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

Subpart C — Requirements for Accessibility and Usability (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Section 1193.31 Accessibility and usability (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This section provides that, subject to section 1193.21, manufacturers must design, develop and fabricate their products to meet the specific requirements of sections 1193.33 through 1193.43. As discussed under section 1193.21, some sections related to usability have been moved to this subpart to reflect that they are subject to the readily achievable limitation. The title has been changed and the sections renumbered accordingly.

Comment. Several manufacturers suggested replacing "shall" with "should" throughout and placing all the requirements in an appendix, not in the guidelines.

Response. As discussed previously, the guidelines are not merely advisory technical assistance.

Section 1193.33 Information, documentation and training [1193.25 in the NPRM] (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Paragraph (a) of this section requires that manufacturers provide access to information and documentation. This information and documentation includes user guides, installation guides, and product support communications, regarding both the product in general and the accessibility features of the product. Information and documentation are what make a product usable by anyone and, if such information is provided to the public at no charge, it must be provided to people with disabilities at no additional charge. Alternate formats or alternate modes of this information are also required to be available, upon request. Manufacturers are also required to ensure usable customer support and technical support in the call centers and service centers, which support their products.

Comment. The American Council of the Blind (ACB) commented that the provision as proposed was unclear if alternate formats must be available at no additional charge. They also added that the alternate format provided should be of the customer's choosing, that alternate formats are not interchangeable, and that a manufacturer cannot determine which format is appropriate for any particular customer.

Response. The Board agrees that the provision may have been unclear in the NPRM. The final rule has been revised to clarify that additional charges may not be required for the description of accessibility and compatibility features of the product, end-user product documentation, and usable customer support and technical support. There is nothing prohibiting a manufacturer from charging everyone for these services. However, people with disabilities may not be charged an additional fee above the fee charged to everyone.

The specific alternate format or mode to be provided is that which is usable by the customer. Obviously, it does no good to provide documentation in Braille to someone who does not read it. While the user's preference is first priority, manufacturers are not expected to stock copies of all materials in all possible alternate formats and may negotiate with users to supply information in other formats. For example, Braille is extremely bulky and can only be read by a minority of individuals who are blind. Audio cassettes are usable by more people but are difficult for users to find a specific section or to skip from one section to the next. Documentation provided on disk in ASCII format can often be accessed by computers with appropriate software, but is worthless if the information sought is how to set up the computer in the first place. Of course, if instructions are provided by videotape, appropriate video description would be needed for persons who are blind and captions would be needed for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Comment. Some commenters said that customer support lines should be made accessible to people with hearing loss. Specifically, they pointed out that automated voice response systems go too fast, are not clear and do not allow for repeats making them inaccessible for most people with hearing loss. They recommended that menus should be set up to allow someone to escape early on by dialing a standard number such as "0" to talk to a person.

Response. Providing a quick means to "opt out" of a voice mail menu system is a useful feature to make such systems usable by people who are hard of hearing. In addition, ensuring usable customer support may mean providing a TTY number, since the current automated voice response systems cannot be used by individuals who are deaf either. Such systems cannot be accessed by TTY relay services since there is generally insufficient time for the operator to type the choices and the deaf caller must wait until the end before responding. Also, if such menu systems require quick responses, they may not be usable by persons with other disabilities. An appendix note has been added recommending that automated voice response systems should be set up to allow someone to escape early on. The appendix also provides guidance on how to provide information in alternate formats and modes.

Paragraph (b) requires manufacturers to include in general product information the name and contact means for obtaining the information required by paragraph (a).

Comment. The NPRM specified a telephone number but some commenters pointed out that e-mail and Internet methods might be equally valid methods of contacting a manufacturer for information.

Response. More and more companies have access to e-mail but all companies do not. The final rule has generalized this requirement to allow for different ways other than just a telephone number to contact a manufacturer. However, a phone number is the preferred method of contact since many more people have telephones than have access to e-mail or the Internet. Additional ways of contacting a manufacturer are encouraged but are not required. The name of the contact point can be an office of the manufacturer rather than an individual.

Paragraph (c) requires manufacturers to provide employee training appropriate to an employee's function. In developing, or incorporating information into existing training programs, consideration must be given to the following factors: accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities; means of communicating with individuals with disabilities; commonly used adaptive technology used with the manufacturer's products; designing for accessibility; and solutions for accessibility and compatibility.

