last sentence of Sec.  
20.19(j) which provides that for enforcement purposes, if a state does 
not provide for enforcement, the procedures set forth in part 68, 
subpart E of the Commission's rules should be followed. In the 100% HAC 
NPRM, we proposed to delete this sentence, and we did not receive any 
comments opposing this change. We are concerned, however, that removing 
this sentence could harm consumers if a state declines to provide for 
enforcement of our hearing aid compatibility rules with respect to a 
consumer complaint. Under these circumstances, the procedures in part 
68, subpart E, of the Commission's rules would apply. The Commission 
has recognized and continues to recognize the essential role consumers 
play in detecting non-compliance with our hearing aid compatibility 
rules. As a result, we determine to maintain the last sentence of Sec.  
20.19(j). The rules contained in part 68, subpart E, explain the 
procedures consumers must follow to initiate a complaint and explains 
the obligations of parties named in those complaints. The deadlines 
contained in those rules ensure that consumers' complaints will be 
addressed in an expeditious manner.

J. Sunsetting the Hearing Aid Compatibility De Minimis Exception

    We eliminate the de minimis exception in our hearing aid 
compatibility rules using a three step process that is consistent with 
the 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods we adopted above. 
Section 20.19(e) of the Commission's rules contains an exception to the 
handset model deployment benchmarks based on the number of handset 
models handset manufacturers and service providers offer for sale or 
use in the United States. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we tentatively 
concluded that we should eliminate the de minimis exception because 
maintaining the exception would be inconsistent with our objective of 
adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. Specifically, we 
tentatively concluded that we should eliminate the exception based on 
the applicable 100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods for 
handset manufacturers and service providers. We did not receive any 
comments objecting to our proposal to eliminate the de minimis 
exception or arguing that we should eliminate the exception in a manner 
different than basing it on the expiration of the relevant 100% hearing 
aid compatibility transition periods.
    We find that eliminating the de minimis exception in Sec.  20.19(e) 
of the Commission's rules is consistent with our adoption of a 100% 
hearing aid compatibility requirement. If we were to maintain the 
exception, this would undercut our decision to adopt a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement. Maintaining the de minimis exception or some 
part of the exception would mean that handset manufacturers and service 
providers who only offer for sale or use in the United States a limited 
number of handset models would be able to offer handset models that 
were not certified as hearing aid compatible. This result would be 
inconsistent with our decision to require all handset models to be 
hearing aid compatible. Further, given the number of handset models 
that are already certified as hearing aid-compatible and the transition 
periods that we adopted above, there is no reason to believe that our 
handset model deployment benchmarks will have a disproportionate impact 
on handset manufacturers or service providers who only offer a limited 
number of handset models for sale or use in the United States. 
Additionally, we have not received anything in the record that 
contradicts our findings.
    In addition, we find that it is unnecessary to maintain a de 
minimis exception for new entrants who may only offer a limited number 
of handset models for sale or use in the United States. With respect to 
new entrant handset manufacturers, after the effective date of the 
Commission's 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, these 
companies could not offer for sale or use in the United States handset 
models that do not meet the certification requirements of the 2019 ANSI 
Standard and the related volume control requirements. To allow new 
entrant handset manufacturers to offer non-hearing aid-compatible 
handset models would be inconsistent and undercut our 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement. Further, new entrant service providers can 
only offer new handset models certified as hearing aid-compatible using 
the 2019 ANSI Standard and the related volume control standard. The 
2019 ANSI Standard and the related volume control standard are the only 
currently effective hearing aid compatibility certification standards 
in place for certifying new handset models as hearing aid compatible.
    With respect to new entrant service providers, once the relevant 
100% hearing aid compatibility transition period ends, these companies 
can only offer for sale or use in the United States handset models 
certified under the 2019 ANSI Standard, including the related volume 
control standard. Similar to new entrant handset manufacturers, it 
would be inconsistent with the Commission's 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement to allow these companies to offer non-hearing 
aid-compatible handset models after the effective date of the new 
standard. Further, allowing new entrant service providers to offer for 
sale or use in the United States handset models certified under the 
2011 ANSI Standard or older ANSI standards after the passing of the 
relevant transition date would slow the transition of all handset 
models offered for sale or use in the United States meeting the latest 
certification requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and our adoption 
of a 100% volume control standard. This finding is consistent with our 
decision that existing service providers can only add new handset 
models to their handset model portfolios after the passing of the 
relevant 100% hearing aid compatibility transition date that meet the 
requirements of the 2019 ANSI Standard and the related volume control 
requirements. We note, however, that a consumer could purchase a 
grandfathered hearing aid-compatible handset model from a handset 
manufacturer and bring it to the new entrant's wireless network as long 
as the handset model is compatible with new entrant's wireless network. 
This ability to purchase grandfathered hearing aid-compatible handset 
models ensures that consumers will have the ability to purchase lower 
cost hearing aid-compatible handset models as long as the handset 
models are compatible with new entrant's wireless network. For all of 
the above reasons, we find it in the best interest of consumers with 
hearing loss to completely eliminate the de minimis exception in our 
hearing aid compatibility rules.
    As a result, we will sunset the de minimis exception in Sec.  
20.19(e) of the Commission's rules using the three-step process that we 
proposed. Specifically, we will eliminate the exception based on the 
100% hearing aid compatibility transition periods that we adopted 
above. After the 24-month transition period ends for handset 
manufacturers, the de minimis exception for handset manufacturers will 
end. Likewise, after

[[Page 89858]]

the 30-month transition period ends for nationwide service providers, 
the de minimis exception for nationwide service providers will end. 
Finally, after the 42-month transition period for non-nationwide 
service providers ends, the de minimis exception for non-nationwide 
service providers will end too. Once the non-nationwide service 
provider transition period ends, the de minimis exception in Sec.  
20.19(e) of the Commission's rules will be eliminated for all handset 
manufacturers and service providers and these companies will no longer 
be able to claim de minimis status.

