Reviewing The Impact Of The DOJ's New Accessibility Regulations For Movie Theaters

Today, the Department of Justice announced that they have published the final rule clarifying a movie theater's obligations to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services for people with disabilities who come to see a film. The Final Rule now is available online on the Federal Register’s website and on the Department's ADA website. The rule will take effect on January 17, 2017. Prior to publishing this rule, the DOJ released an advance copy of the final rule, as well as a FAQ on the rule on their ADA website. 

The impact of these regulations will depend on the particular movie theater company. Most large movie chains have already made their theaters accessible to the Deaf and Blind. For them, the impact will be minimal. However, the effect of these new regulations may be a burden on smaller movie theater companies or independently owned movie theater companies.

For the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community, the new DOJ rules requires theaters with digital screens must provide closed captions to Deaf and Hard of Hearing customers. Two years ago, the DOJ published a "July 11, 2014 Initial Regulatory Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis" for the new proposed rule making for movie theaters with digital screens, it notes that "currently, there are four different closed caption technologies for digital cinema systems available on the commercial market—the Rear Window® system; the CaptiView™ system by Doremi Cinema, LLC; Ultra Stereo Labs (USL), Inc.’s closed caption infrared system; and Sony’s Entertainment Access Glasses and Audio Description receivers.[17] The Department understands that about 300 RWC systems are currently installed at U.S. movie theaters nationwide; research by the Department also suggests that as of March 2013, about 9,750 Doremi CaptiView™ systems have been installed domestically. Sony’s glasses are a recent entrant to the market, first available in 2012."

Most movie theaters will be able to easily comply with the new regulations since many of the theaters already have caption technologies long before the new rules were released. 

I will briefly review the Rear Window system, the CaptiView system and the Sony Access Glasses and how they help Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals enjoy movies that they see at their local movie theater.

Rear Window Captioning System

Rear Window Captions were created for the 35mm Prints, but it has been reconfigured for use in digital formats. There is a small rectangular screen that is at the back of the movie theater that displays the captions in reverse and the mirror will show the captions in the proper order. This technology is placed into the seat cupholder for the Deaf person to view.

The problem with the Rearview technology is that the words on the screen are often small or are blocked by the screen grids.Additionally, it does not provide "outside noises" beyond dialogue, such as a helicopter, crowd noise which are  not captioned the way they normally would be during a TV show. The other issue is with the device itself. You have to struggle with the positioning of the device and people often have to reposition it frequently which degrades the experience of attending a film. It takes multiple adjustments to get the captions into the proper view that you want. Also, if a Deaf person has to leave the theater to use the restroom and returns back to the film, they have to move it out of the way and then come back to struggle with it again to put in the right position for them. Finally, this technology takes up cup space leaving a Deaf individual to hold the cup during the film or put it between their legs. 

 CaptiView System

The CaptiView works in a similar manner as the Rear View System. The CaptiView system transmits and receives AES-128 encrypted closed captions on a wireless band frequency within a 80 meter signal range. This gives it an advantage over the Rear View system in that it can be used from any seat in the theater which the Rear View system requires the Deaf patron to find a seat that in line with the screen in the back of the theater. The other advantage is that it comes with a privacy visor so it can be positioned directly in front the movie patron with minimal impact or distraction to neighboring patrons. However, the downsides to this technology is the same as it is for the Rear View system.

Sony Entertainment Glasses

Sony created advanced glasses that contains unique holographic technology in which closed captioned text appear on the glasses that appear to be superimposed on to the screen. The glasses have a receiver box that is equipped with an audio assist function, this solution is useful not only for people with hearing difficulties but also for people with visual impairments. The glasses weigh about 3 oz (84 g) and the receiver weighs approx. 3.1 oz (89 g) which means they are about the same size as 3D glasses you would wear at to see a 3D film. Another awesome benefit of this technology is that users can choose from one of six languages that may be offered in the glasses so long as the language is available in the DCP (Digital Cinema Package) format. Viewers simply select the language by manipulating the captioning glasses’ receiver box. You can also select how far or close you want to appear on the glasses and how bright you want the captioning to appear on your glasses. 

The only downside to the Sony Glasses is that they seem to run out of juice pretty quickly. I have to repeatedly go to the box office to get a new pair of glasses while I am watching a film.

