36 CFR Part 1193 Telecommunications Act (Section 255) Accessibility Guidelines - Preamble

Section 1193.43 Output, display, and control functions [1193.37 in the NPRM] (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Section 1193.43 applies to output, display, and control functions which are necessary to operate products. This includes lights and other visual displays and prompts, control labels, alphanumeric characters and text, static and dynamic images, icons, screen dialog boxes, and tones and beeps which provide operating cues or control status. Since functions requiring voice communication are more specific than the general output functions covered by this section, the Board sought comment (Question 10) on whether moving the requirements of paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10) to a different section would be less confusing to designers and manufacturers.

Comment. The Trace Center pointed out that control labels had been omitted, as well as sounds, from the list of examples. Also, Trace noted that it appeared that voice communication did not need to comply with any of the paragraphs in the NPRM except (9) and (10) and questioned whether voice communication should be treated separately. Trace speculated that this may have been done to avoid any requirement for speech-to-text translation. While this may currently not be readily achievable, recent technological advances are approaching practical translation and Trace saw no reason why such translation should not be required when it becomes readily achievable.

Response. The phrase "incidental operating cues" was intended to include sounds but "sounds" has been added, along with "labels," and the phrase "but not limited to" to clarify that the list of examples is not exhaustive. In the NPRM, this section was divided into subsections (a) and (b) because the requirements for voice communication did not seem to fit with the rest of the section. Since this organization caused some confusion, the NPRM division into subsections (a) and (b) has been eliminated. Former paragraph (b)(10) has been incorporated into paragraph (e), and the paragraphs renumbered accordingly. Also, as with section 1193.41, the phrase "at least one mode" has been removed from the general paragraph and repeated in subsequent paragraphs to clarify that each of the paragraphs (a) through (i) are to be satisfied independently. That is, it may be readily achievable to meet the requirements of (b), (d), and (g), for example, but none of the others. Again, one mode may be able to satisfy more than one paragraph.

Paragraph (a) Availability of visual information (Section-by-Section Analysis)

No substantive comments were received on this paragraph and no changes were made, other than the editorial changes mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Paragraph (b) Availability of visual information for low vision users (Section-by-Section Analysis)

As discussed under section 1193.41 (b), a range has been included for low vision.

Paragraph (c) Access to moving text (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. The NPRM provision exempted TTYs from this provision because it assumed a person who needed static text could ask the TTY sender to pause or type slowly. The Trace Center pointed out that there are many automatic TTY messages for which this option is not possible. Also, the message recipient could not communicate the request to the sender until the sender had completed typing and transmitted "GA." Trace further noted that many TTYs have a means to save text or are equipped with a printer.

Response. The Board agrees that automatic messages could be a problem and that one may not be able to communicate with the sender until the message has gone by. In addition, this provision applies to telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, not peripheral devices. Since the majority of TTYs to which this provision would apply would usually have a printer or a feature to save the message to memory for playback line by line, the Board has removed the exception.

Paragraph (d) Availability of auditory information (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. TTY-to-TTY long distance and message unit calls from pay telephones are often not possible because an operator says how much money must be deposited. Technology exists to have this information displayed on the telephone and an installation is currently operating at the Butler plaza on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Response. This is a good example and has been placed in the appendix. No changes have been made to this provision, other than the editorial changes mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Paragraph (e) Availability of auditory information for people who are hard of hearing (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. The majority of comments from persons who are hard of hearing reported having trouble using public pay telephones because of inadequate receiver amplification levels. These commenters supported the proposed provision that products be equipped with volume control that provides an adjustable amplification ranging from 18-25 dB of gain. However, TIA and several manufacturers cited the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1996, which requires the Federal government to make use of technical specifications and practices established by private, voluntary standards-setting bodies wherever possible. Furthermore, TIA claimed that the higher range will result in signals encroaching on the acoustic shock limits of telephone receiver output. TIA recommended that this section be revised to reflect a general performance standard, similar to the recommendation in the TAAC report. Some comments pointed out that there was no baseline signal against which the gain is to be measured. That is, for a weak signal even 18-25 dB of gain may be ineffective, while for a strong signal, the present ADAAG and FCC requirement of 12-18 dB may be sufficient. Also, industry commenters said that increasing gain may not be the only, or even the best way to provide better access since amplifying a noisy signal also amplifies the noise.

