[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2625-2631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-801]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 10-254; DA 10-2388]
Comment Sought on 2010 Review of Hearing Aid Compatibility
Regulations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks comments
on the operation and effectiveness of the Commission's rules relating
to hearing aid compatibility of wireless handsets. On the basis of the
evaluation, the Bureau will consider whether to recommend to the
Commission both rule revisions and non-regulatory measures to ensure
that persons with hearing loss will continue to have broad access to
evolving modes of wireless communication.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before February 14,
2011, and reply comments on or before March 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: All filings should refer to WT Docket No. 10-254. Comments
may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS), or (2) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for
submitting comments. If multiple dockets or rulemaking numbers appear
in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic
copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in
the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
filers should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the
following words in the body of the message, ``get form [lang]your e-
mail address[rang].'' A sample form and directions will be sent in
response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and
Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20554.
One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by e-
mail or facsimile, or if delivered as paper copy, by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (according to the procedures set
forth above for paper filings), to the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., at [email protected] or (202)
488-5563 (facsimile).
Copies of the public notice and any subsequently-filed documents in
this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc. in person
at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via
telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at (202) 488-5563, or via e-
mail at [email protected]. The public notice and any associated documents
are also available for public inspection and copying during normal
reference room hours at the following Commission office: FCC Reference
Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. The public notice is also available electronically through the
Commission's ECFS, which may be accessed on the Commission's Internet
Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes,
large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to
[email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Spectrum and
Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at
(202) 418-1883 or by e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public
Notice in WT Docket No. 10-254 and DA 10-2388, released on December 28,
2010. In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and
Further NPRM released on August 5, 2010, in WT Docket No. 07-250, 75 FR
54508 and 75 FR 54546 (Sept. 8, 2010), the
[[Page 2626]]
Commission reiterated its intention, first stated in 2008, to initiate
a review of the hearing aid compatibility rules for digital wireless
services and handsets in 2010. In this review, the Bureau will
comprehensively evaluate the operation of the current hearing aid
compatibility rules, 47 CFR 20.19, and their success in making a broad
selection of wireless phones accessible to people who use hearing aids
and cochlear implants, as well as in making information about those
phones available to the public. On the basis of this evaluation, the
Bureau will consider whether to recommend to the Commission both rule
revisions and non-regulatory measures to ensure that persons with
hearing loss will continue to have broad access to evolving modes of
wireless communication, consistent with the three principles the
Commission set forth in the Hearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and
Order and Further NPRM to guide its hearing aid compatibility policies:
Ensuring that developers of new technologies consider and
plan for hearing aid compatibility at the earliest stages of the
product design process;
Accounting for technological feasibility and marketability
in the Commission's rules pertaining to hearing aid compatibility,
thereby maximizing conditions for innovation and investment; and
Providing industry with the ability to harness innovation
to promote inclusion by allowing the necessary flexibility for
developing a range of solutions to meet consumers' needs while keeping
up with the rapid pace of technological advancement.
The Commission is required by law to ensure that persons with
hearing loss have access to telephone service. The Hearing Aid
Compatibility Act of 1988, 47 U.S.C. 610, required all telephones
manufactured or imported for use in the United States to meet
established technical standards for hearing aid compatibility, with
certain exceptions, among them an exception for telephones used with
mobile wireless services. To ensure that the Act kept pace with the
evolution of telecommunications technology, Congress granted the
Commission authority to ``revoke or otherwise limit'' the wireless
telephone exception, based on considerations of public interest,
adverse effect on individuals with hearing loss, technological
feasibility, and marketability of compliant wireless telephones.
In 2003, the Commission determined that continuation of a complete
exemption for wireless telephones would have an adverse effect on
individuals with hearing loss, and that limiting the exemption was
technologically and economically feasible and in the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission promulgated rules to ensure that all
manufacturers and service providers offer consumers a selection of
wireless handsets that are compatible with hearing aids. These rules
were later modified and strengthened in 2008 and in August 2010.