I personally find the Sony Entertainment Glasses better than Rear Window Captioning or CaptiView. Some people don't like it because they find the glasses too heavy or that it is too bulky. But I love it. It doesn't occupy your cupholder. You don't have to wrestle with the pole to get the captioning in the right position. If you need to leave the theater to take a phone call in the hallway or use the restroom, it will still provide captioning for the film.

Open Captions

Open Captions is a really simple and durable technology. Text appears on the screen and is embedded in the video presented on the screen. For the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, it is the preferred method of watching movies. It is the gold standard.  It is my preferred way of watching movies at the movie theater. 

The only drawback to open caption movies is that it is not available at any time you show up at the movie theater. With any of the other accessible technologies mentioned in this article, you can walk into a theater at any time to watch the film  so long as the movie theater has Sony Glasses or CaptiViews available for you. If the theater runs out of the Sony Glasses because there are lots of people with hearing loss at the theater, you're out of luck. With open captions, there's no chance of that happening because everyone in the cinema can enjoy the technology at the same time.

Conclusion

The new DOJ rules for movie theaters shouldn't be too burdensome since many movie theaters have been providing customers with hearing loss with technology for awhile now. I think the impact of these new regulations will improve the way movie theaters serve their customers. Movie theaters will be more proactive in training their staff on how to use the technology and that the accessible items will be well maintained and ready upon request.  These regulations may get movie theaters to consider the needs of their deaf or blind customers and to provide them with an enjoyable movie experience.

DOJ Releases Final Rules Requiring Movie Theaters To Be Accessible to Deaf and Blind Patrons

Recently, the Department of Justice released the final rule requiring movie theaters to take the following action:

(1) Public accommodations that own, operate or lease movie theaters have and maintain the equipment necessary to provide closed movie captioning and audio description at a movie patron’s seat whenever showing a digital movie produced, distributed, or otherwise made available. (see §36.303(g)(2)-(6)). In other words, equipment must be available at all showings for the Deaf and Blind patrons of all movie theaters and that they must have a minimum number of fully operational captioning devices and to provide them to patrons upon request.

(2) Public accommodations that own, operate or lease movie theaters must provide notice to the public about the availability of these features to their Deaf and Blind customers.  (see § 36.303(g)(8)).

(3) Public accommodations that own, operate or lease movie theaters must ensure that theater staff is available to assist patrons with the equipment before, during, and after the showing of a movie with these features. (see §36.303(g)(9)). This means that movie theaters must have staff available who are able to operate and respond to problems with all equipment necessary to deliver captioning and audio description and to show patrons how to use the individual devices whenever digital movies with such features are shown.

As an attorney and advocate for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community as well as the former Chairman of Loop Utah, this is excellent news. It has always been a challenge for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community to enjoy films at the local movie theater. This new rule creates a nationwide standard that will be followed throughout the United States.

 Title III of the ADA requires public accommodations to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services and to ensure effective communication with people with disabilities. The DOJ considers captioning and audio description devices to be auxiliary aids under the ADA. 

The purpose behind the release of this new regulation is that even though many movie houses worked hard to make their theaters accessible to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing as well as to the Blind, the DOJ was still receiving complaints that neither closed movie captioning nor audio description is universally available at movie theaters across the United States. Even when they do provide it, the devices may not be kept in good shape as to be readily available upon request.

This new rule applies only to certain movie theaters as defined by the rule. The rule defines a movie theater as a “facility, other than a drive-in theater, that is owned, leased by, leased to, or operated by a public accommodation and that contains one or more auditoriums that are used primarily for the purpose of showing movies to the public for a fee.” 

This new regulation will not apply to any movie theater that shows only analog movies in all of its auditoriums nor will it apply to drive-in theaters because the technology to provide closed movie captioning and audio description in such venues allegedly does not yet exist.

It is worth noting that under this new DOJ rule, it allows movie theaters to provide open captioning (i.e., captioning that is shown on the screen and visible to all movie patrons) but it does not require movie theaters to provide open captioning under any circumstances.  Unfortunately, Hearing Loops were not mandated under these new regulations.

Currently, there are four different closed caption technologies for digital cinema systems available on the commercial market. Those technologies are the Rear Window® system; the CaptiView™ system by Doremi Cinema, LLC; Ultra Stereo Labs (USL), Inc.’s closed caption infrared system; and Sony’s Entertainment Access Glasses and Audio Description receivers.

