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

Section 1193.51 Compatibility [1193.41 in the NPRM] (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Section 1193.51 requires that when it is not readily achievable to make a product accessible, the product must be compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.

Comment. Several commenters expressed concern that the NPRM failed to reflect adequately the shared responsibility of manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment with manufacturers of peripheral devices. Nortel gave the example that electromagnetic compatibility requires both the use of proper hearing aid shielding and prevention of unwanted emissions from the customer premises equipment. Siemens pointed out that it is unrealistic, and often impossible to make equipment compatible with all potential forms of peripheral devices, unless the manufacturer controls all aspects of the affected equipment. The commenters recommended that the Board encourage peripheral device manufacturers to adhere to compatibility standards where they exist, and to develop corresponding standards for customer premises equipment and peripheral devices where they are needed but do not yet exist.

Response. The statute places the responsibility for compatibility on the telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment manufacturer and neither the Telecommunications Act nor any other statute gives the Board authority to regulate manufacturers of peripheral devices. However, specialized customer premises equipment is regarded as a subset of customer premises equipment and, therefore, subject to these guidelines. As discussed earlier, the Board agrees that manufacturers of peripheral devices and other types of equipment need to be cognizant of the capabilities of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment.

Comment. The Information Technology Industry Council recommended that the compatibility requirements should recognize the differences between traditional telephony products and information technology products. Unlike traditional telephony customer premises equipment, information technology products are invariably associated with software. It is typically software, in conjunction with hardware, that enables compatibility between an information technology appliance and peripheral devices. Thus, the guidelines should acknowledge that when information technology hardware products are compatible with software that enables accessibility options and satisfies the compatibility requirements, the hardware is consistent with the compatibility guidelines.

Response. As the Board noted in the NPRM, "evolving telecommunications technologies often make it difficult to distinguish whether a product's functions and interfaces are the result of the design of the product itself, or are the result of a service provider's software or even an information service format." These guidelines do not differentiate between hardware and software implementations of a product's functions or features, nor is any distinction made between functions and features built into the product and those that may be provided from a remote server over the network.

Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule required that information needed for the operation of a product (including output, alerts, icons, on-line help, and documentation) be available in a standard electronic text format on a cross-industry standard port. It also required that all input to and control of a product shall allow for real time operation by electronic text input into a cross-industry standard external port and in cross-industry standard format which do not require manipulation of a connector by the user. The proposed rule also provided that products shall have a cross-industry standard connector which may require manipulation.

Comment. The Trace Center strongly endorsed the inclusion of this provision in the final rule. In many cases, Trace said, a cross-industry standard external port, such as an infrared link, will be the only mechanism that will allow access to systems by individuals with multiple and more severe disabilities. An infrared link can also provide a mechanism for providing access to the smaller, more advanced telecommunication devices and provide a safety net for products which are unable to incorporate other technologies. Trace noted that there is a joint international effort to develop a Universal Remote Console Communication (URCC) protocol which would achieve this functionality and that existence of a standard protocol is essential to the practical implementation of this provision. Unless a standard approach is developed that both the standard product and peripheral device manufacturers can build to, it would be difficult to meaningfully comply with this provision.

Trace also noted that the NPRM would require that all products have both a wireless and a hard-wire connection. Requiring that products have a standard physical connector is expensive. The only ports currently supported by most assistive technologies are RS232 serial ports. An infrared connector could be fitted to these serial ports on the peripheral devices to add an infrared capability to the peripheral devices. However, the opposite is not true for customer premises equipment. It is not easy to add a physical port to customer premises equipment. Trace recommended that the requirement for a physical connection point be removed.

Response. The Board agrees that requiring a standard physical connector on customer premises equipment may be an expensive strategy. Because an infrared connector can be inexpensively added to the serial ports on peripheral devices to add an infrared capability, the Board is deleting the requirement for a physical connection point on products covered by section 255. An appendix note has been added to alert readers that a standard has been proposed that will empower wireless communication devices, such as cellular phones, pagers and personal computers to transfer useful information over short distances using IrDA infrared data communication ports.

Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule provided that products providing auditory output must provide the auditory signal through an industry standard connector at a standard signal level.

Comment. The Trace Center commented that some type of a standard approach for providing audio output should be provided and that industry standard connectors already exist. Trace recommended that miniature and sub-miniature stereo jacks could meet this performance requirement. Another commenter pointed out that this requirement is particularly important for telephones that are not under the direct control of the user, such as public pay telephones and business telephones. The commenter recommended that the connecter should be capable of both input and output or two connectors should be provided.