Comment. Several manufacturers claimed the guidelines contemplate costly training of manufacturers' employees. Several comments pointed out that the NPRM applied the readily achievable limitation only to the provisions of Subparts C and D but not to the other requirements of this rule.

Response. The key to usability is information and the manufacturer's employees must know how to provide it in an effective manner. This is especially true for good technical support, if persons with disabilities are to receive adequate information on how to use the new accessibility features of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment. The guidelines, however, do not require a specific training program, only that certain factors be considered and incorporated to the extent deemed appropriate by a given manufacturer.

Obviously, not every employee needs training in all factors. Designers and developers need to know about barriers and solutions. Technical support and sales personnel need to know how to communicate with individuals with disabilities and what common peripheral devices may be compatible with the manufacturer's products. Other employees may need a combination of this training. No specific program is required and the manufacturer is free to address the needs in whatever way it sees fit, as long as effective information is provided.

The Board agrees that the statute applies the readily achievable limitation to usability as well as accessibility and compatibility. As noted in the discussion in section 1193.21 above, the title of this section has been changed and the proposed section has been moved to Subpart C and renumbered accordingly.

Section 1193.35 Redundancy and Selectability [1193.33 in the NPRM] (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This section proposed that products incorporate multiple modes for input and output functions and that the user be able to select the desired mode.

Comment. Manufacturers objected to this provision on the basis that it added unnecessary and potentially unwanted functions to a product which could affect its marketability and even result in a "fundamental alteration" of the product. It would also, in their view, cause the product to be too complicated.

Response. Although this provision was supported by persons with disabilities, it may run contrary to section 1193.41 (i), which intends to make products accessible to persons with limited cognitive skills. As a result, the provision is being reserved at this time, with a recommendation for redundancy and selectability placed in the appendix. The Board intends to consider this provision further and highlight it for evaluation in its market monitoring report. If the Board's market monitoring report shows that redundancy and selectability can be provided without unnecessary complexity, it will re-evaluate the "reserved" status of this provision.

Section 1193.37 Information pass-through [1193.27 in the NPRM] (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This section requires telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to pass through codes, translation protocols, formats or other information necessary to provide telecommunications in an accessible format.

Comment. Most manufacturers pointed out that the provision as proposed could require manufacturers to anticipate any possible code or protocol another party might devise and to pass it through. Moreover, some technologies operate through "compression" of one sort or another and cannot be turned on or off, as suggested by the NPRM preamble. In addition, manufacturers objected to the one-sided nature of the requirement and wanted manufacturers of peripheral devices and specialized customer premises equipment to be held accountable, as well. Finally, CEMA objected to the example of closed captioning cited in the NPRM as implying that televisions were covered by the guidelines.

Response. The provision in the final rule has been modified by language suggested by the Trace Center to specify that the information to be passed through must be standardized and non- proprietary. Also, this provision is subject to the readily achievable criteria so that the obligation is not absolute.

The Board agrees that manufacturers of other types of equipment need to be cognizant of the capabilities of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, as was strongly recommended by the TAAC. However, 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. Specialized customer premises equipment, on the other hand, is regarded as a subset of customer premises equipment and, therefore, subject to these guidelines.

Finally, the example of closed captions cited in the NPRM was merely to illustrate the principle of information pass-through. Closed captioning is covered by other rules and regulations issued by the FCC and is not a subject of this proceeding.

Section 1193.39 Prohibited reduction of accessibility, usability and compatibility [1193.29 in the NPRM] (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This section provides that no change shall be undertaken which decreases or has the effect of decreasing the net accessibility, usability, and compatibility of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment.

Comment. This provision was uniformly supported by disability groups, many of whom cited examples of an accessible feature or design which was later defeated by an alteration. Manufacturers, on the other hand, uniformly objected to it. Several pointed out that it was not a part of the TAAC recommendations and that it unnecessarily restricted design and innovation. For example, it seemed to prevent a manufacturer from even discontinuing an obsolete product if it had an accessibility feature unless the same feature were incorporated in its replacement. This was unreasonable, they claimed, because a newer technology might be better and more efficient but it might not be readily achievable to incorporate the same accessibility feature. Products are discontinued from time to time because they do not sell, but this provision as proposed may have required any product with an accessibility feature to be continued in perpetuity.