Response. Information submitted by SHHH indicates that the proposed gain of 25 dB is not a problem for current telephone technology. The information was based on testing conducted by two independent laboratories (Harry Teder Ph.D., Consulting in Hearing Technology and Harry Levitt, Ph.D., Director, Rehabilitation Engineering and Research Center on Hearing Enhancement and Assistive Devices, Lexington Center). High gain phones without special circuitry currently on the market were tested which put out 90 dB and 105 dB at maximum volume setting. This is a 20 dB gain over the standard 85 dB. The sound was clear with no distortion. SHHH said that this shows that a 90 dB and 105 dB clean speech level is achieved with phones commercially available with no worse distortion levels than on public phones at normal levels. With special circuits and transducers, telephones could generate even higher amplification levels, above 25 dB, without distortion.

The current FCC standard for 12-18 dB of gain was adopted from ADAAG which requires certain public pay telephones to provide a gain of 12-18 dB. However, this provision is frequently incorrectly applied so that the gain only falls somewhere within this range but does not reach the 18 dB level. In fact, the requirement is to provide gain for the entire range of 12-18 dB.

The Board is currently reviewing all of its ADAAG provisions and will be issuing a NPRM in 1998 which will propose a new ADAAG. The changes to ADAAG will be based on recommendations of the Board's ADAAG Review Advisory Committee. That Committee recommended increasing the gain for public pay telephones from 12-18 dB to 12-20 dB. Recently, the ANSI A117.1 Committee released its 1997 "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities" standard. This voluntary standard-setting body issues accessibility standards used by the nations model building codes. The ANSI standard requires certain public pay telephones to provide 12 dB of gain minimum and up to 20 dB maximum and that an automatic reset be provided. The 1997 ANSI A117.1 document and the Board's new ADAAG are being harmonized to minimize differences between the two documents.

Therefore, in accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, the final rule has been changed to adopt the provision as currently specified in the private, voluntary ANSI standard, with wording to clarify its meaning. For example, the ANSI provision was written under the assumption of an incremental, stepped volume control. If a volume adjustment is provided that allows a user to set the level anywhere from 0 to the upper requirement of 20 dB, there is no need to specify a lower limit. If a stepped volume control is provided, one of the intermediate levels must provide 12 dB of gain. Although the final rule does not provide the higher 25 dB level as proposed in the NPRM, the Board intends to highlight this provision for evaluation in its market monitoring report. If the Board's market monitoring report shows that persons with hearing impairments continue to report having trouble using telephones because the level of amplification is not high enough, the Board will re-evaluate this provision.

Recently, the FCC issued an order⁵ postponing until January 1, 2000, the date by which all telephones covered by Part 68 must be equipped with a volume control. This order was issued as a response to a request for reconsideration asking that the requirement only be applied to new equipment. That request was denied but the time for compliance was extended to take into account its application to telephones already registered under Part 68.

The guidelines only apply to telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment designed, developed and fabricated after [insert date 30 days after publication]. Therefore, the guideline provision does not conflict with the FCC order. New telephones will be covered by these guidelines and existing telephones will have until January 1, 2000, to comply with the FCC Order.

⁵Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987) (SIC 3563).

