[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5608-5641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-2414]



[[Page 5607]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board





_______________________________________________________________________



36 CFR Part 1193



Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 5608]]



ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Part 1193

[Docket No. 97-1]
RIN 3014-AA19


Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board or Board) is issuing final guidelines for accessibility, 
usability, and compatibility of telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment covered by section 255 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act requires manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to ensure 
that the equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be 
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily 
achievable. When it is not readily achievable to make the equipment 
accessible, the Act requires manufacturers to ensure that the equipment 
is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer 
premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to 
achieve access, if readily achievable.

DATES: Effective date: March 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Cannon, Office of Technical and 
Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-
1111. Telephone number (202) 272-5434 extension 35 (voice); (202) 272-
5449 (TTY). Electronic mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Copies and Electronic Access

    Single copies of this publication may be obtained at no cost by 
calling the Access Board's automated publications order line (202) 272-
5434, by pressing 1 on the telephone keypad, then 1 again, and 
requesting publication S-34 (Telecommunications Act Accessibility 
Guidelines Final Rule). Persons using a TTY should call (202) 272-5449. 
Please record a name, address, telephone number and request publication 
S-34. This document is available in alternate formats upon request. 
Persons who want a copy in an alternate format should specify the type 
of format (cassette tape, Braille, large print, or computer disk). This 
document is also available on the Board's Internet site (http://
www.access-board.gov/rules/telfinal.htm).
    This rule is based on recommendations of the Board's 
Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee (TAAC or Committee). The 
Committee's report can be obtained by contacting the Access Board and 
requesting publication S-32 (Telecommunications Access Advisory 
Committee final report). The report is also available on the Board's 
Internet site (http://www.access-board.gov/pubs/taacrpt.htm).

Background

    On February 8, 1996, the President signed the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996. The Access Board is responsible for developing 
accessibility guidelines in conjunction with the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) under section 255(e) of the Act for telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment. The guidelines are required 
to principally address the access needs of individuals with 
disabilities affecting hearing, vision, movement, manipulation, speech, 
and interpretation of information.
    Section 255 provides that a manufacturer of telecommunications 
equipment or customer premises equipment shall ensure that the 
equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to 
and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable. A 
provider of telecommunications services shall ensure that the service 
is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if 
readily achievable. Whenever either of these is not readily achievable, 
a manufacturer or provider shall ensure that the equipment or service 
is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer 
premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to 
achieve access, if readily achievable. Section 255(f) provides that the 
FCC shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any enforcement action under 
section 255. It also precludes an individual's private right of action 
to enforce any requirement of section 255 or any regulation issued 
pursuant to section 255.
    On April 18, 1997, the Access Board issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (62 FR 19178) for 
accessibility, usability, and compatibility of telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment covered by the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. In addition to proposing specific 
guidelines, the NPRM asked questions about some of the proposed 
provisions. The proposed rule was based on recommendations of the 
Board's Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee.
    The Committee was convened by the Access Board in June 1996 to 
assist the Board in fulfilling its mandate to issue guidelines under 
the Telecommunications Act. The Committee was composed of 
representatives of manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment; manufacturers of specialized customer 
premises equipment and peripheral devices; manufacturers of software; 
organizations representing the access needs of individuals with 
disabilities; telecommunications providers and carriers; and other 
persons affected by the guidelines.
    The Board received 159 comments in response to the NPRM. Comments 
were received from 109 individuals who identified themselves as being 
hard of hearing. Also, comments were received from 19 members of the 
telecommunications industry and industry associations. Some of these 
comments were received from manufacturers of specialized customer 
premises equipment and peripheral devices, service providers and 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment. 
Additionally, 31 comments were received from organizations representing 
persons with disabilities. Comments came from state organizations 
representing individuals with disabilities, advocacy organizations, 
independent consultants and academic organizations. Some of the 
comments received were from members of the TAAC.
    The majority of TAAC members supported the proposed rule but had 
recommendations for changes to specific provisions. The majority of 
comments received from individuals who identified themselves as being 
hard of hearing supported the rule and specifically supported 
increasing volume controls on customer premises equipment. A few 
comments raised by these individuals included some issues that were not 
covered in the proposed rule. For example, some of these comments 
recommended providing enhanced radio volume, providing a device that 
displays through text what is being said on radio stations,

[[Page 5609]]

providing car radios equipped with headphone jacks and providing closed 
captioning for television programs and motion pictures. Other comments 
included recommendations for more efficient and effective 
telecommunications relay service operations, designing accessible 
roadside emergency call boxes which ensure two-way communications by 
people with hearing or speech disabilities and designing homes with 
acoustically absorbent materials. These issues are not covered by 
section 255 of the Telecommunications Act and are outside of the 
Board's jurisdiction in this rulemaking.

General Issues

    This section of the rule addresses general issues raised by 
comments filed in response to the NPRM. Individual provisions addressed 
in this rule are discussed in detail under the Section-by-Section 
Analysis below.

Rulemaking Authority of the Board and Effect of the Guidelines

    Section 255(e) of the Telecommunications Act provides that the 
Access Board shall develop guidelines for accessibility of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment in 
conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission. The Board is 
also required to review and update the guidelines periodically.
    Comment. Several comments from the telecommunications industry 
raised questions about the relationship between the Board's guidelines 
and areas within the FCC's jurisdiction. The commenters noted that the 
FCC has exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under 
section 255 and that the Senate report envisioned that the guidelines 
would ``serve as the starting point for regulatory action by the 
Commission.'' Some of the commenters suggested that, absent rulemaking 
by the FCC, the guidelines are not binding.
    Response. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the result of a 
conference committee which combined elements of the House and Senate 
bills. Section 255 is based on section 262 of the Senate bill (S. 652) 
which provided first for the Board to develop accessibility guidelines 
for telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, and 
then for the FCC to issue regulations consistent with the guidelines 
developed by the Board. This framework is similar to that established 
by Congress for implementing the accessibility requirements under the 
Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) and the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA). The Board issues accessibility guidelines based on its 
expertise and experience which serve as the basis for further 
regulatory action by other agencies (General Services Administration, 
Housing and Urban Development, Department of Defense, and the U.S. 
Postal Service for the ABA; DOJ and the Department of Transportation 
for the ADA). The conference committee bill dropped the provision 
requiring the FCC to issue rules under section 255, which has resulted 
in questions raised by the comments. Both the Senate bill and 
conference committee bill gave the FCC exclusive jurisdiction with 
respect to complaints under section 255.
    The FCC issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) on September 19, 1996, 
seeking public comment regarding its responsibilities under section 
255. The FCC noted that it may select from a variety of approaches for 
enforcing section 255, including acting on a ``complaint-by-complaint 
basis, without issuing any rules or other guidance, beyond the 
guidelines issued by the Access Board'' or ``adopt[ing] the Board's 
guidelines, either as adopted by the Board or with revisions, as 
Commission rules after the appropriate Commission proceedings.'' The 
FCC ultimately will decide which approach to take. However, regardless 
whether the FCC proceeds with case-by-case determinations or 
rulemaking, Congress clearly intended that the FCC's actions be 
consistent with the Board's guidelines.