K. 90-Day Shot Clock for Resolving Hearing Aid Compatibility Waiver 
Requests

    We decline to adopt the HAC Task Force's recommendation that we 
establish a 90-day shot clock for resolving hearing aid compatibility 
waiver requests. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we proposed to decline the HAC 
Task Force's recommendation because we did not anticipate that 
establishing a shot clock would be necessary to ensure the timely 
resolution of potential future waiver requests or to ensure the timely 
deployment of new hearing aid compatibility technologies. We noted that 
section 710(f) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to 
periodically review the regulations established pursuant to the Act, 
and that this statutory obligation curtails the need for waiver 
requests.
    CTIA, the only party to file comments on this issue, supports the 
HAC Task Force's recommendation. CTIA argues that handset manufacturers 
need prompt answers to whether their waiver requests will be granted 
and that ``90 days properly balances (i) expected low number of 
expected petitions, and, relatedly, the burden on FCC staff, (ii) an 
opportunity for public notice and comment, with (iii) the need for 
timely resolution of petitions to ensure the deployment of new 
technologies is not unduly delayed.''
    We disagree with CTIA. We do not believe that the establishment of 
a shot clock is necessary to ensure the timely resolution of potential 
future waiver requests or to ensure that the deployment of new 
technologies is not delayed. Section 710(b)(3) of the Communications 
Act provides that the Commission shall not grant a waiver unless the 
Commission determines on the basis of evidence in the record that 
granting the waiver is in the public interest and that the Commission 
``consider the effect [of the waiver] on hearing-impaired individuals . 
. . .'' Given the highly technical nature of the questions that arise 
in hearing aid compatibility proceedings, 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. In addition to 
providing time for public participation, the Commission often needs to 
allow time for petitioners to supplement the record with additional 
information and data in order for the Commission to have the necessary 
record evidence to be able to resolve the petition. A 90-day time limit 
to resolve waiver petitions could directly impact the Commission's 
ability to fully consider the effect of the waiver request on those 
with hearing loss and, as a result, the Commission's ability to act in 
the public interest.
    We also note that the Commission's practice when adopting new 
hearing aid compatibility requirements has been to do so in conjunction 
with adopting appropriate transition periods. For example, when the 
Commission adopted the 2019 ANSI Standard the Commission also adopted a 
24-month transition period in order to allow handset manufacturers and 
service providers adequate time to adjust to the new standard. Further, 
in 2016 when the Commission adopted the 66% and 85% handset model 
deployment benchmarks, the Commission also adopted a 24-month and 60-
month transition period before handset manufacturers had to meet these 
new benchmarks, respectfully. The Commission extended these compliance 
deadlines by six months for nationwide service providers and by 18 
months for non-nationwide service providers. The Commission's use of 
appropriate transition periods allows handset manufacturers and service 
providers time to adjust to new hearing aid compatibility requirements, 
and avoids the need for waiver requests.
    Further, as we did in the 100% HAC NPRM, we again note that section 
710(f) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to 
periodically review the regulations established pursuant to the Act. As 
evidenced by the number of actions that the Commission has taken with 
respect to the hearing aid compatibility rules over the years, the 
Commission frequently seeks comment on these rules and adopts revisions 
to the rules where needed. The Commission gives handset manufacturers, 
service providers, advocacy groups, members of the public, and 
individuals with hearing loss the opportunity to comment on proposed 
changes to these rules. This opportunity gives commenters the ability 
to inform the Commission of issues that might arise that could lead to 
waiver petitions. We encourage commenters to file meaningful and 
thoughtful comments when the Commission solicits comment on proposed 
hearing aid compatibility rule changes in order to avoid the need to 
file waiver requests at a later date.

L. Renaming Sec.  20.19

    To better reflect the scope of this rule, we change the heading of 
Sec.  20.19 of our hearing aid compatibility rules from ``Hearing aid-
compatible mobile handsets'' to ``Hearing loss compatible wireless 
handsets,'' or ``HLC'' for short. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we sought 
comment on whether we should revise the heading of Sec.  20.19 of our 
rules to better reflect the scope of the section's requirements. We 
noted that while the rules are intended to help ensure access to 
communications services for consumers who use hearing aids, they are 
also intended to help consumers who use other types of hearing devices, 
such as cochlear implants and telecoils, as well as consumers with 
hearing loss who do not use hearing aids. We sought comment on whether 
we should rename the section ``Accessibility for Consumers with Hearing 
Loss'' or ``Hearing Loss Interoperability Requirements.'' We also asked 
if there were alternative headings that we should consider.
    Accessibility Advocates were the only party to file comments on 
this issue. They agree that the heading of Sec.  20.19 should be 
changed to better reflect the scope of this section, and they recommend 
that the heading be changed to ``Wireless Phone Accessibility for 
Consumers with Hearing Loss.'' We, however, prefer a more concise 
heading for the rule section that can be abbreviated to three letters. 
Accordingly, we change the heading of Sec.  20.19 to ``Hearing loss 
compatible wireless handsets,'' or ``HLC'' for short. We find that this 
revised heading better conveys the scope of the 20.19 rule section than 
the current heading. The section covers not just hearing aids, but also 
cochlear implants and telecoils. In addition, the section's volume 
control requirements help those with hearing loss who use hearing aids, 
but also those with hearing loss who do not use hearing aids. The 
section's new heading conveys the broader scope of the rules contained 
in the section.

M. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion

    We find that our decision to adopt a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement furthers our goal to

[[Page 89859]]

advance digital equity and inclusion for all. In the 100% HAC NPRM, we 
specifically sought comment on any equity-related considerations and 
benefits that might be associated with the proposals and issues 
discussed therein. In response, Accessibility Advocates state that 
requiring 100% of handset models to be hearing aid-compatible advances 
digital equity and inclusion for all. We agree with Accessibility 
Advocates. Our adoption in this final rule of a 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement means that for the first time those with 
hearing loss will be able to consider any handset model on the market 
for their use just like consumers without hearing loss. The Commission 
takes seriously its commitment to digital equity and inclusion for all, 
and we will continue to monitor and update the hearing aid 
compatibility rules to ensure those with hearing loss will continue to 
have the same access to handset models as those without hearing loss.