Response. Providing that no change shall be undertaken which decreases or has the effect of decreasing accessibility is a common principle in disability access codes and standards and was borrowed from both the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). Both of these prohibit alterations which reduce or have the effect of reducing accessibility below the requirements for new construction. Those provisions were intended to apply to alterations to buildings and facilities which have a relatively static base. However, where technology is constantly changing, the principle in this rule, which is analogous to the alterations provisions of ADAAG and UFAS, may need adjusting.

TIA suggested adding language that would refer to the "net" accessibility, usability and compatibility of products. As previously discussed, the statute does not require that a new product be both accessible and compatible, and establishes accessibility as the first priority. Since an alteration never establishes a requirement which is greater than for new construction, the same concept holds true for section 1193.39. For example, it might not be readily achievable to provide accessibility in the first iteration of a particular product, but compatibility is readily achievable. However, in an upgrade, technology or other factors may have changed so that accessibility is now readily achievable. Since the statute does not require a new product to be both accessible and compatible, a change which increased accessibility but decreased compatibility would not be prohibited. The provision has been modified accordingly.

The Board agrees that it would be unreasonable to require obsolete or unmarketable products to be maintained beyond their useful life. Since any new product introduced to replace another would be subject to the statutory requirement to provide accessibility or compatibility if readily achievable, a specific exception has been added to allow for product discontinuation. The Board does not believe this change will significantly affect the availability of accessible products. The Board intends to highlight this item for attention in its market monitoring report to determine if this provision needs to be modified in the future.

Section 1193.41 Input, control, and mechanical functions [1193.35 in the NPRM] (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This section requires product input, control and mechanical functions to be locatable, identifiable, and operable through at least one mode which meets each of the following paragraphs. This means, each of the product's input, control and mechanical functions must be evaluated against each of paragraphs (a) through (i) to ensure that there is at least one mode that meets each of those requirements. Of course, there may be one mode which meets more than one of the specific provisions. This section does not specify how the requirement is to be met but only specifies the outcome. The appendix to this rule contains a set of strategies which may help in developing solutions. In some cases, a particular strategy may be directly applicable while a different strategy may be a useful starting point for further exploration.

Comment. A few commenters said that it was not clear whether a single mode was to meet all of the paragraphs in this section or whether one mode was to meet paragraph (a), one mode was to meet paragraph (b), and so forth.

Response. In an effort to reduce the redundant language in the TAAC report, confusion may have been created in the NPRM. Therefore, the phrase "at least one mode" has been removed from the overall charging statement and instead repeated in the individual paragraphs. Some additional language has also been provided to clarify that each of the paragraphs (a) through (i) are to be satisfied independently. That is, it may be readily achievable to satisfy (a), (c), and (g), for example, but none of the others. Again, one mode may be able to satisfy more than one paragraph.

Paragraph (a) Operable without vision (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 of this section.

Paragraph (b) Operable with low vision and limited or no hearing (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. The Trace Center suggested that both the upper and lower limits for low vision be included and that the paragraph title be amended to include the restriction on audio output.

Response. The provision has been modified accordingly.

Paragraph (c) Operable with little or no color perception (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 of this section.

Paragraph (d) Operable without hearing (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 of this section.

Paragraph (e) Operable with limited manual dexterity (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 of this section.

Paragraph (f) Operable with limited reach and strength (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. In the NPRM the Board had asked (Question 6) whether the ADAAG provisions for controls and operating mechanisms and reach ranges should be included here. The few comments on this issue felt those provisions might be too specific for these guidelines.

Response. The ADAAG provisions have not been added to these paragraphs but have been included in the appendix for reference, with the notation that some customer premises equipment might be covered by the ADA and required to comply with ADAAG.

Paragraph (g) Operable without time-dependent controls (Section-by-Section Analysis)

Comment. The NPRM had proposed a three-second time limit. A few comments suggested a single number was not appropriate for different actions and that more research is needed before applying a specific time limit.

Response. The specific time limit has been removed and the more general performance language from the TAAC report substituted. Some of the discussion on this subject provided by the Trace Center has been included in the appendix.

Paragraph (h) Operable without speech (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 of this section.

Paragraph (i) Operable with limited cognitive skills (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 of this section.

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.