Declaration of Conformity

    Comment. A few commenters from the telecommunications industry and 
disability organizations urged the Board to adopt the Declaration of 
Conformity as recommended by the TAAC. In the NPRM, the Board stated 
that ``since enforcement for section 255 is under the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the FCC, this rule does not address the Declaration of 
Conformity''. The United States Telephone Association (USTA) believed 
that the Board should require a Declaration of Conformity and that it 
would be wrong to merely regard the Declaration of Conformity as a 
complaint resolution tool. USTA states that a ``Declaration of 
Conformity assures the purchaser of the telecommunications equipment 
and/or customer premises equipment that the manufacturer has complied 
with section 255. It can also serve to educate the customer about what 
to do to communicate with the manufacturer, how to request alternate 
forms of user information, etc. Without a Declaration of Conformity, a 
customer may not be able to determine if the product to be purchased 
has been reviewed for accessibility.'' The United Cerebral Palsy 
Associations (UCPA) recommended that the final rule include a 
requirement for a Declaration of Conformity and that it should be on a 
separate piece of paper to make it more visible.
    Response. The Access Board recognizes that there is a need to have 
an effective and efficient enforcement process for section 255, 
including the possible need for a Declaration of Conformity, as 
recommended by the TAAC. However, it is the FCC, and not the Access 
Board, which is responsible for enforcing section 255 through a 
complaint process. The Access Board has not addressed issues in this 
final rule that are clearly within the FCC's jurisdiction. The 
information not related to compliance that was recommended to be 
included in a Declaration of Conformity, primarily the requirement to 
supply a point of contact, is required by section 1193.33 of this rule.

Accessibility Engineering Specialists

    Comment. The NPRM referred to the establishment of an Association 
of Accessibility Engineering Specialists under the National Association 
of Radio and Telecommunications Engineers. In its comments, USTA 
suggested that groups such as this should more appropriately be 
structured under an organization such as the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI).
    Response. As stated in the NPRM, the TAAC ``report also recommends 
the creation of a technical subgroup of a professional society which 
could train and eventually certify `accessibility specialists' or 
engineers. As a result of work by several Committee members, such a 
group has already been created. The National Association of Radio and 
Telecommunications Engineers (NARTE), a private professional 
association, recently formed the Association of Accessibility 
Engineering Specialists. This association is expected to sponsor 
conferences and workshops, disseminate information, and suggest course 
curricula for future training and certification.'' The Board 
appreciates the fact that NARTE established the Association of 
Accessibility Engineering Specialists and believes that this group will 
contribute to advances in the field of accessible telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment and assist in maintaining a 
cooperative dialogue among manufacturers, product developers, 
engineers, academicians, individuals with disabilities, and others 
involved in

[[Page 5610]]

the telecommunications equipment design and development process. 
Commenters who wish to have an association created under the auspices 
of ANSI, or any similar organization, should approach that 
organization. The Board encourages any efforts to move accessibility 
design into the mainstream of telecommunications and will work 
cooperatively with any established group to further those ends.

Market Monitoring Report

    Comment. The NPRM discussed that the Board intends to compile a 
market monitoring report on a regular basis and make it available to 
the public. USTA commented that the Board did not offer what type of 
information it will specifically monitor, how often, and to what end. 
UCPA supported a market monitoring report and suggested that the Board 
specify an annual report. UCPA recommended that the report should be 
structured for rapid turnaround after the close of the monitoring 
period and that successful access solutions be highlighted.
    Response. The Board intends to compile a market monitoring report 
after the guidelines are published and make it available to the public. 
At this point, the Board does not have a schedule for when the first 
report will begin or when it will be issued, since it must be 
incorporated into the Board's on-going research and technical 
assistance program. The report will address the state of the art of 
customer premises equipment and telecommunications equipment and the 
progress of making this equipment accessible and identify successful 
access solutions. Since the Board is required to review and update 
these guidelines periodically, information from this report will assist 
the Board in determining what provisions of the guidelines may need to 
be revised or whether new provisions need to be added. In particular, 
some issues will be targeted for examination, such as redundancy and 
selectability, the effect of hearing aid interference on bystanders, 
and whether persons with hearing impairments continue to report having 
trouble using public pay telephones. These issues are discussed further 
in the section-by-section analysis.
    In addition, the Board intends to investigate whether the report 
might be compiled in cooperation with another government entity or 
private sector organization. For example, the National Institute on 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) funds a variety of 
research projects and centers, including a research center devoted to 
telecommunications. Also, some private sector organizations have begun 
highlighting accessible products in reports and trade shows. The Board 
intends to explore whether it would be appropriate to produce the 
market monitoring report in conjunction with one of those groups or 
companies.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    This section of the preamble summarizes each of the provisions of 
the final rule and the comments received in response to the proposed 
rule. Where the provision in the final rule differs from that of the 
proposed rule, an explanation of the modification is provided. The text 
of the final rule follows this section. An appendix provides examples 
of non-mandatory strategies for addressing these guidelines.

Subpart A--General

Section 1193.1  Purpose

    This section describes the purpose of the guidelines which is to 
provide specific direction for the accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment covered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 255(b) 
of the Act requires that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment 
or customer premises equipment shall ensure that the equipment is 
designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable. Section 255(d) of 
the Act requires that whenever it is not readily achievable to make a 
product accessible, a manufacturer shall ensure that the equipment is 
compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer 
premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to 
achieve access, if readily achievable. The requirement for the Board to 
issue accessibility guidelines is contained in section 255(e).
    No substantive comments were received and no changes have been made 
to this section in the final rule.

Section 1193.2  Scoping

    The NPRM stated that section 255 is intended to apply to all 
equipment since the Board ``finds no evidence in the statute or its 
legislative history that Congress intended individuals with 
disabilities to have fewer choices in selecting products than the 
general public'' and concluded that all products are subject to the 
guidelines.
    Comment. The majority of comments, including the majority of those 
from TAAC members, supported the position that all products are subject 
to the guidelines. Individuals with disabilities and advocacy groups 
generally said they wanted the opportunity to choose among the features 
of various products offered to the general public, not to be forced to 
settle for the features a manufacturer decided to offer on the 
``accessible'' product. ``Having all the models of equipment carry 
accessibility features is a must for me,'' said one. ``My needs are not 
necessarily the same as another hearing-impaired person's. Among the 
products that must have accessibility features are pagers, which must 
have vibrating mode or else they are useless. I want to have the choice 
to pick the right kind of vibrating pager based on my needs.'' The 
Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership supported the Board's 
finding that section 255 applies on a product-by-product basis. It said 
``[w]ithout a clear requirement that accessibility be provided at the 
individual product level, customers with disabilities risk being caught 
forever in the same unacceptable circumstance we have experienced to 
date: a telecommunications marketplace which segregates accessible 
products from mainstream products, with all the concomitant problems 
which ``special'' production entails--lesser availability, greater 
cost, poorer quality and lack of full compatibility. While there will 
surely be instances where a manufacturer will choose to offer 
additional accessibility features in one or two products in a product 
line where it was not readily achievable to offer those features in 
every product in a product line, the proposed rule in no way prevents a 
manufacturer from making such an offering. The essential consideration 
is that accessibility, usability and compatibility must be properly 
considered at the individual product level * * * .''
    USTA, the principal trade association of the local exchange carrier 
industry, and a TAAC member, agreed that all telecommunications 
products and customer premises equipment should be subject to the 
guidelines. It stated that ``[t]he issue of accessibility must relate 
to the whole universe of technology. To do otherwise will create a 
hierarchy of opportunities for customers--a hierarchy that could 
seriously jeopardize telecommunications service delivery.'' Bell 
Atlantic and NYNEX also supported a product-by-product approach to 
encourage manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment to make accessible the widest array of