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Achieving 100% Wireless Handset Model Hearing Aid 
Compatibility, notice of proposed rulemaking (100% HAC NPRM), released 
in December 2023. The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the 100% HAC NPRM, 
including the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This 
present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the 
RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    The Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules ensure that the 
millions of Americans with hearing loss have access to the same types 
of technologically advanced wireless handset models as consumers 
without hearing loss. Small and other handset manufacturers and service 
providers are required to make available handset models that meet 
specified technical criteria for hearing aid compatibility. The 
Commission issued the 100% HAC 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 long term goal of requiring 100% of 
handset models offered for sale or use in the United States by handset 
manufacturers and service providers to be certified as hearing aid 
compatible.
    The Report and Order adopts a 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement that applies to all future wireless handset models offered 
for sale or use in the United States. The Commission finds that 
adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement is an achievable 
objective under the factors set forth in section 710(e) of the 
Communications Act. As part of this determination, the Commission 
adopts a more flexible ``forward-looking'' definition of hearing aid 
compatibility. More specifically, the Commission adopts the HAC Task 
Force's expanded definition of hearing aid compatibility, which defines 
a hearing aid-compatible handset model as: (1) having an internal means 
for compatibility; (2) meets established technical standards for 
hearing aid coupling or compatibility; and (3) is usable. The 
Commission also adopts the HAC Task Force's recommendations on how to 
define these terms. This updated definition of hearing aid 
compatibility allows the Commission to adopt a Bluetooth coupling 
requirement. Under this new requirement, the handset model deployment 
benchmarks require at least 15% of the total number of handset models 
that handset manufacturers and service providers will offer for sale or 
use in the United States to connect to hearing aids through Bluetooth 
coupling technology as an alternative to, or in addition to telecoil 
coupling. The 15% Bluetooth coupling requirement means that 85% of the 
total number of handset models that handset manufacturers and service 
providers offer for sale or use in the United States must meet 
applicable telecoil certification requirements. Further, all handset 
models must meet acoustic coupling requirements and all new handset 
models that handset manufacturers and service providers add to their 
handset model portfolios after the applicable transition periods ends 
must meet volume control certification requirements.
    Section 710(e) directs the Commission to ``use appropriate 
timetables or benchmarks to the extent necessary: (1) due to technical 
feasibility, or (2) to ensure the marketability or availability of new 
technologies to users.'' Accordingly, the Commission adopts 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 the 100% 
hearing aid compatibility requirement for all handset models offered 
for sale or use in the United States. These transition periods allow 
for sufficient time to expand access to hearing aid-compatible handset 
models, while giving handset manufacturers and service providers 
sufficient notice and lead time to build hearing aid compatibilities 
into all future handset models rather than into just a certain 
percentage of future handset models. After the applicable 100% hearing 
aid compatibility transition period ends, all handset models offered 
for sale or use in the United States must be hearing aid-compatible. 
Any non-hearing aid compatible handset models cannot obtain a 
certification under 47 CFR part 2, subpart J, and handset manufacturers 
and service providers must remove all non-hearing aid-compatible 
handset models from their portfolios without exceptions. In addition to 
these transition periods, the Commission adopts a 48-month transition 
period after which handset manufacturers may only meet our new 
Bluetooth coupling requirement using non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling 
standards. During the 48-month transition period, handset manufacturers 
may meet the Bluetooth coupling requirement using proprietary or non-
proprietary Bluetooth coupling standards.
    The Report and Order eliminated the de minimis exception in Sec.  
20.19(e) of the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules in a 
manner consistent with the transition periods that the Commission 
adopted. This approach follows the Commission's tentative conclusion in 
the 100% HAC NPRM. The Commission eliminated the de minimis exception 
because maintaining the exception would be inconsistent with its 
objective of adopting a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. The 
Commission also adopted certain implementation requirements related to 
this new 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement, including 
requirements for hearing aid compatibility settings in handset models 
and revised labeling, disclosure, website posting, record retention and 
reporting requirements. Finally, the Commission revised the heading of 
Sec.  20.19 of its rules from ``Hearing aid-compatible mobile 
handsets'' to ``Hearing loss compatible wireless handsets,'' or ``HLC'' 
for short. The Commission made this change to better reflect what the 
section covers.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules 
and policies proposed in the IRFA.

[[Page 89860]]

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 
RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed 
rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file 
comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    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 rules adopted herein. 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.
    Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's 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.
    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 2022, there were 
approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the United States 
reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and 
tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    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.'' United 
States Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate 
there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of 
general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the 
United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose 
governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations 
of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent 
school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. 
Accordingly, based on the 2022 United States Census of Governments 
data, we estimate that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category 
of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    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. 
United States 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.
    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 an 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: 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. 
United States 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.
    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. United States 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.
    Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless 
Resellers. The closest industry with an 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

[[Page 89861]]

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. United States 
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.

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

    The rule changes adopted by the Commission impose revised 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements on some 
small entities, however, these changes are offset by eliminating 
outdated reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements. 
Rather than requiring small and other handset manufacturers and service 
providers to continue to certify that a certain percentage of the 
handset models that they offer must be hearing aid-compatible, they 
will now have to certify that 100% of the handset models that they 
offer are hearing aid compatible. Certification will include compliance 
with acoustic coupling, telecoil, and volume control requirements, as 
well as the submission of an attestation demonstrating compliance with 
the Commission's Bluetooth coupling requirement. Handset manufacturers 
and service providers have already been certifying that their handset 
model portfolios (i.e., the handsets that a handset manufacturer or 
service provider offers for sale or use in the United States) include a 
certain percent of hearing aid-compatible handset models. Therefore, 
this change to a 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement will not 
have a significant impact on the certification requirements. Further, 
the Commission will allow the grandfathering of existing hearing aid-
compatible handset models which will ease the transition to the new 
100% hearing aid compatibility requirement.
    The transition periods that the Commission adopted will 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 typically 
include small and rural providers. These transition periods will help 
small entities transition to the 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement by giving these companies time to adjust their handset 
model portfolios to meet the new hearing aid compatibility 
requirements. In addition, the grandfathering rule that the Commission 
adopted will allow small and other handset manufacturers and service 
providers to continue offering hearing aid-compatible handset models 
that they were offering prior to the applicable 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition dates ending. Moreover, the adopted transition 
timeframes reflect real-world realities, and are based on the ability 
of handset manufacturers to use: (1) the existing 2019 ANSI Standard 
for acoustic and telecoil certification requirements; (2) the volume 
control waiver standard; and (3) the flexibility to use their desired 
Bluetooth coupling technology including the continued use of 
proprietary Bluetooth standards, during a 48-month transition period to 
a non-proprietary requirement which the Commission also adopt in the 
Report and Order. The real world reality is that the majority of 
handset models currently available for sale or use in the United States 
include some type of Bluetooth coupling technology, and already meet 
the Commission's adopted hearing aid compatibility certification 
requirements.
    The Commission revised its handset model labeling requirements by 
removing outdated requirements and adopting updated requirements that 
reflect the 100% hearing aid compatibility requirements and 
certification obligations, and that better serve the interests of 
consumers. These labeling requirements will allow consumers to have the 
information that they need to make informed purchasing decisions. The 
updated labeling and disclosure requirements revise the external 
printed package label and the internal information that must be 
included inside a handset model packaging in the form of printed 
inserts or printed handset manuals. Further, the Commission will allow 
the use of digital labeling technology, including Quick-Response (QR) 
codes, as an alternative to including printed package inserts and 
printed handset manuals, as long as handset manufacturers and service 
providers choosing this option maintain publicly accessible websites. 
Handset manufacturers and service providers that use digital labeling 
technology also must update the required information within 30 days of 
any relevant changes, and must fully comply with all of the Commission 
website posting requirements adopted in the Report and Order.
    The Commission's adoption of a digital labeling technology option 
for the information that must be included within a handset model's 
packaging was at the request of handset manufacturers and service 
providers. This decision to allow some digital labeling will reduce 
regulatory burden for small and other entities. The Commission agreed 
with commenters who stated that digital labeling is a more consumer 
friendly way to deliver the information that is required to be included 
in a printed insert or printed handset manual. Further, the Commission 
found that digital labeling is less burdensome on handset manufacturers 
since they do not have to align testing, certification, and printing 
schedules, and it saves paper, making it a more environmentally 
friendly way of providing information. The Commission determined to not 
require handset manufacturers and service provides who choose to use 
this digital labeling option to also continue to include a printed 
insert or printed handset manual. The Commission found such an approach 
was duplicative and would undercut its findings concerning the benefits 
of digital labeling.
    The revised website posting requirements the Commission adopted 
update and streamline existing requirements and eliminate older and 
outdated requirements. After the relevant 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period expires, small and other handset 
manufacturers and service providers are required to provide certain 
information on their publicly accessible websites. Specifically, 
handset manufacturers and service providers must post: (1) a list of 
all currently offered handset models, including each model's marketing 
name/number(s) and the FCC ID number, along with the ANSI standard used 
to certify the handset model as hearing aid-compatible; (2) for each 
handset model, an affirmative statement of whether or not the handset 
model meets telecoil certification requirements; (3) for each handset 
model, an affirmative statement of whether or not the handset model 
includes Bluetooth coupling technology and, if so, which Bluetooth 
coupling technology the handset model includes; (4) for each handset 
model certified under the 2019 ANSI standard, an affirmative statement 
of the handset model's conversational gain with and without hearing 
aids with the actual conversational gain that is displayed being the 
lowest rating assigned to the handset model for any covered air 
interface or frequency band; (5) if a handset model has been certified 
as hearing aid-compatible under special testing circumstances or 
contains operations or frequency bands that are