In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and
Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment on proposed changes to the
wireless hearing aid compatibility rules in three specific areas: (1)
Whether to extend the hearing aid compatibility requirements beyond the
currently covered class of commercial mobile radio services to include
handsets used to provide wireless voice communications over any type of
network among members of the public or a substantial portion of the
public; (2) whether to extend the in-store testing requirement to
include retail outlets other than those owned or operated by service
providers; and (3) whether to generally permit a user-controlled
reduction of power as a means to meet the hearing aid compatibility
standard for operations over the Global System for Mobile (GSM) air
interface in the 1900 MHz band. The Commission will address these
matters in a Report and Order in WT Docket No. 07-250, and the Bureau
urges commenters not to repeat their comments on these matters in
response to this document. To the extent any comments made in the
rulemaking docket are relevant to the questions asked in this document,
commenters should restate those points in response to the questions
below.
On October 8, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Twenty-
first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
(Communications Accessibility Act), Public Law 111-260, ensuring that
individuals with disabilities have access to emerging Internet
Protocol-based communications and video programming technologies in the
21st Century. Among other provisions, the Communications Accessibility
Act extends hearing aid compatibility requirements to customer premises
equipment ``used with advanced communications services that is designed
to provide 2-way voice communications via a built-in speaker intended
to be held to the ear in a manner functionally equivalent to a
telephone.'' The Communications Accessibility Act preserves the
exemption of mobile handsets from the requirement that all telephones
be hearing aid-compatible, while maintaining the Commission's authority
to revoke or limit such exemption. The Commission will address in WT
Docket No. 07-250 whether changes to its rules are necessary to
effectuate the hearing aid compatibility provisions of the
Communications Accessibility Act. Commenters should consider the
context of the new legislation in framing their responses to this
document.
All parties with knowledge and interest are encouraged to file. In
addition to written responses, the Bureau encourages submission of any
data, charts or proposed plans that can be entered into the public
record for purposes of building a record on this subject.
In order to assist the Commission in evaluating the wireless
hearing aid compatibility rules, the Bureau ask commenters specifically
to address the questions set forth below. To the extent feasible,
commenters may want to organize their responses alphabetically/
numerically as set forth below in order to facilitate Commission
review.
Availability of Hearing Aid-Compatible Handsets
On July 15, 2010, manufacturers of handsets were required to file
reports detailing the hearing aid compatibility status of their handset
offerings from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. Twenty-one
manufacturers have filed reports pursuant to this provision identifying
a total of 302 handset models that they offered as of June 2010. The
hearing aid compatibility status of these handsets, sorted according to
the air interface(s) incorporated in the handset, is summarized in the
table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total offered by
June 2010 handset M3/M4 handsets T3/T4 handsets
manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDMA-Only.............................................. 134 133 105
CDMA/WCDMA............................................. 1 1 1
GSM-Only............................................... 60 33 26
[[Page 2627]]
GSM/CDMA............................................... 3 3 3
GSM/WCDMA.............................................. 88 44 31
iDEN................................................... 16 14 8
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 302 228 174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, the Bureau seeks comment on whether hearing aid-
compatible handsets are sufficiently available to consumers in the
current marketplace, including phones with a full range of different
feature sets. In this regard, the Bureau seeks comment on the impact
that the Commission's deployment benchmarks and technical standards
have had on increasing compatibility between hearing aids and wireless
handsets. The Bureau also seeks comment on the impact of the rules on
smaller service providers.
1. Do the Commission's deployment benchmarks appropriately ensure that
hearing aid-compatible handsets are available to all consumers?
a. The Commission's rules currently require handset manufacturers,
other than those subject to the de minimis exception, to meet at least
an M3 rating for radio frequency (RF) interference reduction for at
least one-third of their models (rounded down) over each air interface,
with a minimum of two models, and to meet a T3 rating for inductive
coupling capability for at least 25 percent of their models (rounded
down) over each air interface, with a minimum of two models. The
percentage benchmark for inductive coupling capability will increase to
one-third on February 15, 2011. Service providers must meet an M3
rating for at least 50 percent of their models or 10 models over each
air interface, and must meet a T3 rating for at least one-third of
their models or seven models over each air interface. The numerical
benchmark for inductive coupling capability will increase to 10 models
in 2011. Under these benchmarks, has a selection of hearing aid-
compatible handsets become readily available to all consumers across
the various air interfaces, including third-generation (3G) air
interfaces? Should the benchmarks be increased in future years or
restructured in any way? In particular, should the T3 benchmark be
increased to equal the M3 benchmark, given the growing number of
consumers using hearing aids with telecoils? Commenters should consider
the cost to manufacturers and service providers of complying with any
changed benchmarks and any effects on innovation as well as the
benefits to consumers with hearing loss.