[[Page 5611]]

functionally different products. Bell Atlantic and NYNEX were concerned 
that appropriately equipped telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment should be available to implement or complement their 
services and that without needed network equipment, service providers 
could be unable to meet the telecommunications needs of people with 
disabilities in an efficient manner. Bell Atlantic and NYNEX also made 
the point that accessibility can often be achieved only through 
compatible customer premises equipment, operating with network 
services. They stated that ``[u]nless manufacturers are obligated to 
make a variety of products with different functions accessible, 
assuming such accessibility is readily achievable, the accessibility 
options available to service providers and their customers could be 
severely limited.'' Bell Atlantic and NYNEX added that even without a 
legal mandate, adding readily achievable accessibility features to 
products and services is simply good business.
    On the other hand, manufacturers and the Telecommunications 
Industry Association (TIA) uniformly said the guidelines should be 
applied to product ``lines'' or ``families'' and the Consumer 
Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA) said compliance should 
take into account the ``market as a whole'' with respect to 
accessibility. In particular, Ericsson, questioned the NPRM 
interpretation by saying ``while there is no language in the statute 
which specifically provides guidance on whether all equipment or some 
equipment must be made accessible or compatible, there is similarly no 
language in the legislative history which supports the Board's 
conclusion''. Some manufacturers read the word ``equipment'' in the 
statute as plural, which they felt supported their claim for coverage 
of groups of products rather than individual products.
    Several manufacturers drew analogies to portions of facilities 
covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), such as stadium 
seats, hotel rooms, and telephones in a bank as giving weight that only 
some telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment needs 
to be accessible. The commenters said that the ADA has recognized that 
proper application of the readily achievable definition, which defines 
the scope of the obligations under the ADA, will, in some 
circumstances, result in people with disabilities having accessibility 
but fewer choices than the general public. The commenters concluded 
that all products should not be required to be accessible if other 
models of a similar product with comparable features and at comparable 
cost are available.
    These commenters also added that with a broad range of 
accessibility needs to be met, it is unrealistic to expect that a 
manufacturer could provide this range of products within the limits of 
the readily achievable limitation. These commenters further said that 
varying and occasionally conflicting accessibility needs of persons 
with different disabilities virtually dictate a product family 
approach. The Information Technology Industries Council commented that 
accessibility issues raised by section 255 require the Board to 
consider cost impact issues of far greater scope and complexity, 
involving the recurring costs of designing and manufacturing complex 
products sold in a highly competitive marketplace characterized by 
rapid technological innovation. Because competitive profit margins are 
thin, company survival and continuing research and innovation are 
extremely sensitive to cost increases. Many telecommunications industry 
commenters expressed concern that the guidelines will have an 
inhibiting effect if they discourage equipment manufacturers from 
developing specialized products targeted to the differing, and 
sometimes mutually inconsistent, needs of individuals with differing 
disabilities.
    Response. Section 255 requires manufacturers to ensure that 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment are 
designed, developed and fabricated to be accessible. Manufacturers seem 
to argue that the statute can be read as having a second qualifier, in 
addition to readily achievable. That is, manufacturers argue that some 
telecommunications equipment and some customer premises equipment 
should be designed developed and fabricated to be accessible if readily 
achievable, unless comparable equipment is available.
    Manufacturers claim the statute should be read as applying to 
product ``lines'' or ``families'' rather than individual products as 
long as accessible products with comparable, substantially comparable, 
or similar features are available at a comparable cost. These 
commenters did not provide a definition of a product line or family. It 
is not clear whether all cellular telephones are to be regarded as part 
of the same product line, so that only one needs to be accessible to a 
person with a disability, even if it were readily achievable to make 
others accessible. The comment from CEMA goes further by suggesting 
that, if one manufacturer makes a cellular phone accessible to blind 
persons, another manufacturer would not need to even consider whether 
it were readily achievable to do so.
    Aside from the fact that such an interpretation is not supported by 
the plain statutory language, it does not answer the question of what 
is comparable. Suppose a person with a disability wants the features on 
product A, but product B has the accessibility features. For example, 
product A is a pager with a lighted display which can be seen in dim 
light, and product B is a pager without the lighted display but with a 
vibrator to alert a deaf person. It is not clear what ``comparable'' 
feature is the substitute for not having the lighted display. If the 
deaf person works in a low-light environment, the lighted display may 
be needed. Moreover, if the deaf person also has a visual impairment, a 
situation common among older persons, the lighted display may be part 
of the accessibility that person needs. Similarly, a modem manufacturer 
might offer V.18 compatibility only on its 9600 bps model, not its 56k 
bps model. Conversely, it may provide V.18 capability only on its fast 
modem, but some service providers do not support high speed modems. 
Furthermore, commenters provided no indication of how much of a price 
difference is to be considered as comparable. The statute provides only 
one reason for not making telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment accessible, usable, or compatible and that is that 
it is not readily achievable. The clear meaning of the statute is, if 
it is readily achievable to put a vibrator in product A and product B, 
and V.18 capability in more than one modem, a manufacturer is required 
to do so.
    The Board has acknowledged that it may not be readily achievable to 
make every product accessible or compatible. Depending on the design, 
technology, or several other factors, it may be determined that 
providing accessibility to all products in a product line is not 
readily achievable. The guidelines do not require accessibility or 
compatibility when that determination has been made, and it is up to 
the manufacturer to make it. However, the assessment as to whether it 
is or is not readily achievable cannot be bypassed simply because 
another product is already accessible. For this purpose, two products 
are considered to be different if they have different functions or 
features. Products which differ only cosmetically, where such 
differences do not affect functionality, are not

[[Page 5612]]

considered separate products. An appendix note has been added to 
clarify this point.
    In drawing analogies from the ADA, the correct connection is 
between telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment 
and the facility, not individual elements within the facility. For 
example, all theaters in a multi-theater complex must be accessible so 
that persons with disabilities can choose which films to see, not only 
a few theaters with ``comparable'' movies; all stadiums must be 
accessible, not just one for baseball, one for football, and one for 
soccer. Disabled persons' seat choices are limited but not whether they 
can see movie A or movie B. Also, within a phone bank, the one 
accessible phone is simply at a lower position but it is not merely 
``comparable'' to the other phones in the bank, it is identical.
    Finally, many of the commenters contend that certain requirements 
are not readily achievable if applied across all products. Several 
mentioned the incompatibility or conflict between solutions for 
different disabilities, though no examples of such conflicts were 
provided. If such designs are truly not readily achievable, the 
guidelines do not require accessibility or compatibility. Thus, the 
guidelines would be satisfied.
    Comment. CEMA wanted the Board to take into account that the cost 
of retooling an assembly line is prohibitively expensive if done before 
the production cycle lifespan of a product has come to an end. CEMA 
recommended that the guidelines should be modified to recognize the 
need for manufacturers to complete production runs prior to making 
design changes and asked for a ``grace period'' after having complied 
with current guidelines before having to retool their assembly lines 
and update to any new guidelines.
    Response. No explicit ``grace period'' is needed since it is built 
into the determination of readily achievable.
    Comment. The majority of comments praised the Board for adhering to 
the recommendations of the TAAC report. However, several comments said 
the NPRM had converted numerous TAAC voluntary recommendations into 
mandatory obligations.
    Response. The Board's guidelines are rules under the meaning of the 
Administrative Procedures Act 1 and are appropriately 
written in mandatory language. Nevertheless, the guidelines maintain 
the TAAC recommendations insofar as they were written as ``shall'' or 
``should.'' Some of the TAAC recommendations which used ``should'' were 
placed in the appendix, such as the recommendation that manufacturers 
encourage distributors to adopt information dissemination programs 
similar to theirs, or to incorporate redundancy and selectability in 
products. Where the Board felt the provision was important enough that 
it belonged in the text, it was converted to a requirement. How each 
requirement is implemented will be determined as each manufacturer 
deems appropriate for its own operation, such as the requirement to 
consider including persons with disabilities in product trials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 551 (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment. One commenter recommended that the guidelines be clarified 
to explain that they apply solely to equipment used primarily for 
access to telecommunications services. The commenter pointed out that 
the Senate report exempted equipment used to access ``information 
services''. The commenter indicated that the Senate's definition of 
telecommunications, as set forth in the report ``excludes those 
services, such as interactive games or shopping services or other 
services involving interaction with stored information, that are 
defined as information services.''
    Response. Information services are not covered by these guidelines. 
The Act defines what is telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment. If a product ``originates, routes or terminates 
telecommunications'' it is covered whether the product does that most 
of the time or only a small portion of the time. Of course, only the 
functions directly related to a product's operation as 
telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment are covered 
by the guidelines. A set-top-box which converts a television so that it 
can send e-mail or engage in Internet telephony, for example, is 
customer premises equipment when performing those functions. The Senate 
report only excludes those services described as ``information 
services''. It does not mean any equipment which receives such services 
is excluded if the product is also customer premises equipment.
    Comment. One comment objected to the Board's exclusion of existing 
products for coverage by the guidelines, noting that the word ``new'' 
does not appear in the statute. Many current products will be on the 
market for some time and should be required to be retrofitted to be 
accessible or compatible, if readily achievable.
    Response. While it is true that the word ``new'' does not occur in 
the statute, the Senate report clearly says that the Board's guidelines 
should be ``prospective in nature'', intended to apply to future 
products. In addition, the statute applies to equipment designed, 
developed and fabricated which the Board interprets to mean that the 
Act applies to equipment for which all three events occurred after 
enactment of the Act. There is no requirement to retrofit existing 
equipment.

