89832 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov, 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 

fcc504@fcc.gov 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89833 

amendatory text (§ 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 nonproprietary 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-ofthe-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 straightforward fashion using plain language. 

Handset manufacturers and service 

providers choosing this option must 

provide consumers with both a QuickVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Nov 12, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR3.SGM 13NOR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89834 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-ofcontact 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 aidcompatible 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89836 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible handset models, we do not 

find that our 100% compliance standard 

will reduce the affordability of lowestcost 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 aidcompatible, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 Commissionapproved 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 forwardlooking 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 § 20.19(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89838 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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, interprovider, inter-platform, and interhandset 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89840 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

designated Bluetooth coupling standard; 

and (3) after the transition to a nonproprietary 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 aidcompatible 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 aidcompatible 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89842 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible 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 instore 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 instore 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 nonnationwide 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 nonhearing 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 nonproprietary 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 aidcompatible 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 nonproprietary 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89844 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonproprietary 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 nonproprietary 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 nonproprietary 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 nonproprietary, 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 nonproprietary 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 nonproprietary Bluetooth coupling 

technology meeting our requirements. In 

addition, adopting a 48-month 

transition period will encourage handset 

manufacturers to incorporate nonproprietary 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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, interprovider, inter-platform and interhandset 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 nonproprietary 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 nonproprietary 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% nonproprietary 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 outof-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-thebox 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-thebox 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-thebox 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 aidcompatible, 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 aidcompatible 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

flexibility in designing their handset 

model printed package labels as long as 

the labels include the required 

information in a clear and straightforward 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 § 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 § 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 § 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, § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, § 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 aidcompatible handset models to be 

recertified under updated certification 

standards, we note that handset models 

may not be certified as hearing aidcompatible 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89851 

through a software push, subject to a de 

minimis exception as described below. 

Just as consumers purchase hearing aidcompatible 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonhearing aid-compatible handset models 

that they offer, including the marketing 

model name/number(s) and FCC ID 

number, or a list of all hearing aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible and non-hearing aidcompatible 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 nonhearing aid-compatible handset models, 

as well as information about handset 

models that are no longer offered. Since 

all handset models will be hearing aidcompatible, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89853 

deadline and reporting period for 

handset manufacturers with the filing 

deadline and reporting period used for 

service providers. We noted that 

§ 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-ofcontact 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 aidcompatible handset models for the 

reporting period as required 

§ 20.19(c)(2), (4), or (6), as applicable to 

the filer; 

• The total number of hearing aidcompatible 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 20.19(f); 

• A statement as to whether the filer 

used digital labeling technology to 

deliver to consumers the information 

required by § 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 aidcompatible 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 pointof-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-ofcontact information that consumers can 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89856 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-ofcontact 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 Commissionmaintained 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 straightforward, 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 Commissionmaintained 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 nonhearing 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible handset models ensures that 

consumers will have the ability to 

purchase lower cost hearing aidcompatible 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89858 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonnationwide service providers ends, the 

de minimis exception for nonnationwide service providers will end 

too. Once the non-nationwide service 

provider transition period ends, the de 

minimis exception in § 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 § 20.19 

To better reflect the scope of this rule, 

we change the heading of § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible. 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 § 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 § 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89860 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 aidcompatible 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 nonproprietary 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 QuickResponse (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 aidcompatible; (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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89862 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 aidcompatible 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-ofcontact 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 tollfree 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 nonproprietary 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 nonhearing 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible, 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89864 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 20 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

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

615c, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 20.19 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (e)(4); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (g) and (i)(4). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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, interprovider, inter-platform, and interhandset 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 § 2.1033(d) of this 

chapter. 

(ii) Beginning on December 14, 2026, 

a handset model is hearing aidcompatible if it meets the requirements 

of paragraph (b)(2) of this section for all 

frequency bands that are specified in the 

2019 ANSI standard and all air 

interfaces over which it operates on 

those frequency bands, and: 

(A) The handset model has been 

certified as compliant with the test 

requirements for the 2019 ANSI 

standard (including the telecoil 

requirements) pursuant to § 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 § 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatibility 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89866 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible under updated certification 

standards must meet all aspects of the 

updated certification standard. Handset 

models being recertified as hearing aidcompatible 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend 

§ 20.19 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii); 

■ b. Revising the heading of paragraph 

(f); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (f)(3); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (h); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraph (i)(4) as 

paragraph (i)(6); and 

■ f. Adding new paragraph (i)(4) and 

paragraph (i)(5). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 20.19 Hearing loss compatible wireless 

handsets. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) As part of the statement required 

pursuant to § 2.1033 of this chapter, 

handset manufacturers shall include a 

sworn declaration consistent with § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 QuickResponse (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 aidcompatible, 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 aidcompatible 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 aidcompatible 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; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
89868 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Delayed indefinitely, further amend 

§ 20.19 by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and 

(2) to read as follows: 

§ 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 aidcompatible, 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 aidcompatible, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3