[[Page 89862]]

not certified as hearing aid-compatible, an explanation of how this 
affects the handset model's operations; and (6) a link to the 
Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility web page.
    The Commission also eliminated certain record retention 
requirements related to handset models no longer offered for sale or 
use in the United States. Since all handset models will be 100% hearing 
aid-compatible after the relevant transition period ends, the 
Commission further eliminated the posting and record retention 
requirements related to non-hearing aid-compatible handset models. 
These changes reduce regulatory burden and cost, and aid small entities 
by ensuring that only pertinent handset model information is required 
to be posted on publicly accessible websites. To further streamline 
reporting and certification requirements for handset manufacturers, and 
consistent with the Commission's actions in 2018 to reduce regulatory 
burdens for service providers, after the transition period has ended 
the Commission requires handset manufacturers to file FCC Form 855 for 
compliance purposes, and eliminates the requirement that they file FCC 
Form 655. In conjunction with the change to the handset manufacturer 
reporting period to cover the period of January 1 to December 31 of the 
previously calendar year, the Commission aligned the FCC Form 855 
filing requirements for small and other handset manufacturers and 
service providers to reflect the 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement and related requirements adopted in the Report and Order. 
Pursuant to FCC Form 855 filing requirements handset manufacturers, 
like service providers, are required to have a knowledgeable executive 
sign the form, and to certify under penalty of perjury compliance with 
the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements for the 
relevant reporting period.
    In addition to the information the Commission required handset 
manufacturers and service providers to post to their publicly 
accessible websites, the Commission adopted requirements for handset 
manufacturers and service providers to post point-of-contact 
information for consumers. Specifically, handset manufacturers and 
service providers must post on their publicly accessible websites: (1) 
the name of a department or a division that is staffed with employees 
knowledgeable about the hearing aid compatibility of the handset models 
that they offer; and (2) an email address, mailing address, text 
number, and a toll-free number that consumers can use to contact these 
employees. Handset manufacturers and service providers are also 
required to respond to consumer inquires relating to handset hearing 
aid compatibility in a timely fashion, and in a manner consistent with 
the Competitive Telecommunications Industry Association's (CTIA) 
Consumer Code for Wireless Service.
    Finally, the record does not include sufficient cost information to 
allow the Commission to quantify the costs of compliance for small 
entities, including whether it will be necessary for small entities to 
hire professionals to comply with the adopted rules. However, while the 
Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the rule changes 
it adopted, the Commission believes the changes will not have a 
significant effect on costs and burdens for small entities because (1) 
many of the revisions to the hearing aid compatibility rules adopted in 
the Report and Order are based in part on a consensus report resulting 
from the collaborative efforts of members of the HAC Task Force on 
whether, and how the Commission could achieve its long held goal of a 
100% hearing aid compatibility benchmark for all handset models offered 
for sale or use in the United States; (2) a significant number of the 
handset models available for sale or use in the United States already 
meet hearing aid compatibility certification requirements and include 
some form of Bluetooth coupling technology; (3) handset manufacturers 
and service providers were provided the flexibility to continue to use, 
in part, proprietary Bluetooth technology under the Bluetooth coupling 
requirement and 48-months to comply with a non-proprietary requirement; 
(4) the reasonable transition period for compliance with our 100% 
hearing aid compatibility requirement providing 24-months for handset 
manufacturers, 30-months for nationwide providers and 42-months for 
non-nationwide providers (typically small and rural providers); and (5) 
in updating the website posting, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements the Commission also removed outdated requirements.
    The Commission carefully considered the burden and cost associated 
with its revised reporting and website reporting requirements and is 
only requiring information that is needed to ensure compliance with the 
Commission's new 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement and to 
ensure that consumers, especially those with hearing loss, have the 
information that they need to make informed purchasing decisions. In 
situations where the Commission imposed new requirements, such as 
point-of-contact information, the Commission removed other requirements 
that were no longer relevant. For instance, the Commission eliminated 
the posting and record retention requirements related to non-hearing 
aid-compatible handset models, as well as information about hearing 
aid-compatible handset models that are no longer offered. On balance, 
any burdens or costs incurred by small entities as well as other 
handset manufacturers and service providers will be offset by the 
elimination of other existing burdens and costs.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to provide ``a description of the steps 
the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on 
small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and 
legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule 
and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule 
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was 
rejected.''
    The Commission considered specific steps it could take and 
alternatives to the rules it adopted that would minimize potential 
economic impact on small entities that might be affected by the rule 
changes. Many of the rule changes adopted in the Report and Order are 
consistent with the recommendations of the HAC Task Force in full, or 
in part with some modification based on evidence in the record. In 
determining the transition period for the 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement for example, the Commission considered the 
HAC Task Force's recommendation of a 48-month (handset manufacturers) 
and 60-month (service providers) transition period but instead adopted 
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 
the new 100% hearing aid compatibility requirement. These transition 
periods are in keeping with previous transition periods the Commission 
has adopted when implementing new technical standards. Previously the 
Commission found that the appropriate balance between product 
development cycles for handset manufacturers and the needs of consumers 
with hearing loss to receive the benefits of a new technical standard

[[Page 89863]]