Section 1193.3  Definitions

    With a few exceptions discussed below, the definitions in this 
section are the same as the definitions used in the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996.
    Accessible. Subpart C contains the minimum requirements for 
accessibility. Therefore, the term accessible is defined as meeting the 
provisions of Subpart C.
    Comment. A few commenters suggested making the definition more 
general by using a definition which did not refer to Subpart C.
    Response. Using a more general definition would make the term 
``accessible'' subjective and potentially allow the term to be used to 
describe products which do not comply with these guidelines. Therefore, 
the definition has not been changed.
    Alternate Formats. Certain product information must be made 
available in alternate formats for the product to be usable by 
individuals with disabilities. Common forms of alternate formats are 
Braille, large print, ASCII text, and audio cassettes. Further 
discussion of alternate formats is provided in section 1193.33 and in 
the appendix.
    No substantive comments were received and no changes have been made 
to this definition.
    Alternate Modes. Alternate modes are different means of providing 
information to users of products including product documentation and 
information about the status or operation of controls. For example, if 
a manufacturer provides product instructions on a video cassette, 
captioning or video description would be required. Further discussion 
of alternate modes is provided in section 1193.33 and in the appendix.
    Comment. Some commenters noted that the proposed definition did not 
actually define alternate modes, but simply gave a listing of examples. 
Also, several commenters, including the American Council of the Blind 
and the American Foundation for the Blind recommended that the term 
``audio description'' be changed to ``video description'' because the 
term ``video'' more accurately describes the means of providing the 
information.

[[Page 5613]]

    Response. A definition is provided for the term ``alternate modes'' 
in the final rule. In addition, the term ``audio description'' has been 
changed to ``video description.''
    Compatible. Subpart D contains the minimum requirements for 
compatibility with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer 
premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to 
achieve access. Therefore, the term compatible is defined as meeting 
the provisions of Subpart D.
    Comment. One commenter noted that the term ``compatible'' is too 
nebulous and broad and recommended substituting the word interoperable 
for compatible.
    Response. The term ``compatible'' is taken directly from the 
statute. Therefore, the term has been retained in the final rule.
    Customer Premises Equipment. This definition is taken from the 
Telecommunications Act. Equipment employed on the premises of a person, 
which can originate, route or terminate telecommunications, is customer 
premises equipment. ``Person'' is a common legal term meaning an 
individual, firm, partnership, corporation, or organization.
    Customer premises equipment can also include certain specialized 
customer premises equipment which are directly connected to the 
telecommunications network and which can originate, route, or terminate 
telecommunications. Equipment with such capabilities is covered by 
section 255 and is required to meet the accessibility requirements of 
Subpart C, if readily achievable, or to be compatible with specialized 
customer premises equipment and peripheral devices according to Subpart 
D, if readily achievable.
    Comment. The proposed rule asked for comments on the definition of 
customer premises equipment. Some commenters stated that it was unclear 
whether software was included in the definition. Also, it was suggested 
by one commenter that the definition include ``wireless systems''. Some 
comments from industry, including Matsushita Electric Corporation of 
America suggested that the definition of customer premises equipment be 
changed ``to confine the applicability of the guidelines . . . to 
equipment the primary use of which is telecommunications, thus 
exclud[ing] such products as television receivers, VCRs, set-top boxes, 
computers without modems, and other consumer products the primary 
purpose of which is other than for telecommunications.'' Self Help for 
Hard of Hearing People (SHHH) and many individuals who are hard of 
hearing suggested clarifying the definition to include public pay 
telephones as examples of customer premises equipment.
    Response. If a product ``originates, routes or terminates 
telecommunications'' it is customer premises equipment and thus covered 
by the Act whether the product does that most of the time or only a 
small portion of the time. Only the functions directly related to the 
product's operation as customer premises equipment are covered. For 
example, the buttons, prompts, displays, or output and input needed to 
send and receive e-mail or an Internet telephone call are covered. 
Other functions not related to telecommunications, such as starting a 
program on a computer or changing channels on a combination television-
Internet device would not be covered. The term ``customer premises 
equipment'' is defined in the Telecommunications Act and the definition 
in the NPRM was taken directly from the Act. The definition has been 
retained in the final rule without change.
    The guidelines do not differentiate between hardware, firmware or 
software implementations of a product's functions or features, nor do 
they differentiate between functions and features built into the 
product and those that may be provided from a remote server over the 
network. The functions are covered by these guidelines whether the 
functions are provided by software, hardware, or firmware. As the NPRM 
indicated, customer premises equipment may also include wireless 
sets.2 Finally, public pay telephones are considered 
customer premises equipment.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Declaratory Ruling, DA 93-122 , 8 FCC Rcd 6171, 6174 
(Com. Car. Bur. 1993) (TOCSIA Declaratory Ruling), recon. pending 
(finding that definition of ``premises'' includes ``locations'' such 
as airplanes, trains and rental cars, despite the fact that they are 
mobile).
    \3\ See, Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification 
and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
96-128, November 8, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturer. This definition is provided as a shorthand reference 
for a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment.
    Comment. Several commenters recommended that the definition be 
modified to include subcomponent manufacturers, manufacturers of 
component parts which can convert a piece of equipment into customer 
premises equipment, and software manufacturers that design software to 
be used in telecommunications or customer premises equipment. The 
National Association of the Deaf recommended that the definition of 
manufacturer be flexible so that it does not unduly restrict the type 
of entity that is covered by section 255. Another commenter recommended 
that the term manufacturer be defined to include those who assemble the 
component parts into a final product.
    Response. For the purposes of these guidelines, a manufacturer is 
the entity which makes a product for sale to a user or to a vendor who 
sells to a user. This would generally be the final assembler of 
separate subcomponents; that is, the entity whose brand name appears on 
the product. Acme Computers, for example, would be responsible for 
ensuring accessibility to any of its computers which can originate, 
route or terminate telecommunications. Such a computer might include a 
General Products modem which is itself a manufacturer because it sells 
General Products modems directly to the public. Acme Computers would be 
responsible for ensuring that it obtained the accessible General 
Products modem for inclusion in its computers. Also, Acme would ensure, 
through contractual provisions, purchase order stipulations, or any 
other method it chooses, that subcomponent suppliers who were not 
themselves manufacturers, provided accessible subcomponents where 
available. Thus, Acme can share or distribute responsibility for 
design, development and fabrication of accessible products. The 
definition has been clarified in the final rule.
    Peripheral Devices. Section 255 (d) of the Act provides that when 
it is not readily achievable to make telecommunications equipment or 
customer premises equipment accessible, manufacturers shall ensure that 
the equipment is compatible with existing peripheral devices or 
specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals 
with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable. No 
definition is provided in the Act but the term peripheral devices 
commonly refers to audio amplifiers, ring signal lights, some TTYs, 
refreshable Braille translators, text-to-speech synthesizers and 
similar devices. These devices must be connected to a telephone or 
other customer premises equipment to enable an individual with a 
disability to originate, route, or terminate telecommunications. 
Peripheral devices cannot perform these functions on their own.