b. In enacting the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act, Congress found
that people with hearing loss should have access to the
telecommunications network ``to the fullest extent made possible by
technology and medical science.'' In light of this policy, should the
Commission be moving toward a goal of ensuring that all wireless
handsets meet hearing aid compatibility standards? If the Commission
were to institute a 100% compatibility requirement, what would be the
effects on investment and innovation?
c. Should the Commission consider applying different benchmarks to
different technologies in light of the circumstances surrounding each
technology? For example, should higher benchmarks apply to future
technologies in order to encourage consideration of hearing aid
compatibility in the early stages of product development? Should lower
benchmarks be kept in place for the legacy GSM air interface in
recognition of the technical challenges to achieving hearing aid
compatibility using that technology, as well as the likelihood that it
will be phased out over the next several years? The Bureau notes that
the ANSI C63.19 standard revision that is under consideration, by
measuring RF interference potential directly, would eliminate the need
for certain conservative assumptions and make it approximately 2.2dB
easier for GSM phone to achieve an M3 rating. Should different
benchmarks be adopted for CDMA than for GSM?
d. Are hearing aid-compatible handsets widely available across all
market segments, including the prepaid phone market? The Bureau notes
that under the current rules, service providers must meet the hearing
aid compatibility benchmarks across their entire product line, and are
not required separately to account for the phones offered to different
market segments, such as prepaid versus postpaid. Is there a need for
rules specifically addressing the prepaid market or any other segment,
and what would be the effects of any such rules on manufacturers or
service providers?
2. Are hearing aid-compatible phones available to consumers with a full
range of different feature sets?
a. The Commission's rules require manufacturers to ``refresh''
their hearing aid-compatible products by ensuring, in most instances,
that at least half their required minimum number of M3-rated phones is
met by models introduced within a given calendar year. Service
providers must offer hearing aid-compatible models with different
levels of functionality. The Bureau seeks comment on whether these
rules have succeeded in making hearing aid-compatible handsets
available to consumers with different feature sets? For example, do
consumers with hearing loss have access comparable to the general
population both to handsets with the most advanced features, including
smartphones, and to basic models? Is there a concentration of hearing
aid-compatible handsets in a particular feature set? Commenters should
note any differences in variety specific to particular air interfaces
or market segments. Are any additional rules needed to ensure
availability of a full range of hearing aid-compatible models?
b. At the same time, are the refresh and level of functionality
rules necessary? Given the usual product cycles for wireless handsets,
would manufacturers produce and service providers offer hearing aid
compatibility in many of the newest models in the absence of these
rules simply to meet the benchmarks? What paperwork or other burdens do
these rules impose, and are these burdens outweighed by the benefits to
consumers? Do these rules remain necessary in the CDMA air interface,
given that nearly all CDMA phones produced today meet hearing aid
compatibility standards? Should the rules be modified or eliminated for
some or all handset lines?
3. Do the rules appropriately account for the challenges facing smaller
service providers?
a. When the Commission adopted the current handset deployment
[[Page 2628]]
benchmarks, it provided service providers other than commercial mobile
radio service providers with nationwide footprints (Tier I carriers)
with an additional three months to meet each benchmark. In addition,
businesses that are small entities as defined by the U.S. Small
Business Administration, unlike larger manufacturers and service
providers, are exempt from offering hearing aid-compatible phones over
an air interface indefinitely so long as they offer no more than two
models. The Bureau requests comment on whether these provisions
appropriately accommodate the difficulties faced by smaller service
providers in offering hearing aid-compatible handsets.
b. The Bureau seeks information on the burden that hearing aid
compatibility requirements impose on smaller service providers. Is
there a significant difference in the cost of rule compliance between
Tier I carriers and non-Tier I carriers? To what extent are smaller
service providers delayed in their ability to obtain new and desirable
handsets, or are they able to obtain these handsets at all? Does the
extent of any additional costs or delays depend on the size of the
service provider, for example, as between a small local company and a
sizable regional carrier? Are resellers differently situated than small
facilities-based providers?