are met with a 24-month transition period. While the adopted transition 
periods are shorter than those recommended by the HAC Task Force, these 
transition periods are reasonable and will minimize the economic impact 
for small manufacturers and small service providers since they will not 
have to immediately comply with the revised standards in the short 
term. These entities will have time to bring their handset model 
portfolios into compliance with the Commission's new 100% hearing aid 
compatibility requirement. Further, these entities will be able to 
continue to offer handset models certified under older hearing aid 
compatibility standards as long as they were offering these handset 
models prior to the expiration of the relevant transition period. In 
particular, the 42-month transition period will benefit non-nationwide 
and rural service providers, which are usually small entities.
    During the 48-month transition period before the non-proprietary 
Bluetooth coupling requirement takes effect small and other handset 
manufacturers and service providers can continue use proprietary 
Bluetooth coupling technology. Further, even after the transition 
period ends handset manufacturers and service providers can continue to 
use proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology as long as they ensure 
that 15% of the handset models in their handset model portfolios 
include non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling technology that complies 
with requirements adopted in the Report and Order. All of the adopted 
transition periods aid consumers with hearing loss by allowing them 
access to new hearing aid-compatible handset models as soon as possible 
without negatively impacting product development cycles for handset 
manufacturers and service providers.
    To limit any potential burdens regarding the impact of the 100% 
hearing aid compatibility transition, the Commission is allowing 
handset manufacturers and service providers to continue to offer 
handset models that are already certified as hearing aid-compatible as 
part of their handset model portfolios. Small and other handset 
manufacturers and service providers will be able to meet the 100% 
handset model deployment benchmark using grandfathered handset models 
that have been certified as hearing aid-compatible, as long as the 
handset models were being offered for sale or use in the United States 
prior to the ending of the applicable transition period. This decision 
minimizes the burdens associated with implementing the new standard for 
small entities because they will not have to recertify previously 
certified handset models. In developing this rule, the Commission 
considered discontinuing grandfathering, but ultimately kept the rule 
in order to minimize costs and burdens on small and other handset 
manufacturers and service providers.
    As proposed in the 100% HAC NPRM, the Commission considered but 
declined to institute a recommendation by the HAC Task Force for a ``90 
Day Shot Clock'' to resolve hearing aid compatibility waiver requests. 
While on its face this recommendation may appear to offer a path for 
the resolution of potential future waiver requests or deployment of new 
hearing aid compatibility technologies in a timely manner for small and 
other entities, the Commission does not believe such action is 
necessary to prevent delay and could have an adverse effect for small 
and other entities and the public. The Commission observed that 
extremely technical questions arise in hearing aid compatibility 
proceedings, and adopting a 90-day shot clock could constrain public 
participation, the ability of the Commission to develop the necessary 
record evidence to resolve a matter, and the ability of the Commission 
staff to facilitate consensus solutions that serve the interest of 
consumers with hearing loss and the industry. The Commission also 
observed that the transition periods that it adopts when adopting new 
hearing aid compatibility requirements mitigates against the need for 
waivers. The Commission provides time for handset manufacturers and 
service providers to adjust to the new requirements.
    The Commission also decided to reduce regulatory burden and cost by 
streamlining the reporting requirements for small and other handset 
manufacturers. By eliminating their filing of FCC Form 655 for 
reporting purposes, the Commission synchronized the filing requirements 
of small and other handset manufacturers with the filing requirements 
of service providers. Based on the Commission's estimates that it takes 
30 minutes to complete FCC Form 855 and two and half hours to complete 
FCC Form 655, this rule change will minimize the economic impact for 
small handset manufacturer. Small handset manufacturers will no longer 
have to provide the detailed handset model information that they 
previously had to provide to demonstrate compliance with the hearing 
aid compatibility rules. Instead, after the applicable 100% hearing aid 
compatibility transition period ends small handset manufacturers will 
only have to certify their compliance with the relevant rules. The 
Commission adopted this change in order to balance the potential 
economic impact and burdens that small entity manufacturers and service 
providers might face in light of the 100% hearing aid compatibility 
requirement with the need to ensure that consumers with hearing loss 
can purchase the same handset models that consumer without hearing loss 
can purchase.
    Further reducing regulatory burdens for small entities, the revised 
labeling and disclosure requirements the Commission adopted in the 
Report and Order allow handset manufacturers and service providers to 
forgo the regulatory requirements to provide printed inserts or printed 
handset manuals by allowing them the option to use digital labeling to 
deliver this information to consumers. Digital labeling is less 
burdensome for handset manufacturers since they do not have to align 
testing, certification, and printing schedules, and it saves paper, 
which is a more environmentally friendly way of providing information. 
The Commission also reduced the administrative burdens and the economic 
impact for small entities by eliminating several website posting and 
record retention requirements associated with handsets models.

G. Report to Congress

    The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including 
the FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and 
Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will also be published in the Federal Register.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), 
and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 303(r), and 610, the Report and Order is hereby adopted.
    It is further ordered that the revisions to part 20 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 20, as set forth in Appendix B of the 
Report and Order are adopted, effective thirty days from the date of 
publication in the Federal Register, except that the amendments to 
Sec.  20.19(b)(3)(iii), (f)(3), (h), and (i)(4) and (5) will become 
effective following the completion of review by the Office of 
Management and Budget. Section 20.19(b)(3)(iii), (f)(3), (h), and 
(i)(4) and (5) may contain new or modified

[[Page 89864]]

information collection requirements that require review by the Office 
of Management and Budget under the PRA. The Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the 
revisions to Sec.  20.19(b)(3)(iii), (f)(3), (h), and (i)(4) and (5), 
following the completion of review by the Office of Management and 
Budget.
    It is further ordered that the revisions to Sec.  20.19(f)(1) and 
(2) will become effective either after the Office of Management and 
Budget completes its review of any information collection requirements 
contained in the paragraphs or 25 months after the date that a summary 
of the Report and Order is published in the Federal Register, whichever 
is later. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date of the revisions to Sec.  
20.19(f)(1) and (2).
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary 
shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
    It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, 
Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of the Report and 
Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Administrative practices and procedures, Communications equipment, 
Individuals with disabilities.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

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

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  20.19 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b), and (c);
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(4); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (g) and (i)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  20.19  Hearing loss compatible wireless handsets.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    2007 ANSI standard refers to the technical standard for hearing aid 
compatibility applicable to frequencies between 800 MHz and 3 GHz as 
set forth in ANSI C63.19-2007.
    2011 ANSI standard refers to the technical standard for hearing aid 
compatibility applicable to frequencies between 698 MHz and 6 GHz as 
set forth in ANSI C63.19-2011.
    2019 ANSI standard refers to the technical standard for hearing aid 
compatibility applicable to frequencies between 614 MHz and 6 GHz as 
set forth in ANSI C63.19-2019.
    Acoustic coupling refers to a type of hearing aid compatibility 
where handset models couple with hearing aids through the use of the 
hearing aid's microphone that amplifies sound and the handsets meet 
standards for controlling radiofrequency (RF) interference between the 
handsets and hearing aids.
    ANSI standard refers to the 2007, 2011, and 2019 ANSI standards as 
a group.
    Any version of the ANSI standard previous to the 2019 ANSI standard 
refers to the 2007 and 2011 ANSI standards.
    Bluetooth coupling refers to a type of hearing aid compatibility 
where handset models couple with hearing aids using short range 
wireless technology that relies on internal chipsets and antennas 
within the handset model.
    Digital labeling technology refers to Quick-Response (QR) codes and 
related website addresses that link to additional online information 
about a handset model's hearing aid compatibility.
    Digital mobile service refers to a terrestrial mobile service that 
enables two-way real-time voice communications among members of the 
public or a substantial portion of the public, including both 
interconnected and non-interconnected voice over internet protocol 
(VoIP) services, to the extent that such service is provided over 
frequencies specified in the 2007 ANSI standard, 2011 ANSI standard, or 
the 2019 ANSI standard.
    Handset refers to a device used in delivery of digital mobile 
service in the United States that contains a built-in speaker and is 
typically held to the ear in any of its ordinary uses.
    Handset manufacturer refers to a manufacturer of handset models 
that are used in delivery of digital mobile service, as defined in this 
section, in the United States.
    Handset model portfolio refers to all of the handset models that a 
handset manufacturer or service provider offers for sale or use in the 
United States.
    Hearing aid refers to hearing aids and cochlear implants.
    Hearing aid-compatible refers to a handset model that:
    (i) Has an internal means for compatibility, as defined in this 
section;
    (ii) Meets established technical standards for hearing aid coupling 
or compatibility, as defined in this section; and
    (iii) Is usable, as defined in this section.
    Model refers to a wireless handset that a handset manufacturer has 
designated as a distinct handset model, consistent with its own 
marketing practices. However, if a handset manufacturer assigns 
different model number designations solely to distinguish handset 
models sold to different service providers, or to signify other 
distinctions that do not relate to either form, features, or 
capabilities, such model number designations shall not count as 
distinct handset models for purposes of this section.
    Nationwide service provider refers to a provider of commercial 
mobile radio service, as defined in this section, that offers such 
service nationwide.
    Non-nationwide service provider refers to a provider of commercial 
mobile radio service, as defined in this section, that does not offer 
such service on a nationwide basis.
    Publicly accessible website refers to a consumer facing website 
that handset manufacturers and service providers maintain and that 
consumers can locate through a website search.
    Service provider refers to a provider of digital mobile service, as 
defined in this section, in the United States.
    Telecoil coupling refers to a type of hearing aid compatibility 
where handset models couple with hearing aids through the use of 
telecoils. This form of compatibility can be referred to as inductive 
coupling.
    Volume control requirements refers to the technical standard 
established by ANSI/TIA-5050-2018.
    (b) Hearing aid compatibility; technical standards--(1) Handset 
model compatibility before December 14, 2026. A handset model submitted 
for equipment certification or for a permissive change relating to 
hearing aid compatibility must meet the certification requirements of 
the 2019 ANSI standard, including applicable volume control 
requirements.