[[Page 5614]]

    No substantive comments were received and no changes have been made 
to this definition.
    Product. This definition is provided as a shorthand reference for 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment.
    No substantive comments were received and no changes have been made 
to this definition.
    Readily Achievable. Comment. Many comments from persons with 
disabilities and their organizations wanted the Board to apply stricter 
criteria, such as ``undue burden,'' rather than readily achievable. The 
National Association of the Deaf (NAD) said it is critical that the 
readily achievable analysis under section 255 be performed on a case-
by-case basis, rather than through a numerical or other standard 
formula for all telecommunications equipment. NAD also supported the 
NPRM proposal to consider design expertise, knowledge of specific 
manufacturing techniques, or the availability of certain kinds of 
technological solutions among a company's available resources. Further, 
a readily achievable determination made under section 255 should 
parallel a readily achievable analysis under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) in that it should consider the entire operations 
and resources of a parent corporation and its subsidiaries in 
determining the manufacturer's resources.
    Manufacturers, on the other hand, did not feel the resources of a 
parent company should be taken into account. They pointed out the 
unique financial configurations of telecommunications companies as 
being divided into separate design units, each with its own budgetary 
resources and fiscal responsibilities.
    Response. The use of the term readily achievable rather than undue 
burden is a statutory requirement. The Board cannot change the term. 
What the guidelines can do is provide some guidance to manufacturers as 
to how to relate the readily achievable factors from the ADA to the 
telecommunications industry.
    Both the statutory definition of readily achievable and the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations include the resources of a 
parent company as a factor. However, such resources are considered only 
to the extent those resources are available to the subsidiary. If, for 
example, the subsidiary is responsible for product design but the 
parent company is responsible for overall marketing, it may be 
appropriate to expect the parent company to address some of the 
marketing goals. If, on the other hand, the resources of a parent 
company are not available to the subsidiary, they may not be relevant. 
This determination would be made on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment. Manufacturers were split on the issue of factors to be 
considered, some saying the ADA factors should be applied without 
amplification and others saying the unique character of 
telecommunications required a tailored set of criteria. Ericsson 
supported the NPRM adoption of the formal definition of readily 
achievable as ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out 
without much difficulty or expense.'' However, Ericsson recommended 
that any additional language which explains the factors to be 
considered in determining whether it is readily achievable for a 
manufacturer to make its equipment accessible or compatible, should be 
deleted. Ericsson commented that the FCC, pursuant to its complaint 
jurisdiction, is in a better position than the Access Board to 
determine what factors in the telecommunications context are relevant 
to the term readily achievable.
    Response. The final rule includes an appendix note that discusses 
factors to be considered in making a determination whether an action is 
readily achievable or not. The factors are provided for guidance only 
and are neither presented in any particular order or given any 
particular weight. The Board expects that the FCC will set forth the 
factors which it will use to judge compliance. Once that occurs the 
Board will revise the appendix to these guidelines, as appropriate. 
However, in the absence of specific criteria issued by the FCC, the 
Board believes it is desirable to provide interim guidance.
    Comment. Several manufacturers suggested adding readily achievable 
factors such as weighing the removal of one barrier against another, 
whether the solution would limit mass market appeal, ``user-
friendliness,'' and that one barrier should not be viewed in isolation 
to the availability of a comparable product that was accessible.
    Several also said the removal of a barrier should not result in a 
fundamental alteration of the product. Motorola cited the DOJ ADA 
regulation as support that ``accessibility or compatibility features 
that would fundamentally alter the nature of the telecommunications 
equipment at issue do not fall within the definition of readily 
achievable and therefore are not required.'' Motorola said that DOJ 
reached the conclusion that ``fundamental alteration'' is a component 
of ``readily achievable'' by drawing a comparison to the ``undue 
burden'' standard, which defines the scope of a public accommodation's 
duty to provide auxiliary aids and services. The undue burden and 
readily achievable determinations depend upon the same factors. The 
undue burden standard, however, requires a higher level of effort to 
achieve compliance than the readily achievable limitation does. Since 
the undue burden standard excuses actions that would fundamentally 
modify goods and services, Motorola concludes that the readily 
achievable limitation would excuse such actions as well, even though 
this is not specifically stated in the regulations. Compactness and 
portability, Motorola continues, are fundamental characteristics of 
wireless customer premises equipment and that these attributes are 
responsible for their popularity. Incorporating accessibility features 
could, in some cases, result in a significant increase in the size of 
the customer premises equipment, thus fundamentally altering the nature 
of the product at issue.
    Response. The appendix includes factors derived from the ADA and 
the DOJ regulations. Several commenters suggested adding additional 
factors. The Board was not persuaded that the additional factors 
suggested, such as mass market appeal or ``user-friendliness,'' were 
consistent with those from the ADA or the DOJ regulations. However, the 
Board does acknowledge that readily achievable is intended to be a 
lower standard than ``undue burden'' and that the latter includes the 
concept of fundamental alteration. Therefore, consistent with the DOJ 
interpretation, fundamental alteration is listed as a factor in the 
appendix.
    Comment. Some commenters said that since what is readily achievable 
will change over time, disability access requirements should be 
gradually phased-in.
    Response. Since the determination whether an action is readily 
achievable will automatically change over time, with new technology or 
new understanding, no explicit phase-in is needed. Obviously, knowing 
about an accessibility solution, even in detail, does not mean it is 
readily achievable for a specific manufacturer to implement it 
immediately. Even if it only requires substituting a different, 
compatible part, the new part must be ordered and integrated into the 
manufacturing process. A more extreme implementation might require re-
tooling or redesign. On the other hand, a given solution might be so 
similar to the current design, development and fabrication process that 
it is readily