c. In light of these burdens, is it appropriate to modify the
Commission's rules with respect to smaller service providers? For
example, would smaller providers need more than three months additional
time to meet any future benchmarks the Commission may adopt, or is no
additional time warranted? Are the current benchmarks appropriate for
non-Tier I carriers, or should they be reduced? Should different rules
apply to different tiers of non-Tier I service providers, and if so, on
what criteria should these tiers be based? Commenters should address
the effect of any such potential rule changes on the customers of
smaller service providers, and how their access to hearing aid-
compatible handsets can be protected.
d. Similarly, should the Commission consider amending the de
minimis rule to exempt some small entities from requirements to offer
hearing aid-compatible handset models, even if they offer more than two
models per air interface? For example, an exception could be based on a
service provider's monthly sales. Would such a rule better reflect
market realities, under which small service providers may have access
only to small lots of multiple different handset models? Would
customers of small carriers, particularly in the most rural areas,
still have access to a selection of hearing aid-compatible handsets?
e. Are smaller service providers and manufacturers, particularly
new entrants, adequately informed about their obligations under the
hearing aid compatibility rules? Is there anything the Commission can
and should do to improve communications with these entities?
4. Do the M3 and T3 technical standards appropriately ensure
compatibility with hearing aids?
a. The Commission's rules consider a handset to be hearing aid-
compatible for RF interference reduction if it meets at least an M3
rating under ANSI Standard C63.19-2007, and for inductive coupling
capability if it meets at least a T3 rating. Are these requirements
appropriate to ensure that users of hearing aids and cochlear implants
will be able to access wireless communications? Would any other
standards be more appropriate? Should there be any requirements to
offer handsets that meet M4 and/or T4 ratings? On the other hand, do
handsets that are rated less than M3 or T3 provide effective
compatibility for some users of hearing aids and cochlear implants, and
if so should the Commission's rules recognize their performance?
b. Under the 2007 revision of ANSI Standard C63.19, a handset must
meet an acceptable rating for RF interference reduction--i.e., an M3 or
M4 rating under the Commission's rules--in order to be rated T3 or T4
for inductive coupling capability. Would there be benefits to wearers
of hearing aids with telecoils if the minimum RF noise threshold
requirement to achieve a T3 rating were relaxed? Is there evidence to
support such a change that ANSI Accredited Standards Committee
C63[reg] (ANSI ASC C63[reg]) should consider?
Sufficiency of Information
The hearing aid compatibility rules include several provisions to
ensure that device manufacturers and service providers share
information on their hearing aid-compatible handset offerings with the
Commission and with the public. In this section, the Bureau seeks
comment on the value and any negative effects of the information
disclosures required in reports to the Commission, on manufacturers'
and service providers' Web sites, at the point of sale, and in
packaging materials. The Bureau also seeks comment on the in-store
testing requirement and on measures that could be taken to improve the
availability of information to consumers who purchase their phones from
sources other than their service provider.
5. Is the reporting system collecting appropriate information in an
efficient way, and is the Commission making this information available
to the public in an accessible and easily manipulable manner?
a. The wireless hearing aid compatibility rules require handset
manufacturers and service providers to submit annual reports to the
Commission on the status of their compliance. In June 2009, the Bureau
introduced the electronic FCC Form 655 as the mandatory form for filing
these reports, and since that time both service providers and
manufacturers have filed reports using the electronic system. The
Bureau seeks comment on the functioning of this system.
b. Does Form 655 collect the necessary information on hearing aid-
compatible handset offerings? Is any unnecessary information being
collected? Do third-party sources provide information about hearing
aid-compatible handsets that may diminish the need for reporting to the
Commission? Even if information about hearing aid-compatible handsets
is available from other sources, is reporting to the Commission still
necessary to ensure compliance with the rules?
c. Is the electronic Form 655 an efficient means of collecting
information? What burdens does the reporting impose on device
manufacturers and service providers? What changes to the system might
improve its operation?