[[Page 89865]]

    (2) Handset model compatibility on or after December 14, 2026. A 
handset model submitted for equipment certification or for a permissive 
change relating to hearing aid compatibility 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 coupling technology as a replacement for 
or in addition to meeting the standard's telecoil coupling 
requirements.
    (iv) All such new handset models must come out-of-the-box with 
their hearing aid compatibility related acoustic and volume control 
functions turned on by default. Such handset models may also have 
secondary settings to turn on the handset model's telecoil or Bluetooth 
coupling functions, depending on the secondary capability included in a 
particular handset model. All such handset models must have settings 
for acoustic, telecoil, or Bluetooth coupling (depending on the 
coupling functionality included) and volume control functionality that 
are clearly labeled and allow consumers to easily find these settings 
and to turn these functions on or off as they desire.
    (3) Bluetooth coupling requirements. (i) Between December 14, 2026, 
and December 12, 2028, the Bluetooth coupling requirement may be met 
using either proprietary or non-proprietary Bluetooth coupling 
technology.
    (ii) Beginning on December 12, 2028, the Bluetooth coupling 
requirement may only be met using Bluetooth coupling technology that:
    (A) Utilizes a global, low power wireless technology standard for 
high quality audio voice streaming;
    (B) Is a standalone non-proprietary implementation;
    (C) Is a qualified implementation that has undergone testing to 
verify that the product conforms to the specifications it claims to 
support;
    (D) Offers full interoperability between hearing aids and handset 
models to enable inter-network, inter-provider, inter-platform, and 
inter-handset manufacturer functionality; and
    (E) Uses a design that meets broad, generic hearing aid 
requirements that addresses needed features when coupling to handset 
models for all forms of voice calls and associated handset model use.
    (4) Handset models operating over multiple frequency bands or air 
interfaces. (i) Between December 12, 2024, and December 14, 2026, a 
handset model is hearing aid-compatible if it meets the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section for all frequency bands that are 
specified in the 2019 ANSI standard and all air interfaces over which 
it operates on those frequency bands, and the handset model has been 
certified as compliant with the test requirements for the 2019 ANSI 
standard pursuant to Sec.  2.1033(d) of this chapter.
    (ii) Beginning on December 14, 2026, a handset model is hearing 
aid-compatible if it meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section for all frequency bands that are specified in the 2019 ANSI 
standard and all air interfaces over which it operates on those 
frequency bands, and:
    (A) The handset model has been certified as compliant with the test 
requirements for the 2019 ANSI standard (including the telecoil 
requirements) pursuant to Sec.  2.1033(d) of this chapter; or
    (B) The handset model has been certified as compliant with the test 
requirements for the 2019 ANSI standard (except for the telecoil 
requirements) pursuant to Sec.  2.1033(d) of this chapter and meets the 
Bluetooth coupling requirements of this paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) 
of this section.
    (5) Non-hearing aid-compatible handset models. Beginning on 
December 14, 2026, any non-hearing aid-compatible handset models cannot 
obtain a certification under part 2, subpart J, of this chapter.
    (6) Software updates. (i) Handset models certified as hearing aid-
compatible may not be modified through a software push that results in 
the handset model no longer meeting hearing aid compatibility 
certification standards. In addition, a handset model's conversational 
gain may not be lowered through a software push, unless the impact on 
the conversational gain of a handset model is de minimis. The 
Commission delegates to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in 
coordination with the Office of Engineering and Technology, authority 
to define the scope of the de minimis exception, as needed.
    (ii) Consumers must be notified prior to installing a software push 
if the software push will install new operations or bands that are not 
covered by the applicable hearing aid compatibility certification 
standards and, therefore, these new operations or bands will not meet 
hearing aid compatibility certification requirements.
    (7) Factual questions. All factual questions of whether a handset 
meets the technical standard(s) of this paragraph (b) shall be referred 
for resolution to the Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, 
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554.
    (8) Grandfathered handset model. A handset model certified under 
any version of Commission authorized technical standards prior to 
December 13, 2024, may continue to be offered for sale or use, as long 
as the Commission permits the handset model to continue to be offered 
for sale or use.
    (c) Phase-in of hearing aid-compatibility requirements. The 
following applies to each handset manufacturer and service provider 
that offers handset models for sale or use in the United States that 
are used to deliver digital mobile services as specified in paragraph 
(a) of this section.
    (1) Handset manufacturers--Number of hearing aid-compatible handset 
models offered for sale or use in the United States prior to December 
14, 2026. At least eight-five (85) percent of those handset models 
(rounded down to the nearest whole number) must be hearing aid-
compatible as defined under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (2) Handset manufacturers--Number of hearing aid-compatible handset 
models offered for sale or use in the United States after December 14, 
2026. All handset models shall meet the following hearing aid 
compatibility requirements:
    (i) One hundred (100) percent of these handset models must meet the 
2019 ANSI standard's acoustic coupling requirements or have been 
certified as meeting the M3 acoustic rating under a previous ANSI 
standard;
    (ii) At least eighty-five (85) percent of those handset models 
(rounded down to the nearest whole number) 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;
    (iii) At least fifteen (15) percent of those handset models 
(rounded up to the nearest whole number) must have Bluetooth coupling 
technology consistent with paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) of this section 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 standards;
    (iv) One hundred (100) percent of these handset models must meet at 
least two forms of coupling. Specifically, all handsets must:
    (A) Meet the acoustic coupling requirement, as specified in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, and meet the telecoil requirement, 
as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section; or

[[Page 89866]]