Paragraph (f) Prevention of visually induced seizures (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. The NPRM suggested that the flash rate for visual indicators be set at or below 3 Hz, based on research for visual fire alarms, and asked (Question 8) whether this value was appropriate. The Epilepsy Foundation of America suggested that the value be reduced to a maximum 2 Hz, based on recent suggested changes to ADAAG and the ANSI A117.1 accessibility standard. The Trace Center also suggested the 2 Hz lower end but pointed out that some visual characteristics of video screens, for example, could not achieve that level. Trace presented data to indicate that a range of frequencies should be excluded between 2 Hz and 70 Hz.

Response. The provision has been revised according to the suggestion from Trace.

The NPRM also asked (Question 9) whether a similar provision should be included for seizures induced by auditory stimuli.

Comment. Those comments which addressed this issue said that the data are limited and that the responses seem to be very individual. At this time, there appears to be no good information on whether there are frequencies which should be avoided. The Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership encouraged the Board to conduct research on this issue. Trace Center noted that the provision for audio cutoff would help alleviate the problem by allowing a person with such a disability to insert a plug and cut off any external auditory cues. Since another provision of the guidelines would require the information to be conveyed visually, the person should be able to operate the product.

Response. The Board has not added a provision at this time but will seek further information on seizures induced by auditory stimuli.

Paragraph (g) Availability of audio cutoff (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. Comments from persons with hearing impairments supported this provision. However, some comments from both people with disabilities and manufacturers misunderstood this requirement. These comments thought the audio cutoff applied to the input rather than the output of the product, such as the input through a telephone handset.

Response. The provision has been reworded to clarify its application.

Paragraph (h) Non-interference with hearing technologies (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. Persons with hearing impairments uniformly supported this provision. Manufacturers, however, said it posed problems with respect to wireless telephones. They pointed out that the provision as written specified zero interference whereas, that was not physically possible. Interference could only be reduced so far, they said, and both the telephone and the hearing aid played a role. They urged the Board to defer any such requirement until the ANSI C63 Committee had finished its work. Some manufacturers also objected to the requirement's coverage of bystanders as outside the Act's jurisdiction. Also, the Trace Center viewed interference as a compatibility issue which should be addressed in Subpart D where it is repeated.

Response. The Board agrees that interference levels are a complex issue and cited the work of the ANSI C63 Committee in the NPRM. Interference is a function of both the hearing aid and telephone, and the C63 Committee is seeking to define "acceptable" levels of interference with respect to types of hearing aids and classes of telephones. The standard would also prescribe testing protocols. The Board does not believe, however, that it should defer a requirement until the ANSI Committee has finished its work, but it does expect the Committee's work to help clarify what is readily achievable. Therefore, the provision has been modified slightly in the final rule to emphasize that products are to produce the least interference possible. In subsequent revisions to these guidelines the Board will propose standards for RF emissions and will consider the results of the ANSI C63 Committee, if they are available, in developing such standards.

For now, the reference to bystanders has been removed because a device which has reduced the interference to a level which is acceptable to the user is likely to have reduced it for a bystander as well. However, what is not known at this time is the effect another nearby wireless telephone might have on a person's ability to use a properly designed wireless telephone. That is, a person with a hearing impairment may have purchased a telephone which produces minimal interference with his or her hearing aid but finds that telephone cannot be used when in the vicinity of another wireless telephone user. The Board intends to specifically address this issue in the market monitoring report to see whether the prohibition of bystander interference should be reinstated.

Finally, this provision appears to be a compatibility issue, but it is really an accessibility one. If a hearing aid user experiences unacceptable levels of interference, the telephone is inaccessible to that person. The provision correctly belongs in Subpart C because the statute does not require telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to be both accessible and compatible. That is, if the provisions of Subpart C are met, the manufacturer does not need to consider the provisions of Subpart D. Furthermore, since the provisions of Subpart C are applied first, if it is not readily achievable for a manufacturer to meet this provision here, it would not be readily achievable in Subpart D either. Therefore, the provision has been removed from Subpart D.

Paragraph (i) Hearing aid coupling (Section-by-Section Analysis)

No substantive comments were received on this provision and no changes were made, other than the editorial revisions discussed in the general section.