d. Does the reporting requirement impose special burdens on small
device manufacturers and service providers? In light of any such
burdens, should smaller entities be exempt from some or all reporting
requirements? If so, what should be the threshold for such an
exemption? What effects would an exemption of smaller entities have on
the availability of information to consumers?
e. Is the information collected by the Commission on Form 655 made
accessible to the public in an easily usable manner at http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac? What changes might the Commission make to its Web
site to improve the accessibility of this information? Are there
measures the Commission could take that would facilitate use of this
information by application developers to provide richer information
products? Would it be helpful to collect and post the information in
XML or any other format? Should the Commission
[[Page 2629]]
incorporate the information it receives on Form 655 into the
clearinghouse of information on the availability of accessible products
and services and accessibility solutions that it is establishing
pursuant to new Section 717(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
618(d)?
6. Are manufacturers' and service providers' Web sites providing useful
information in an accessible manner?
a. The rules require that each handset manufacturer and service
provider make available on its Web site a list of its hearing aid-
compatible handset models, the hearing aid compatibility ratings of
those models, and an explanation of the rating system. Service
providers also must include the levels of functionality of their
hearing aid-compatible phones and an explanation of their methodology
for determining levels of functionality. Do these Web sites contain the
required information? Is it posted in a manner that is easily
accessible to and understandable by consumers? Would it be helpful to
develop best practices or other guidance to promote the most user-
friendly approaches? If so, should this guidance be promulgated by the
Commission or developed through collaboration among industry and
consumer representatives?
b. Is there any additional information that consumers or other
stakeholders would find helpful to have posted on manufacturers' or
service providers' Web sites? Should the posting of any such
information be required by the Commission or should it be voluntary?
7. Are the point-of-sale and packaging disclosures appropriately
informing consumers?
a. The rules require that manufacturers and service providers
clearly display the hearing aid compatibility ratings on the packaging
material of a hearing aid-compatible handset, and that they include an
explanation of the rating system in the device's user manual or as a
packaging insert. Are manufacturers and service providers supplying
this information, and are they doing so in a manner that is clear and
helpful to consumers? Are consumers able to understand the hearing aid
compatibility rating system? If not, are there any measures the
Commission can and should take to improve the disclosures? Should such
measures take the form of a rule or voluntary guidance?
b. The rules further require that, for handsets that include
operations over an air interface or frequency band for which hearing
aid compatibility technical standards do not currently exist, each
manufacturer and service provider must disclose to consumers by clear
and effective means that such handset has not been rated for hearing
aid compatibility with respect to that operation. Effective March 8,
2011, manufacturers and service providers will be required to use
specific prescribed language in making this disclosure. The Bureau
notes that ANSI ASC C63[reg] is developing a revision of the C63.19
technical standard that would be independent of air interface and cover
a broad range of frequency bands. Until such time as the promulgation
and adoption of a revised technical standard renders this disclosure
unnecessary, is the disclosure effective and should any changes be
made?
c. Are consumers adequately informed of the need to activate the
hearing aid compatibility functions in their phones, particularly when
used with hearing aids containing a telecoil? If not, what actions
might the Commission take to promote more effective dissemination of
this information?
d. Is there any additional information that should be made
available to users of hearing aids or cochlear implants at the point of
sale or in product manuals? How should any such additional disclosure
be achieved?
8. Is the rule that requires phones to be made available for in-store
testing effective?
The current rules require that service providers offer in-store
testing of hearing aid-compatible handset models in each retail store
they own or operate. Is the testing offered under this rule effective
in helping consumers choose a hearing aid-compatible phone? What
challenges have service providers encountered in offering effective in-
store testing? Are there any rule changes or other Commission action
that would make the testing more effective or efficient?
9. What actions might the Commission take to provide better information
to consumers with hearing loss who obtain phones from sources other
than their service provider?
In the Hearing Aid Compatibility Second Report and Order and
Further NPRM, the Commission asked whether the in-store testing
requirement should be extended to independent retailer outlets not
owned or operated by service providers, and whether independent
retailers should be required to offer a customer with hearing loss a
flexible return policy to ensure that a handset is compatible with the
customer's hearing aid. Are there any other measures the Commission
might take to assist consumers who purchase their phones from
independent retailers in obtaining hearing aid-compatible phones? For
example, is there a need for disclosure of hearing aid compatibility
information by third-party online vendors? Commenters should address
the Commission's authority to adopt these measures and the burdens
imposed on retailers as well as the benefits for consumers.