    (B) Meet the acoustic coupling requirement, as specified in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, and have Bluetooth coupling 
technology, as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section; and
    (v) All new handset models that a handset manufacturer adds to its 
handset model portfolio must meet the 2019 ANSI Standard's volume 
control requirements.
    (3) Nationwide service providers--Number of hearing aid-compatible 
handsets models offered prior to June 14, 2027. At least eight-five 
(85) percent of those handset models (rounded down to the nearest whole 
number) must be hearing aid-compatible as defined under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (4) Nationwide service providers--Number of hearing aid-compatible 
handset models offered after June 14, 2027. All handset models that 
nationwide service providers offer and add to their handset model 
portfolios must meet the same requirements that handset manufacturer 
handset models must meet as set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (5) Non-nationwide service providers--Number of hearing aid-
compatible handsets models offered prior to June 12, 2028. At least 
eight-five (85) percent of those handset models (rounded down to the 
nearest whole number) must be hearing aid-compatible as defined under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (6) Non-nationwide service providers--Number of hearing aid-
compatible handset models offered after June 12, 2028. All handset 
models that non-nationwide service providers offer and add to their 
handset model portfolios must meet the same requirements that handset 
manufacturer handset models must meet as set forth in paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section.
    (7) Availability and in-store testing of hearing aid-compatible 
handset models. All handset manufacturers and service providers must 
make their best efforts to make available all hearing aid-compatible 
handset models that they offer for sale or use to consumers to test, in 
each retail store owned or operated by the handset manufacturer or 
service provider. If a handset model is not available in-store for 
testing, handset manufacturers and service providers must make their 
best efforts to make the handset model available to the consumer for 
testing within 48 hours by shipping the handset model either to the 
store or to the consumer's home. Further, handset manufacturers and 
service providers must make their best efforts to ensure that all of 
the hearing aid-compatible handset models that they offer for sale or 
use will be in the hands of consumers within 48 hours of the consumer 
ordering the hearing aid-compatible handset model.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) Beginning December 14, 2026, handset manufacturers may no 
longer claim de minimis status under the terms of this section. 
Beginning June 14, 2027, nationwide service providers may no longer 
claim de minimis status under the terms of this section. Beginning June 
12, 2028, non-nationwide service providers may no longer claim de 
minimis status under the terms of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) Handset model number designation requirements. Where a handset 
manufacturer or service provider makes a physical change to a handset 
model, the handset model must be given a model number designation 
distinct from that of the handset model prior to its alteration. A 
physical change to a handset model is defined as changes to the handset 
model's hardware or software that causes a variation in the form, 
features, or capabilities of the handset model as compared to the 
handset model prior to these alterations.
    (1) Handset models recertified as hearing aid-compatible under 
updated certification standards are not required to be assigned a new 
model number designation unless the handset model has been physically 
changed, as defined in this paragraph (g), to meet the requirements of 
the updated certification standard. Handset models being recertified as 
hearing aid-compatible under updated certification standards must meet 
all aspects of the updated certification standard. Handset models being 
recertified as hearing aid-compatible may not be recertified as hearing 
aid-compatible using parts of two different ANSI standards or distinct 
certification standards.
    (2) Handset manufacturers may assign new handset model number 
designations to handset models recertified as hearing aid-compatible 
under updated certification standards that have not undergone any 
physical changes, as defined in this paragraph (g), if the handset 
manufacturer chooses to for its own reasons. Under these circumstances, 
handset manufacturers and service providers shall not count the handset 
model more than once for purposes of meeting handset model deployment 
benchmark requirements regardless of the number of handset model number 
designations that the handset model has been assigned.
    (3) Handset models recertified as hearing aid-compatible under 
updated certification standards must have the labeling, disclosure, and 
website posting information related to the handset model updated within 
30 days of the updated certification. These updates must indicate that 
the handset model has been recertified under updated certification 
standards and explain how this updated certification affects the 
handset model's operations. These updates must be made regardless of 
whether the handset model was physically altered to meet the 
requirements of the updated certification standard.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) Form and content requirements. The Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau is delegated authority to approve or prescribe forms, formats, 
and methods for submission of the reports and certifications in 
addition to or instead of those required by this section. Further, the 
Bureau is delegated authority to revise the information that these 
reports and certifications collect as long as these revisions are 
consistent with the rules in this section and do not impose additional 
obligations beyond providing the information that these reports and 
certifications collect. Any format or content changes the Bureau adopts 
will be made available on the Bureau's website.
* * * * *

0
3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec.  20.19 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii);
0
b. Revising the heading of paragraph (f);
0
c. Adding paragraph (f)(3);
0
d. Revising paragraph (h);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (i)(4) as paragraph (i)(6); and
0
f. Adding new paragraph (i)(4) and paragraph (i)(5).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  20.19  Hearing loss compatible wireless handsets.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) As part of the statement required pursuant to Sec.  2.1033 of 
this chapter, handset manufacturers shall include a sworn declaration 
consistent with Sec.  1.16 of this chapter verifying:
    (A) The specific Bluetooth coupling standard included in each 
handset model to be marketed under the requested equipment 
authorization;
    (B) That each handset model has been tested to ensure compliance 
with the

[[Page 89867]]