[[Page 5615]]

achievable to implement it quickly. To incorporate a specific phase-in 
period would delay implementation of such a readily achievable 
solution. Each manufacturer would make its own determination as to what 
is now readily achievable and proceed according to its own schedule.
    Comment. The NPRM asked (Question 2 (e)) whether resources other 
than monetary should be considered in determining whether an action is 
readily achievable. Motorola said that ``the relative technological 
expertise of telecommunications manufacturers should not be a factor 
defining what is readily achievable.'' Motorola was concerned that 
measuring technological expertise would be too subjective and that 
criteria for measuring expertise may not be fairly and consistently 
applied. On the other hand, TIA said that resources other than monetary 
should be considered in determining whether an action is readily 
achievable. TIA suggested that the process of technological innovation 
is only feasible when the appropriate resources in the appropriate 
quantities are applied at the appropriate time.
    Response. Some commenters seemed to think that the inclusion of 
technical expertise was to be used in place of financial resources or 
as a reason for requiring one company to do more than another. This was 
not the intent but, rather the reverse. That is, a company might have 
ample financial resources and, at first glance, appear to have no 
defense for not having included a particular accessibility feature in a 
given product. However, it might be that the company lacks personnel 
with experience in software development, for example, needed to 
implement the design solution. One might reason that, if the financial 
resources are available, the company should hire the appropriate 
personnel, but, if it does, it may no longer have the financial 
resources to implement the design solution. One would expect that the 
company would develop the technical expertise over time and that 
eventually the access solution might become readily achievable. The 
Board has never proposed to make any determinations of whether any 
activity was readily achievable, only to set forth a series of factors 
that a manufacturer would consider in making its own determination.
    Comment. Motorola felt that it would be inappropriate for a 
government entity to ``certify'' the competence of any manufacturer or 
its personnel.
    Response. There was never any suggestion that any government entity 
would ``certify'' any personnel or that any determination would be made 
by anyone but the manufacturer itself. The question was designed to 
raise the issue that whether something was readily achievable could be 
related to more than monetary resources.
    Comment. Some commenters said that proprietary accessibility 
features will frequently have additional costs associated with 
licensing fees. If rights to use those technologies can be obtained, 
which is not at all certain, the right to use proprietary technology to 
provide accessibility will be expensive. In some cases, such 
proprietary access technologies would not be available for a reasonable 
price and therefore could not be required.
    Response. This cost would be included as part of an assessment of 
what is readily achievable.
    Comment. One commenter stated that a manufacturer could hesitate 
before introducing a potentially valuable technical innovation if doing 
so would cause section 255 compliance costs to immediately skyrocket.
    Response. Compliance costs would not ``skyrocket'' since cost is 
explicit in determining what is readily achievable. If the cost goes 
over what the manufacturer considers to be readily achievable, the 
compliance cost drops to zero because the new product is no longer 
required to be accessible or compatible.
    Comment. The NPRM asked (Question 2 (b)) whether large and small 
manufacturers would be treated differently under the readily achievable 
limitation and whether this would confer a market advantage on small 
companies (Question 2 (c)) because they would have fewer resources and, 
therefore, be expected to do less. Comments uniformly supported the 
idea that the readily achievable criteria should be applied equally. 
Several comments pointed out that any advantage a small manufacturer 
derived would be temporary. A company with few resources, they argued, 
might be able to claim that providing accessibility was not readily 
achievable and could manufacture cheaper products. However, any 
competitive advantage it gained would result in higher sales, 
increasing its resources, until it could no longer claim access was not 
readily achievable.
    Response. The NPRM question was confusing and apparently gave the 
impression that the Board was considering developing different criteria 
for large and small companies. The Board did not intend to suggest that 
different criteria would be applied to different sized manufacturers.
    Comment. The NPRM asked (Question 2 (d)) whether ``technological 
feasibility'' should be an explicit factor in determining whether an 
action is readily achievable. Most comments agreed this is an important 
factor and said it needed to be included. However, some comments 
pointed out that if an action were not technologically feasible, it 
would not be accomplishable at all, let alone ``easily accomplishable, 
without much difficulty or expense.'' NAD said that, where a 
manufacturer alleges that providing accessibility for a particular 
telecommunications product will not be technologically feasible, the 
manufacturer should be required to demonstrate that it has engaged in 
comprehensive efforts to overcome the technological problems at hand.
    Response. The Board agrees that technological feasibility is 
inherent in the determination of what is readily achievable and does 
not need to be explicitly stated. The issue of what a manufacturer must 
demonstrate is a matter for the FCC to decide in an enforcement 
proceeding.
    Specialized Customer Premises Equipment. Section 255(d) of the 
Telecommunications Act requires that whenever it is not readily 
achievable to make a product accessible, a manufacturer shall ensure 
that the equipment is compatible with existing peripheral devices or 
specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals 
with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable. The 
Telecommunications Act does not define specialized customer premises 
equipment. As discussed above, the Act defines customer premises 
equipment as ``equipment employed on the premises of a person (other 
than a carrier) to originate, route, or terminate telecommunications'.
    The Board noted in the NPRM that the Act and its legislative 
history do not make clear whether Congress intended to treat 
specialized customer premises equipment differently from peripheral 
devices. The NPRM also pointed out that certain specialized equipment, 
such as direct-connect TTYs, can originate, route, or terminate 
telecommunications without connection to other equipment. The NPRM 
concluded that if specialized customer premises equipment can 
originate, route, or terminate telecommunications, it appears that the 
equipment should be treated the same as customer premises equipment and 
asked (Question 3) if this should be the case.
    Comment. The overwhelming majority of comments including those from 
the telecommunications industry

[[Page 5616]]