Technical Issues
In this section, the Bureau seeks comment on questions relating to
technical issues affecting hearing aid compatibility. In particular,
the Bureau asks about the need for additional measures to facilitate
acoustic coupling compatibility, as well as the effects of display
screens, wireless headsets, and simultaneous transmission capabilities
in handsets. The Bureau also seeks comment on what the Commission can
do to facilitate better operation of hearing aids and cochlear implants
with wireless handsets.
10. Are measures needed to facilitate acoustic coupling between
wireless handsets and hearing aids?
a. ANSI Standard C63.19 and the Commission's existing wireless
hearing aid compatibility rules address the compatibility of wireless
handsets with hearing aids in two respects: (1) RF interference with
hearing aids operating in acoustic mode and (2) inductive coupling
capability with hearing aids containing a telecoil. However, other
obstacles to acoustic coupling compatibility may exist. In particular,
a Working Group of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions (ATIS), WG-11, is studying issues involving volume control
and acoustic coupling. The Bureau seeks comment on any measures the
Commission should take, in addition to the rules regarding RF
interference reduction, to promote acoustic coupling capability between
wireless handsets and hearing aids or cochlear implants.
b. Wireline and cordless phones are subject to technical standards
and rules regarding volume levels and controls, 47 CFR 68.4. Are
similar rules feasible and necessary to ensure that wireless phones
will operate at appropriate volumes to achieve acoustic coupling
compatibility? If so, what should these rules require? What burdens
would these requirements impose on manufacturers and service providers?
c. Is adequate information currently available to consumers and
hearing aid manufacturers regarding wireless
[[Page 2630]]
phones' volume settings and sound quality? What challenges exist to
providing such information? For example, to what extent are volume and
sound quality affected by the network rather than the consumer device?
Is information about volume and sound quality proprietary to the
handset manufacturer or service provider? What actions can and should
the Commission take to promote greater availability of this
information?
d. Are there any other measures the Commission should take to
facilitate acoustic coupling compatibility? For example, wireline
phones typically emit a magnetic field that may be sensed by some
hearing aids to trigger an acoustic coupling telephone mode. Wireless
phones, however, may not emit a magnetic field of similar strength. Do
differences between wireline and wireless technology mean that certain
hearing aids are not receiving effective signals to activate special
acoustic coupling modes for telephone use? If so, are there actions the
Commission might take to enable such signaling? What would be the costs
of such measures?
11. Are measures needed to address the effect of display screens on
hearing aid compatibility?
In earlier proceedings, concerns have been expressed that the
display screens on smart phones emit electromagnetic energy that may
interfere with the operation of hearing aids. In light of ongoing
experience, are measures needed to address the effects of display
screens on hearing aid compatibility? Do the measurement procedures
specified in ANSI Standard C63.19 appropriately account for these
effects? Might these effects be ameliorated by, for example,
programming a handset so that the backlighting fades when it is held
close to an object such as the human ear? The Bureau seeks comment on
the benefits and costs of regulatory or non-regulatory measures that
might be appropriate to promote this and other potential technical
solutions.
12. Do wireless headsets create special issues for hearing aid
compatibility?
Consumers are increasingly using Bluetooth and other headset or
earpiece technologies to communicate over their wireless phones. Does
the use of these technologies pose special challenges for users of
hearing aids and cochlear implants? For example, might the headset or
earpiece create RF interference with the hearing assistance device? Are
there physical difficulties using a headset or earpiece with certain
types of hearing aids? What regulatory or non-regulatory measures might
be appropriate to address these concerns?
13. Are measures needed to address handsets that can transmit
simultaneously over multiple air interfaces or frequency bands?
The 2007 revision of ANSI Standard C63.19 does not include a
detailed method for testing RF interference when a handset is
simultaneously transmitting over more than one air interface or
frequency band. Current Commission guidance requires handsets with such
capability to be tested over each air interface or frequency band
separately. Until a protocol for testing in these situations has been
developed, are there other actions the Commission should take?