Response. An appendix note recommends the use of a standard 9 mm miniature plug-in jack, common to virtually every personal tape player or radio, and for small products, a subminiature phone jack could be used. No changes have been made to this provision in the final rule.

Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule provided that products shall not cause interference to hearing technologies (including hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) of a product user or bystander.

Comment. CTIA commented that the ANSI C63 Committee recognizes that the electromagnetic interaction between wireless telephones and hearing aids is an interference management issue that can be best resolved through the cooperative and joint efforts of the affected parties. Mitigation of electromagnetic interference requires an examination of both devices, i.e., the wireless telephone and the hearing aid, together, rather than in isolation.

TIA recommended that products should meet the relevant standards concerning electromagnetic compatibility, so as to function without significant interference with hearing technologies (including hearing aids, cochlear implants, and assistive listening devices) that meet the corresponding standards for such technologies. The Trace Center pointed out that this section was repeated in Subpart C and Subpart D and that the repetition was unnecessary.

Response. As noted in the discussion to section 1193.43 (h), this section has been removed from Subpart D and subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated accordingly. If it is not readily achievable to manufacture a product under Subpart C that minimizes interference to hearing technologies it follows that it is also not readily achievable to make the wireless telephones and other customer premises equipment compatible with hearing technologies to minimize interference under subpart D.

Paragraph (d) of the proposed rule provided that touchscreen and touch-operated controls shall be operable without requiring body contact or close body proximity.

No substantive comments were received regarding this section and no changes have been made in the final rule other than to redesignate this provision as paragraph (c).

Paragraph (e) of the proposed rule provided that products which provide a function allowing voice communication and which do not themselves provide a TTY functionality shall provide a standard non-acoustic connection point for TTYs. The proposed rule also provided that it shall also be possible for the user to easily turn any microphone on the product on and off to enable the user who can talk to intermix speech with TTY use.

Comment. Nortel recommended that standards are needed for TTYs. Absent the development of industry-wide standards for TTY data formats, it will be very difficult for customer premises equipment manufacturers to assure compliance with TTYs and that the establishment of interworking standards among various makers of TTYs will facilitate compatibility with telecommunications devices. Nortel also noted that compatibility does not ensure that usable communications will be provided, because other factors in the environment can affect the reliability of the transmissions. For example, the work that hearing aid manufacturers and handset manufacturers have jointly undertaken has greatly improved the compatibility of hearing aids with fluxcoils, but interference from outside sources (such as computers) can disrupt the usability of the handset by the hearing aid wearer.

The Trace Center strongly supported this provision. It pointed out that to meet this requirement an RJ11 plug or adaptor on a phone could be installed. Trace suggested that it now appears that a simple audio connector that could be compatible with standard headset jacks on cellular phones could be established as a standard mechanism. Such a standard could evolve that would allow TTYs to be easily connected to a wide range of phones, including miniature and subminiature phones using a simple cable.

Response. If a TTY is specialized customer premises equipment, it is a subset of customer premises equipment and, therefore, subject to these guidelines. The Board agrees that manufacturers of other types of equipment need to be cognizant of the capabilities of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment. However, as is pointed out earlier, the statute places the responsibility for compatibility on the telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment manufacturer and neither the Telecommunications Act or any other statute gives the Board authority to regulate manufacturers of peripheral devices. No changes have been made in the final rule other than to redesignate this provision as paragraph (d).

Paragraph (f) of the proposed rule provided that products providing voice communication functionality must be able to support use of all cross-manufacturer non-proprietary standard signals used by TTYs. In addition, this paragraph would require computer modems to support protocols which are compatible with TTYs.

Comment. CTIA has urged the FCC to initiate a separate proceeding to revise its minimum technical standards and consider the suitability of the ITU's V.18 standard and other functional equivalents in providing reliable TTY communications through digital wireless systems. CTIA noted that the ITU has published its draft recommendation for the V.18 standard.⁶ Commenters also noted that as proposed, the provision suggested that TTY signal compatibility applied only to products which provided voice communication functionality, apparently excluding communication through a modem.

Response. An appendix note has been added which encourages the use of the V.18 standard. The provision has been reworded in the final rule to clarify that it applies to more than voice communication and has been redesignated as paragraph (e).

⁶U.S. Small Business Administration, Industry and Employment Size of Enterprise for 1994, Table 7, SIC 3563 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data under contract to the SBA).