and disability organizations responded that if specialized customer 
premises equipment can originate, route, or terminate 
telecommunications, the equipment should be treated the same as 
customer premises equipment. The Trace Center commented that TTYs are 
made primarily for individuals who are deaf and requiring that TTYs 
provide voice output for all of the information displayed on the screen 
seems counter productive. One commenter suggested that the term 
``limited customer premises equipment'' replace the term specialized 
customer premises equipment because it would more accurately describe a 
device that serves a certain population. Ultratec, a manufacturer of 
TTYs, commented that the majority of the output criteria, and all of 
the compatibility criteria, are not applicable to TTYs. Therefore, TTYs 
should not be considered customer premises equipment.
    Response. The statute, not the guidelines, defines customer 
premises equipment. If specialized customer premises equipment can 
originate, route, or terminate telecommunications, it is customer 
premises equipment according to the statutory definition. Therefore, 
the term ``specialized customer premises equipment'' is defined in the 
final rule as ``equipment employed on the premises of a person (other 
than a carrier) to originate, route, or terminate telecommunications, 
which is commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve 
access.'' If specialized customer premises equipment manufacturers are 
not required to follow the guidelines where readily achievable, then 
individuals with multiple disabilities, or individuals with 
disabilities other than deafness who want to communicate with 
individuals who are deaf may find it difficult or impossible to find 
specialized customer premises equipment that they can use. For example, 
even though it may seem ``counter-productive,'' a person who is blind 
may need to communicate with a TTY user directly, without going through 
a relay service, and would need auditory output. Whether it is readily 
achievable to provide auditory output is for the manufacturer to 
decide. The fact that individuals with multiple disabilities are not 
the primary market for the specialized customer premises equipment is 
not persuasive, since this is equally true of all mass market 
manufacturers.
    The provisions for accessibility and compatibility are required 
only when the feature or function is provided. For example, the 
requirement to provide a visual output applies only where an auditory 
output is provided. Thus, if a product provides no auditory output for 
its operation, a corresponding visual output is not required. 
Therefore, a TTY should be able to meet the provisions for output and 
compatibility the same as any other telecommunications equipment or 
customer premises equipment. A particular manufacturer must make the 
determination of what is readily achievable on a case-by-case basis.
    On balance, the Board concludes that specialized customer premises 
equipment should be considered a subset of customer premises equipment, 
and that manufacturers of specialized customer premises equipment 
should make their products accessible to all individuals with 
disabilities, including the disability represented by their target 
market, where readily achievable.
    Comment. Ultratec pointed out that, currently, TTYs with direct 
connect capabilities are analog only units and that consumers cannot 
use the full capabilities of direct connect TTYs (i.e. auto answer 
capabilities), unless they install a separate analog port within their 
digital PBX system. This, Ultratec adds, is a compatibility issue and 
as a specialized customer premises equipment manufacturer cannot do 
anything to bring about access at this time in a digital environment.
    Response. The Board understands that some manufacturers are working 
to solve the non-compatibility between analog and digital signals, but 
that a solution may not be readily achievable at this time. A note has 
been added to the appendix regarding strategies that can be used to 
improve the compatibility between TTYs and the telecommunications 
network in the interim until industry standards are in place.
    Telecommunications. This is the same definition from the 
Telecommunications Act.
    No substantive comments were received regarding this definition and 
no changes have been made in the final rule.
    Telecommunications Equipment. This is the same definition from the 
Telecommunications Act.
    No substantive comments were received regarding this definition and 
no changes have been made in the final rule.
    Telecommunications Service. This is the same definition from the 
Telecommunications Act.
    No substantive comments were received regarding this definition and 
no changes have been made in the final rule.
    TTY. This definition is taken from the ADA Accessibility 
Guidelines, primarily for consistency with the Board's other 
guidelines.
    No substantive comments were received regarding this definition and 
no changes have been made in the final rule.
    Usable. This definition is included to convey the important point 
that products which have been designed to be accessible are usable only 
if an individual has adequate information on how to operate the 
product. Further discussion of usability is provided in Sec. 1193.33.
    Comment. Ericsson points out that neither the Act, nor its 
legislative history defines ``usable'' as meaning access to 
instructions, product information and documentation relative to 
products. Ericsson suggests that the term ``usable'' be stricken from 
the definitions section. The Trace Center recommended some minor 
editorial changes to the definition as proposed.
    Response. The term ``usable'' in the Act does not stand alone, but, 
rather is part of a term of art, ``accessible to and usable by'' 
persons with disabilities, which is a standard phrase in disability law 
and regulation. The term generally means more than ``convenient and 
practicable for use'' as Ericsson suggested in its comments. Typically, 
``accessible'' means an element complies with a specific technical 
specification whereas ``usable'' means a person with a disability can 
use the element effectively. Something can be accessible but not 
usable: a door can be built to correct specifications, with proper 
maneuvering space, but space can be blocked by furniture or otherwise 
be made unusable. Conversely, something can be usable but not 
accessible: a door which does not meet maneuvering space requirements 
(i.e., is not accessible) can be made usable by adding a power 
operator.
    Telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment is made 
usable to a purchaser by having instructions; except for the simplest 
device, it would not be usable by anyone without instructions. If 
instructions are not provided for any user, instructions in alternate 
formats would not be required. Accessible features can be provided, but 
without instructions, the product could not be used.
    Where information or documentation is provided for a product, the 
information or documentation must be provided in an accessible format 
that is usable by a person with a disability. Clearly, to be usable by 
persons with disabilities instructions must be in a

[[Page 5617]]

form they can use: print information is not very helpful to a person 
who is blind and auditory information is useless to a person who is 
deaf. A slight editorial change has been made in response to the 
comment from the Trace Center.

Subpart B--General Requirements

Section 1193.21  Accessibility, Usability and Compatibility

    This section provides that where readily achievable, 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment shall 
comply with the specific technical provisions of Subpart C. Where it is 
not readily achievable to comply with Subpart C, telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment shall comply with the 
provisions of Subpart D, if readily achievable. This is a restatement 
of the Act and sets forth the readily achievable limitation which 
applies to all subsequent sections of these guidelines.
    Comment. 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 provisions in the rule. They correctly noted 
that the statutory requirements for usability are also subject to the 
readily achievable limitation. As proposed, the obligations to provide 
usable documentation seemed to be absolute. Additionally, the Trace 
Center pointed out that the NPRM was unclear whether the requirements 
of Subpart D (Requirements for Compatibility With Peripheral Devices 
and Specialized Customer Premises Equipment) must be met if a product 
fully complies with the requirements in Subpart C (Requirements for 
Accessibility and Usability).
    Response. The Board agrees that the statute applies the readily 
achievable limitation to usability as well as accessibility and 
compatibility. Therefore, the title of this section has been changed 
and the proposed Secs. 1193.25, 1193.27 and 1193.29 have been moved to 
Subpart C and renumbered accordingly. Section 255 does not require 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to be both 
accessible and compatible. Therefore, telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment are not required to be compatible with 
peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment if they 
comply with the requirements in subpart C.

Section 1193.23  Product Design, Development and Evaluation

    This section requires manufacturers to evaluate the accessibility, 
usability, and compatibility of telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment and incorporate such evaluation throughout 
product design, development, and fabrication, as early and consistently 
as possible. Manufacturers must develop a process to ensure that 
products are designed, developed and fabricated to be accessible 
whenever it is readily achievable. Since what is readily achievable 
will vary according to the stage of development (i.e., some things will 
be readily achievable in the design phase which are not in later 
phases), barriers to accessibility, usability, and compatibility must 
be identified throughout product design and development, from 
conceptualization to production. Moreover, usability can be seriously 
affected even after production, if information is not provided in an 
effective manner.
    The details of such a process will vary from one company to the 
next, so this section does not specify the structure or specific 
content of a process. Instead, this section sets forth a series of 
factors that a manufacturer must consider in developing such a process. 
How, and to what extent, each of the factors is incorporated in a 
specific process is up to the manufacturer.
    Comment. The majority of comments supported the provision as 
proposed but manufacturers generally objected to intrusions into their 
proprietary or discretionary activities. They also viewed this 
provision as creating paperwork burdens and criticized the Board for 
not using the TAAC recommendation which used the word ``should'' rather 
than mandatory language for this section.
    Response. The provision, as proposed, consisted of a set of factors 
which the Board considers critical to the development of any plan which 
seeks to ensure that products will be designed, developed and 
fabricated to be accessible. As such, they are more than suggestions. 
On the other hand, the Board is fully aware that different 
manufacturers, or even the same manufacturer at different times, must 
be given the flexibility to tailor any such plan to its own particular 
needs. Therefore, while this section sets forth the factors which must 
be considered in approaching how accessibility will be provided, it 
does not prescribe any particular plan or content. It does not require 
that such a process be submitted to any entity or that it even be in 
writing. The requirement is outcome-oriented, and a process could range 
from purely conceptual to formally documented, as suits the 
manufacturer. With respect to the ``mandatory'' nature of the 
provision, as explained elsewhere, the Board does not construe its 
statutory mandate as merely providing hortatory technical assistance. 
However, the Board did not ignore the TAAC recommendation, it merely 
approached it from a different direction.
    Comment. Commenters almost uniformly misconstrued the provision as 
requiring extensive activities and documentation, which it does not. 
One manufacturer interpreted the section as requiring a ``checklist'' 
which would need to be completed for each product.
    Response. While there is nothing to prevent a manufacturer from 
using extensive activities and documentation, this approach is neither 
required nor suggested. A ``checklist'' seems to envision an after-the-
fact evaluation activity which is certainly not the best way to achieve 
access. It also seems to assume that such evaluation is to be applied 
to existing products. As explained in section 1193.2, these guidelines 
apply to products designed, developed and fabricated after the 
effective date of this rule. Of course, in the beginning, before 
designers and developers are knowledgeable and familiar with access, 
some checklist procedure may be useful. Ultimately, however, the goal 
is for designers to be aware of access and incorporate such 
considerations in the conceptualization of new products. When an idea 
is just beginning to take shape, a designer would ask, ``How would a 
blind person use this product? How would a deaf person use it?'' The 
sooner a manufacturer makes its design team cognizant of design issues 
for achieving accessibility and proven solutions for accessibility and 
compatibility, the easier this process will be. But, again, how this is 
done is up to the manufacturer.
    Comment. Manufacturers also believed the provision required 
extensive marketing and testing programs, well beyond what they might 
currently provide.
    Response. The guidelines do not require market research, testing or 
consultation, only that they be considered and incorporated to the 
extent deemed appropriate for a given manufacturer. If a manufacturer 
has a large marketing effort, involving surveys and focus groups, it 
may be appropriate to include persons with disabilities in such groups. 
On the other hand, some small companies do not do any real marketing, 
per se, but may just notice