A movie theater must provide a minimum number of fully operational captioning devices in accordance with the following table.

A movie theater must provide a minimum number of fully operational audio description devices in accordance with the following table.

Naturally, movie theaters do not have to comply with the new rule’s requirements if compliance would result in an undue burden or a fundamental alteration.

The DOJ intends to publish the final rule in the Federal Register in the near future, and the rule will take effect 45 days after publication.

Why Making a Murderer May Be The Best Legal Documentary Ever

Like millions of other Americans, I became obsessed  with Netflix's documentary, "Making a Murder." I watched the documentary twice. I often check for updates and developments on the case. I was happy to learn that Brendan Dassey's conviction was recently overturned and that he'll be released from jail soon. I often check Kathleen Zellner's twitter account to see if she has any updates in her ongoing defense of Steven Avery. 

I think this documentary is probably the best legal documentary ever made. Although this film is about the troubling investigation and prosecution of Teresa Halbach’s alleged murder, the documentary's real value is educating the public about the importance of "Due Process".

What Is Due Process?

Due process is the idea that our laws are created in an open and clear manner and that the enforcement of those laws through the criminal justice system are applied in a fair, transparent and unbiased manner. These laws prevent the government from depriving citizens of their rights by requiring the government to follow some rules in how they enforce the law. This means that law enforcement officials, judges, lawyers and prison officials have their own set of rules and procedures that they must follow when they try to determine if a citizen broke the law and what the consequences of the violation of that law should be.

Think of it this way. There are rules that govern how a specific sport or game is played. That means that the athlete must play the game within the bounds of those rules and that he plays the game in a fair and honest way. But there are also rules that the referees must follow so that they are not biased in favor of one team or athlete over another and that they apply the rules in a fair, open and consistent manner. As a result, due process protects the players and the referees by requiring that everybody is fair either in the following the rules or in the enforcement the rules.

Due Process is the both the foundation and the framework that provides the stability and structure that is required to make the sporting event work. If the players disregard the rules, unfairness will ruin the game. If the players are trying to follow the rules but the referees are disregarding the rules of how they determine if the players are playing the game properly, injustice will occur frequently.

For me, it is extremely important that the public be educated about the concept of Due Process. It isn't enough to know that the rules that people follow must me fair and that the process by which the judicial system determines if someone has broken the rules be fair, but that the public should be educated on the rationale behind Due Process. The "why" behind Due Process is a simple concept but even simple ideas need to be taught so that we don't forget the reasons behind the rules we have, especially when it comes to the criminal justice system.

Making A Murderer: The Failure of Due Process 

Making a Murder may be the most important and best legal film ever because it educates the public about the importance of Due Process.

There is plenty of debate over whether or not Steven Avery really killed Teresa Halbach. He might have killed her. He may not have. Avery's guilt or innocence isn't the main point of the documentary.  His innocence or guilt is irrelevant. I didn't say it was important. I just said it was irrelevant.

The reason why everyone is angry about what happened in this documentary isn't that the police got the wrong individuals who killed Teresa Halbach. It is entirely possible that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey killed her. People are angry because the police, the prosecutors, and the judges failed to follow the rules which resulted in an unfair and unconstitutional investigation and trial of these two men. Nobody followed the law.  

Due Process did not happen in this case.

For anyone who watched the documentary, it was clear that there was tons of gross misconduct that led to several serious violations of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey's constitutional rights. The police, the District Attorneys, Brendan Dassey's personal defense attorney and the Judges clearly didn't follow due process, ethics, or the Constitution. 

Imagine if the Green Bay Packers played against the Patriots and the Patriots violated every rule known in football to get a touchdown. Yes, they got a touchdown but the touch down should not stand because the Patriots didn't play the game within the confines of the rules of the NFL. Now, imagine the shock to Green Bay when they complain about the Patriots' illegal touchdown to the referees and NFL...only to find that the refs or the the NFL leadership don't care about the illegal touchdown. 

That's what happened to these two men. The police didn't follow the "rules" (the law) of the Constitution, state law or ethics or even the instructions of the neighboring District Attorney. 

The District Attorney and Judges clearly didn't care that the police failed to follow the rules. In fact, the District Attorneys, Brendan Dassey's defense attorney and the Judges didn't follow the Constitution or state law either. The "referees" disregarded the rules that govern their conduct.

