Earlier this morning the CEO of Luxottica stated that the second version of Google Glass is coming, which only strengthens the notion that Google's head-worn wearables are alive and well, even though this is mostly already known given that multiple businesses are still working with it, and that there have been multiple other instances in the past few weeks suggesting as much. Just today some new details have appeared that may point to a new version of Google Glass on the way, which comes in the form of an FCC filing from Google that is referred to as a "Smart Bluetooth low-energy device." Other than this particular reference, there are a few other things in the FCC filing that could suggest the second Google Glass device is what this document is about.
In the FCC filing the steps are listed for how a user might access the information they seek while using this device, (referred to in the filing as an e-label)which states users can swipe from left to right to get device details like the battery information, and they can swipe from bottom to top to get e-label information. This sounds a lot like how you interact with the touch sensitive portion of Google Glass on the side of the unit, and along with these steps there is a depiction of the e-label which looks very much like a Google Glass card.
There are also references to the fact that information which is obtained is stored on the device and that no special accessories or "supplemental plug-ins" are needed to access it. Here the filing uses SIM cards and USIM cards as an example. This tells us that the device likely stays connected to the web to retrieve its information through the use of the Bluetooth connection, which is already somewhat evident by the use of the tag "Smart BLE Device" at the top of the filing, and that the only storage is likely embedded within the unit suggesting no room for expandable storage. There are no specific details stating that this is Google Glass in the next form to come, but it is the most reasonable explanation. Having said this, we're merely speculating on the matter as there is no real evidence of what the filing is referencing so for now everything is open for discussion.