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

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.