14. What actions might the Commission take to facilitate better
interoperability of hearing aids and cochlear implants with handsets?
a. Interoperability between wireless handsets, on the one hand, and
hearing aids and cochlear implants on the other involves the
functioning of two different devices in a single operating system. In
order to help the Bureau best to understand this system, the Bureau
encourages commenters to provide information regarding the technical
operation of hearing aids and cochlear implants. In particular, the
Bureau seeks information on new and emerging technical advances that
may affect how hearing aids and cochlear implants interoperate with
wireless phones.
b. The Bureau invites public comment on how effectively different
types of hearing assistance devices operate with wireless handsets. Do
they generally function as anticipated, or is there a substantial
amount of uncertainty? Is the functioning different for different types
of hearing aids? Are cochlear implants different from hearing aids in
this regard?
c. Are there actions that the Commission, in coordination with the
Food and Drug Administration, could take to facilitate the
dissemination of information about hearing aids and cochlear implants
to wireless handset manufacturers, service providers, and consumers of
wireless service?
Innovation, Investment, and Competition
15. What is the state of innovation in solutions to enable people with
hearing loss to access wireless technology, and do the Commission's
rules appropriately facilitate and encourage such innovation?
a. As the number and types of features embedded in smartphones and
other wireless handsets continue to evolve, new challenges may be posed
for hearing aid compatibility. For example, as noted above,
simultaneous transmission capabilities pose challenges for measuring RF
interference. Are there other emerging or anticipated technological
developments that may create similar issues? Do the Commission's rules
create appropriate incentives to consider hearing aid compatibility
early in the product development cycle, when any concerns can be most
efficiently addressed? Are there measures the Commission could take
that would better ensure the early consideration of such issues?
b. The Commission's rules assume that wireless handsets will
achieve hearing aid compatibility by meeting an M3 and/or T3 rating
through features that are built into the handset. Are there other means
of achieving hearing aid compatibility, either existing or under
development, that may be more efficient or effective? For example,
could hearing aid compatibility be achieved through a downloaded
application? Do the Commission's rules in any way inhibit development
of such innovative solutions? If so, how might the rules be modified to
address this without compromising their effectiveness?
c. Are there other technologies, either in existence or on the
horizon, that may assist people with hearing loss in using wireless
technology? Are there technical developments that may create new
obstacles for people with hearing loss?
16. Do the Commission's rules successfully promote investment and
competition with respect to hearing aid-compatible wireless handset
offerings?
a. What is the nature and extent of competition among device
manufacturers and service providers with respect to hearing aid-
compatible phones? Is it similar to competition in the handset and
service markets generally? Is the incentive to invest in features for
hearing aid-compatible phones comparable to that in the broader handset
market?
b. Do the Commission's rules appropriately assign responsibility
for hearing aid compatibility compliance in cases of joint ventures and
other complex market arrangements? Is there any need for clarification
in this regard?
[[Page 2631]]
Ongoing Collaboration
17. What actions should the Commission take to promote ongoing
collaboration among consumers with hearing loss, the communications
industry, and the hearing aid industry?
a. In July 2003, the ATIS Incubator Solutions Program 4
(AISP.4) (Incubator), was created to investigate methods of enhancing
interoperability and usability between hearing aids and wireless
handsets. The Incubator has performed invaluable work in bringing
together wireless device manufacturers, service providers, and
consumers to discuss and develop solutions to hearing aid compatibility
problems and in proposing to the Commission consensus plans to best
meet the needs of both the industry and consumers with hearing loss.
The Bureau understands that this body is now approaching the end of its
institutional life. In the absence of the Incubator, how can the
Commission best ensure that the industry and consumers will continue
collaborating to address new technological and market developments in a
timely manner. Could the Commission's Accessibility and Innovation
Initiative, described at http://www.broadband.gov/accessibilityandinnovation/, provide support for such collaboration?
b. The Bureau also seeks comment on how best to promote increased
collaboration between the communications and hearing aid industries.
Could the Accessibility and Innovation Initiative be an appropriate
venue for these conversations as well?
Federal Communications Commission.
Ruth Milkman,
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2011-801 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P