Dean Strang and Jerome Butting, the defense attorneys for Steven Avery, tried to warn government officials that they were not following the law in the investigation or trial of their client. But the judicial system didn't care that multiple violations of Brendan or Stephen's rights had occurred.

For me, I don't know who I am more angry with. Should I be more angry with the team (the police) that cheated or the referees (the Judges) that looked the other way when there was a clear violation of the rules? 

 Why Due Process Is Important To You

Due Process is important for anyone who is ever has been, or will be, under the scrutiny of the government for potentially committing a crime. Due process applies to all felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. It doesn't matter if the crime is big or small. Due process applies at the start a criminal investigation and continues on until the accused is convicted and punished for his or her crime. 

When someone is accused of committing a crime, the people who are investigating the crime cannot be breaking their own rules, especially when the accused is presumed to be innocent. When the judicial system doesn't follow the rules, people's rights are violated and unfairness occurs.

That's why the debate over whether or not Steven Avery and Brendan are guilty of killing Teresa Halbach is irrelevant. There seems to be plenty evidence to support guilt or innocence in this case. These men could be 100% guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach. Or they are completely innocent. 

The greater crime in this case is that the judicial system failed to follow their own rules. These rules must be followed regardless if the accused is innocent or guilty of the crime. Injustice can occur even if the person is guilty of the crime. But it becomes even more terrifying when injustice happens to the innocent.

 

Due Process is important for both individuals and society. Citizens have a right to expect that the government will respect their rights and treat them fairly. The Government cannot trample over their own citizen's rights just to secure an arrest or conviction. The citizen is a mere bug that the government can quash at any time. Thus, the Constitution was designed to reign in the power the government can wield over people. 

Society can accept that people will commit large and small crimes on a daily basis. There are people and institutions that can help cope with that. But a society cannot survive if the judicial system itself is lawless. Law is meaningless without enforcement of the rules. There is no order when there is no law. 

Viewers of Making a Murder saw that the judicial system completely disregarded Due Process. They saw that if the government didn't follow the rules in investigating and prosecuting Steven Avery and Brendan  Dassey, will the government be fair to them if they are ever accused of a crime?

Communication is Important for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Clients When They Are Buying A Home

Marla*, who has been Deaf from birth, had difficulty in communicating with her real estate agent. She requested an ASL interpreter so that communications between her and her real estate agent would run more smoothly, but the real estate agent refused.

This is a frequent problem that Deaf people face in purchasing the property. They have difficulty communicating with real estate agents, bankers, mortgage brokers, and others involved in the sale and purchase of real estate. 

Knowledge and accurate communication are the keys to making these transactions go smoothly. A real estate agent who is sensitive to the communication needs of a Deaf client can make the entire process a pleasant experience. Some individuals will complain about the cost of hiring an interpreter. It is important to welcome an interpreter throughout the process because the cost is small compared to the investment that a Deaf buyer is about to make.

When there is a communication breakdown, it robs the Deaf client of getting the information they need when purchasing a property. Deaf people have a right of communication access with these individuals under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Complaints about communication access under federal law can be filed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Having an ASL interpreter isn’t just for the benefit of the Deaf individual, it also helps the real estate agents, bankers and mortgage brokers. Smooth communication allows these individuals to provide excellent service to their clients by being able to clearly understand their needs and concerns. It will also help to avoid confusion and problems that arise if the lines of communication are not clear.
The best benefit of having an ASL interpreter in all stages of buying property is that it will lead to more clients to your businesses. When the Deaf community discovers a Deaf-friendly business, they will refer others to that company.

Finally, it will lead to satisfied customers. Ultimately, Marla was provided with an ASL interpreter. Having an ASL interpreter made the difference between a stressful experience and a great experience in buying a home, both for the client and the agent.

* Name has been changed to protect the individual’s identity

Looping the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Into Our Judicial System

Last year, the United States Supreme Court installed a hearing loop system that will help those who wear hearing aids or cochlear implants hear better in the nation’s highest court. The new induction listening system, which is in addition to the High Court’s existing FM and infra-red listening devices, transmits sound through an electromagnetic signal that can be picked up by the telecoil of a hearing aid or cochlear implant.[1]

 

The new system is intended for use by court visitors and by attorneys appearing before the court. The Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bar Association (DHHBA) recently had thirteen members of their organization sworn in and admitted to the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. All members are Deaf or Hard of Hearing attorneys. The Supreme Court provides sign language interpreters and real-time captioning services (also known as Communication Access Realtime Translation, or CART) to DHHBA participants.[2] The hearing loop makes this experience more meaningful for those attorneys with hearing aids and cochlear implants.