relevant designated Bluetooth coupling standard; and
    (C) Beginning on December 12, 2028, that the included Bluetooth 
coupling standard meets the definition of hearing aid-compatible in 
paragraph (a) of this section and the related Bluetooth functionality 
requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Labeling and disclosure requirements for hearing aid-compatible 
handset models-- * * *
    (3) Use of digital labeling technology. (i) External printed 
package labels must be printed and affixed to the outside of the 
handset model's packaging and contain the information required by 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section. This information may not be delivered 
to consumers through the use of digital labeling technology.
    (ii) The information required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section 
may be delivered to consumers using digital labeling technology, as an 
alternative to including an internal printed package insert or printed 
handset manual as long as the handset manufacturer or service provider 
choosing this option maintains a publicly accessible website where 
consumers can easily locate the information required by paragraph 
(f)(2). Handset manufacturers and service providers choosing this 
option must provide consumers with both a Quick-Response (QR) code and 
the related website address where the information required by paragraph 
(f)(2) can be found. The required information must be presented in a 
straight-forward fashion using plain language that is easy for 
consumers to understand. Handset manufacturers and service providers 
choosing this option must update this information within 30 days of any 
relevant changes, and they must ensure that they are in full compliance 
with the website posting requirements of paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) website posting requirements. (1) Each handset manufacturer and 
service provider that maintains a publicly accessible website must make 
available on its website:
    (i) A list of all currently offered handset models, including each 
model's marketing name/number(s) and the FCC ID number, along with the 
ANSI standard used to certify the handset model as hearing aid-
compatible;
    (ii) For each handset model, an affirmative statement of whether or 
not the handset model meets telecoil certification requirements;
    (iii) For each handset model, an affirmative statement of whether 
or not the handset model includes Bluetooth coupling technology and, if 
so, which Bluetooth coupling technology the handset model includes;
    (iv) For each handset model certified under the 2019 ANSI standard, 
an affirmative statement of the handset model's conversational gain 
with and without hearing aids with the actual conversational gain that 
is displayed being the lowest rating assigned to the handset model for 
any covered air interface or frequency band;
    (v) If a handset model has been certified as hearing aid-compatible 
under special testing circumstances or contains operations or frequency 
bands that are not certified as hearing aid-compatible, an explanation 
of how this affects the handset model's operations; and
    (vi) A link to the Commission's wireless hearing aid compatibility 
web page.
    (2) Each handset manufacturer and service provider that maintains a 
publicly accessible website must post to their websites the name of a 
department or a division within the company that is staffed with 
knowledgeable employees who can answer consumer questions about the 
hearing aid compatibility of the handset models that the company offers 
and related coupling questions. Along with posting the information 
required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section, handset manufacturers and 
service providers must post to their publicly accessible websites an 
email address, mailing address, text number, and a toll-free number 
that consumers can use to contact the knowledgeable company employees. 
These employees shall respond to consumer inquires in a fashion 
consistent with good business practices.
    (3) The information on handset manufacturer and service provider 
publicly accessible websites must be presented in a straightforward 
fashion using plain language that is easy for consumers to understand. 
In addition, this information must be updated within 30 days of any 
relevant changes, and web pages must include a date stamp allowing 
consumers to understand how recent the information is that they are 
viewing.
    (i) * * *
    (4) FCC Form 855 certification filing requirements. After December 
14, 2026, handset manufacturers shall file FCC Form 855 rather than FCC 
Form 655 to certify their compliance with the requirements of this 
section. After December 14, 2026, service providers shall continue to 
file FCC Form 855 to certify their compliance with the requirements of 
this section. Handset manufacturers and service providers shall file 
FCC Form 855 by January 31 of each year and the certification shall 
cover the previous calendar year from January 1 through December 31. 
Each certification shall be accurate and provide information that can 
be verified by the filer's publicly accessible website or, if the filer 
does not maintain a publicly accessible website, the filer must include 
an attachment with its certification which contains the information 
required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (5) FCC Form 855 certification content. The FCC Form 855 that 
handset manufacturers file, nationwide service providers file after 
June 14, 2027, and non-nationwide service providers file after June 12, 
2028, must include the following information:
    (i) An affirmative statement as to whether the filer is a handset 
manufacturer, a nationwide service provider, or a non-nationwide 
service provider;
    (ii) In the case of a handset manufacturer, an affirmative 
statement as to whether the filer ceased offering handset models during 
the reporting period or, in the case of a service provider, the filer 
ceased offering wireless service during the reporting period;
    (iii) An affirmative statement that the filer did not offer for 
sale or use in the United States non-hearing aid-compatible handset 
models for the reporting period as required by paragraph (c)(2), (4), 
or (6) of this section, as applicable to the filer;
    (iv) The total number of hearing aid-compatible handset models the 
filer offered for sale or use in the United States for the reporting 
period;
    (v) The number of these handset models that met applicable telecoil 
requirements;
    (vi) The number of these handset models that met the applicable 
Bluetooth coupling requirement and a statement as to whether the 
Bluetooth coupling technology was a proprietary or non-proprietary 
implementation, the name of the Bluetooth coupling technology, and a 
statement as to whether the Bluetooth technology met the requirements 
of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section;
    (vii) An affirmative statement that all new handset models added 
during the reporting period met volume control certification 
requirements as required by paragraph (c)(2), (4), or (6) of this 
section, as applicable to the filer;
    (viii) An affirmative statement that the filer was in full 
compliance with the labeling and disclosure requirements in paragraph 
(f) of this section;

[[Page 89868]]

    (ix) A statement as to whether the filer used digital labeling 
technology to deliver to consumers the information required by 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, as an alternative to including a 
printed insert or printed handset manual;
    (x) If the filer maintains a publicly accessible website, the filer 
must include a link to the website showing compliance with paragraph 
(h) of this section or, if the filer does not maintain a publicly 
accessible website, an affirmative statement that the filer does not 
maintain a publicly accessible website and has included an attachment 
with its filing showing the information required by paragraph (h)(1) of 
this section;
    (xi) The name of the signing executive and contact information;
    (xii) The company(ies) covered by the certification;
    (xiii) The FRN; and
    (xiv) 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 
reporting period with the Commission's wireless hearing aid 
compatibility 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.

    (xv) If the company selected that it was not in full compliance 
with this section, an explanation of which wireless hearing aid 
compatibility requirements it was not in compliance with, when the non-
compliance began and (if applicable) ended with respect to each 
requirement.
* * * * *

0
4. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec.  20.19 by revising 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.19  Hearing loss compatible wireless handsets.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) External printed package label. For all handset models 
certified as hearing aid-compatible, handset manufacturers and service 
providers shall ensure that the handset model has an external printed 
package label that clearly and legibly provides in plain language the 
following information:
    (i) That the handset model is certified as hearing aid-compatible;
    (ii) Whether or not the handset model meets telecoil or Bluetooth 
coupling requirements or both requirements and, in the case of 
Bluetooth coupling requirements, which Bluetooth coupling standard the 
handset model includes; and
    (ii) The handset model's actual conversational gain with and 
without hearing aids, if certified under the 2019 ANSI standard, with 
the actual conversational gain that is displayed being the lowest 
rating assigned to the handset model for any covered air interface or 
frequency band.
    (2) Internal printed package insert or printed handset manual. For 
all handset models certified to be hearing aid-compatible, handset 
manufacturers and service providers shall ensure that included within 
the handset model's packaging is either a printed package insert or a 
printed handset manual that provides the following information in a 
clear and legible format using plain language:
    (i) An explanation of what it means that the handset model is 
certified as hearing aid-compatible and which ANSI standard was used 
for certification purposes;
    (ii) An explanation of what acoustic, telecoil, and Bluetooth 
coupling are and which of these coupling capabilities the handset model 
includes and, in the case of Bluetooth coupling, which Bluetooth 
coupling standard the handset model includes;
    (iii) If the handset model was certified under the 2019 ANSI 
standard, an explanation of the handset model's volume control 
capabilities, an affirmative statement of the handset model's 
conversational gain with and without hearing aids, and an explanation 
of how to turn the handset model's volume control capabilities on and 
off;
    (iv) An explanation of how to turn each of the handset model's 
coupling functions on and off and an explanation that by default the 
handset model comes with its acoustic and volume control functions 
turned on; and
    (v) If the handset model has been certified as hearing aid-
compatible under special testing circumstances or contains operations 
or frequency bands that are not certified as hearing aid-compatible, an 
explanation of how this affects the handset model's operations. Under 
these circumstances, the included printed package insert or printed 
handset manual must include the following disclosure statement:

    This phone has been tested and certified for use with hearing 
aids for some of the wireless technologies that it uses. However, 
there may be some newer wireless technologies used in this phone 
that have not been tested yet for use with hearing aids. It is 
important to try the different features of this phone thoroughly and 
in different locations, using your hearing aid or cochlear implant, 
to determine if you hear any interfering noise. Consult your service 
provider or the handset manufacturer of this phone for information 
on hearing aid compatibility. If you have questions about return or 
exchange policies, consult your service provider or phone retailer.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-25088 Filed 11-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P`