There are three types of technology used for assistive listening:  RF (radio frequency), IR (infrared) and IL (induction loop).  All of these technologies produce much of the same result:  the audio source transmitted wirelessly to a personal receiver or directly to a compatible hearing-aid.

In an RF system, the signal is transmitted over radio frequencies (specifically the FCC mandated 72 and 216 MHz bands) to a personal receiver. The advantage of RF technology is that there are no “line-of-site” issues and the technology can cover a wide area indoors or outdoors. 

An IR system uses infrared light to transmit audio. The advantage of IR technology is that the system is secure—the audio signal will never leave the room. The challenge is a listener should be within line-of-site of the emitter/radiators. Also, the shape of the room, the coverage, and line-of-site issues usually require more thought and consideration during the design stage.

In an Induction Loop system, an integral wire is installed around the room in a variety of ways creating an induction field that can be picked up by hearing aids with a tele-coil, which more than 60 percent of hearing aids today and 100% of cochlear implants have. Many venues and users alike enjoy this type of an assistive listening system because the users’ disability is invisible as they simply use their hearing aids to receive the audio signal. There would be no need to ask for a receiver.

It is clear that the United States Supreme Court is committed to making their courts accessible to all Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals regardless if they are members of the legal profession or are there to observe court proceedings. They are leading the way in opening up the courts to those with a hearing loss.

Making our courts accessible across the United States is still an ongoing challenge.  We have come a long way from the days when it was permissible for a person to be denied service or barred from a courthouse because they had a disability. However, many courtrooms still do not have hearing loops or other devices installed.

In 1990, the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act was passed by congress. It was the nation's first comprehensive civil rights law addressing the needs of people with disabilities, prohibiting discrimination in employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications. There are new rules that the US Department of Justice released in 2010 in regards to ADA compliance and assistive listening.  These new updated rules apply to all new construction and alterations since March 15, 2012 and are mandatory by law.  The number of receivers and number of hearing aid compatible receivers depends on the total occupancy of the venue. [3]

Deaf and Hard of Hearing Individuals need access to court ordered services because there has been a “pattern of unconstitutional treatment in the administration of justice in our nation’s history towards individuals with a hearing loss.”[4] When Congress was considering passing the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), they discovered that that many individuals, in many states across the country, were being excluded from courthouses and court proceedings by reason of their disabilities.”[5] A task force established by Congress “heard numerous examples of the exclusion of persons with disabilities from state judicial services and programs, including the exclusion of persons with visual impairments and hearing impairments from jury service [and] failure of state and local governments to provide interpretive services for the hearing impaired.”[6]

Although many courts do a fine job in providing Deaf members of the community with American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters, not all individuals with a hearing loss use ASL. There are many individuals who rely on technologies such as hearing aids and cochlear implants, assistive listening devices such as hearing loops, or real-time captioning (CART). Without the necessary technology in our courtrooms, meaningful and crucial information is missed which may lead to severe and unjustified consequences to the administration of justice.

I encourage our judicial system to follow the example of the United States Supreme Court by making our courtrooms accessible to people with a hearing loss by installing hearing loops and other technologies in all of our courtrooms so that people with hearing loss have equal access to our courts.

[1]"Supreme Court Gets a Hearing Loop| David H. Kirkwood | Hearinghealthmatters.org/hearingnewswatch/." Hearing News Watch. 2014. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

[2] Anat Mytal, "DHHBA Members to Be Sworn into United States Supreme Court Bar." Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bar Association. 06 Apr. 2016. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

[3] "2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design." Hearing Chattanooga. Web. 9 Apr. 2016. <http://www.hearingchattanooga.org/news_items/ADA Standards 219 706ALDs .pdf>.

[4] Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 524-525 (2004).

[5] Id. at 527.

[6] Id.

How To Get Involved In Advocating For People With Disabilities

People often ask me how they can get more involved in advocating on behalf of people with disabilities. Being an advocate is great and it is actually really easy to do.  

There are several organizations that people can reach out to and become active with. I have listed some of them below. I have included two organizations that fights for the rights of Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals. 

1. American Association of People with Disabilities

3. Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund

4. National Disability Rights Network
5. TASH
6. National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
7. Hearing Loss Association of America

There are other ways to make your voice heard. You can contact your state and local elected representative and talk to them about how they can improve the lives of people with disabilities. You can also contact your elected representative in the Senate and in the House in Washington D.C. as well. You can also reach out to the President too. I suggest using this website for help in contacting elected officials at the local, state and federal level. 

But there are also other avenues that people can pursue in advocating on behalf of people with disabilities.

People can reach out to the Bipartisan Disability Caucus so that you can suggest your concerns and share ideas with them. This contains a list of elected officials in Washington D.C. who have a strong interest in helping people with disabilities. You can also contact the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice as well. Finally, you can also reach out to the National Council on Disability (NCD).

There are also government agencies that specialize in helping people with disabilities. Below are some websites for you to use such as disability.gov and ada.gov.

There are also legal organizations such as Disability Rights Legal Center (DRLC), Disability Rights Advocate (DRA), and the Disability Rights Law Clinic. People should also be aware that the American Bar Association has a Commission on Disability Rights. There is also the Disability Rights Bar Association (DRBA). For people who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing, there is the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bar Association (DHHBA).

HB304 Is Bad Law That Needs To Be Opposed Immediately

Right now, the Utah Legislature is considering House Bill 304 (HB304) which allows for the online sale of hearing aids by a licensed optometrist or pharmacist with the use of an online hearing test or appropriate questionnaire.

You read that right. An audiologist or hearing instrument specialist is not mentioned in the bill anywhere.

As someone who is an advocate for the rights of Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals in the state of Utah who also has a hearing loss that requires me to wear hearing aids everyday, I have grave concerns about this bill. 

While the idea of expanding access to hearing aids to more individuals is a worthy endeavor, allowing hearing aids to be sold online by someone who is not a licensed audiologist will not help clients who need hearing aids.

The reason why this bill is a bad idea is because getting hearing aids is not an easy process. You need to take a hearing test by a licensed audiologist to determine what kind of hearing loss you have. Not all hearing loss is the same and even where two people have the same kind of hearing loss, they still hear things differently. It is important that a client receive counseling by an audiologist about their hearing loss and discuss what kind of hearing aids can meet their needs.

There are many things that can be purchased online such as books, music, furniture and cars. However, hearing aids shouldn't be allowed to be sold online by non-audiologists because this bill has the potential to harm consumers who won't be getting the care they need which leads to further problems for them down the road.

Here are eight reasons why HB304 is bad law:

1) Nowhere in HB 304 is an audiologist or hearing instrument specialist mentioned. It is inappropriate and not within the scope of practice for pharmacists and optometrists to dispense hearing aids. How would state licensing requirements be met?

2) It is not in the best interest of your consumers. It would deny them current consumer protection and quality of care guidelines.

3) The sale of hearing aids is governed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 801.420 and 801.421 set specific requirements related to conditions for sale, including those related to medical evaluation and referral. The inclusion of hearing aids in HB 304, and the imposition of the bill’s additional requirements on hearing aids exposes the bill to federal preemption

4) An online hearing test or questionnaire is not sufficient to properly evaluate the needs of a person with hearing loss. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) handily rejected the use of an online hearing test.

5) The potential risks that result from the omission of a comprehensive hearing evaluation and treatment by a licensed hearing healthcare professional include failure to detect an underlying medical cause of the hearing loss, additional hearing loss as a result of improper fitting and/or programming of hearing aids, and ear trauma sustained as the result of improper fitting and/or insertion of ear molds or hearing aids.

6) Hearing aids and contact lenses are not the same. 15 U.S. Code Chapter 102 governs the availability, use and authority of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules related to contact lens prescriptions and deliverability.

7) Minnesota Department of Health released a statement stressing the importance of seeing a hearing healthcare practitioner for hearing loss and advised that failure to do so “skirts state and federal legal protections and could result in harm.”

8) Hearing aid user success is directly tied to the adjustment, counseling, and other follow up services. These simply cannot exist through an online delivery model.

Please contact your Utah State House and Senate Representative to urge them to oppose this bill! We would also appreciate those of you who do not reside in Utah to express your concerns about this law.