[[Page 5618]]

that a product made by XYZ Corporation is selling well and, based on 
this ``marketing survey'' it decides it can make a cheaper one. 
Clearly, ``involvement'' of persons with disabilities is not 
appropriate in this case. The final provision, therefore, has been 
revised to make it clear that these activities are not expected to be 
created where none existed before.
    Comment. TIA noted that the NPRM discussion assumes the impact will 
be low because manufacturers are only required to achieve what can be 
accomplished easily, without much difficulty or expense. ``This 
appears,'' says TIA, ``to omit consideration of the costs of making 
readily achievable determinations in the first place, prior to any 
expenditures on design, development and fabrication.''
    Response. As stated above, in the beginning manufacturers may spend 
some time evaluating products and the difficulty and expense of doing 
so may contribute to a finding that accessibility is not readily 
achievable. These costs have not been omitted, they are explicitly 
included in deciding whether an action is readily achievable, a 
determination which is to be made by the manufacturer not the Board. 
Moreover, as designers become more familiar with access and as 
technological solutions are found, the process should become more and 
more automatic. The Board has a positive regard for manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment as 
enterprising innovators who desire to provide access because they view 
it as the right thing to do, and because it is good business, not just 
because there is a Federal requirement. Indeed, recent announcements by 
telecommunications companies suggests this is true.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Bell Atlantic, NYNEX Announce Plans To Make Services, 
Products More Accessible,'' press release, February 3, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment. SBC Communications commented that the complex 
interrelationship between equipment and services in providing 
accessibility to telecommunications suggests that coordination and 
cooperation between manufacturers and service providers will be 
beneficial. SBC agreed that involving individuals with disabilities in 
the product development process will encourage appropriate design 
solutions to accessibility barriers and permit the exchange of relevant 
information. It believed that the same benefits would flow from 
interchanges with service providers.
    Response. The Board agrees that it would be desirable for 
manufacturers to consult with service providers during the design 
phase. As SBC points out, the solution to a particular barrier might be 
better addressed by the service or might involve a combination of 
service and equipment designs. Accordingly, the recommendation has been 
added to the appendix to include service providers in any consultation 
process.
    Comment. The American Council of the Blind (ACB) strongly supported 
the provision that manufacturers include individuals with disabilities 
in market research, product design, and testing. ACB felt that 
including individuals with disabilities is important but that 
manufacturers should consult with representatives from a cross-section 
of disability groups, particularly individuals whose disabilities 
affect hearing, vision, movement, manipulation, speech, and 
interpretation of information. ACB believed that it was important to 
remind manufacturers that they should work with a broad cross-section 
of disability groups and not just some.
    Response. The Board agrees that a cross-section of disability 
groups should be included in an evaluation of the accessibility and 
usability of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment. However, since the provision is meant to be general, no 
change has been made in the final rule.

Subpart C--Requirements for Accessibility and Usability

Section 1193.31  Accessibility and Usability

    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]

    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

[[Page 5619]]

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 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 more 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]

    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]

    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

[[Page 5620]]

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]

    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]

    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. 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. 
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. 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. 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. 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. 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

[[Page 5621]]

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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Comment. As discussed under section 1193.41 (b), a range has 
been included for low vision.
    Paragraph (c) Access to moving text. 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. 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. 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

[[Page 5622]]

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 order 5 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FCC 97-242, July 17, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The guidelines only apply to telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment designed, developed and fabricated after 
March 5, 1998. 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.
    Paragraph (f) Prevention of visually induced seizures. 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. 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. 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

[[Page 5623]]

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

Subpart D--Requirements for Compatibility With Peripheral Devices 
and Specialized Customer Premises Equipment

Section 1193.51  Compatibility [1193.41 in the NPRM]
    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

[[Page 5624]]

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

[[Page 5625]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ITU has published its draft recommendation for the V.18 
standard. It can be accessed through the Internet at: http//
tap.gallaudet.edu/V-18.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

Regulatory Process Matters

Executive Order 12866

    The Board has determined that this final rule is a significant 
regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866 since it raises 
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates. The Board 
has analyzed the benefits and costs of the rule and has determined that 
it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. Although the benefits and costs are 
difficult to quantify, the rule is expected to have a positive economic 
impact. The Board has adhered to the principles of Executive Order 
12866 in developing the rule and it represents a balanced and 
reasonable means of achieving the objectives of section 255 of the 
Telecommunications Act.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. Section 601, et 
seq., (RFA) was enacted to ensure that small entities are not 
unnecessarily burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires 
agencies to review rules that may have a ``significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.''
    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued in connection with 
this rulemaking contained a certification that the rule, as proposed, 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not 
prepared. In particular, the certification noted that manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment are 
required to comply with section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996 to the extent that it is ``readily achievable,'' which means that 
it is ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much 
difficulty or expense.'' Questions were included in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking to elicit information on how the size of an entity 
should affect what is readily achievable. The notice further provided 
that the Board would analyze comments received to determine if a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis would be prepared. Though the Board did 
not receive comments objecting to the certification, upon review of 
comments received in response to the proposed rule and the questions 
contained in the NPRM, the Board has determined that the preparation of 
a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) is appropriate. 
Accordingly, pursuant to the RFA, the Board's FRFA is as follows:
I. Need For and Final Objectives of the Guidelines
    The Access Board is responsible for developing accessibility 
guidelines in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) under section 255(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment. 
Telecommunications equipment is equipment, other than customer premises 
equipment, used by a carrier to provide telecommunications services, 
and includes software integral to such equipment (including upgrades). 
Customer premises equipment is equipment employed on the premises of a 
person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or terminate 
telecommunications. This includes specialized customer premises 
equipment as a subset. The guidelines address the access needs of 
individuals with disabilities affecting hearing, vision, movement, 
manipulation, speech, and interpretation of information while balancing 
the resources of manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to 
provide accessibility features.
    The guidelines do not require retrofitting of existing equipment or 
retooling. These guidelines are applicable only to the extent that it 
is readily achievable to do so. Manufacturers may consider costs and 
available resources when determining whether and the extent to which 
compliance is required.
    Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act will 
bring the benefits of telecommunications to potentially 48.9 million 
Americans with disabilities. It is anticipated that increased access to 
telecommunications will positively impact employment, education and the 
quality of life for individuals with disabilities.
II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
    The Board received a number of comments regarding the application 
of the term ``readily achievable''. The majority of those comments 
addressed the application of factors to be considered in determining 
whether compliance with the act was ``readily achievable''. In 
particular, questions were raised regarding the resources of a parent 
company, comparable products, fundamental alteration of a product, 
monetary resources, and technological expertise. The comments received 
by the Board in relation to the application of the term ``readily 
achievable'' are discussed in further detail in the Supplementary 
Information section above. (See 1193.3 Definitions.)
    Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act defines ``readily 
achievable'' as having the same meaning as in the ADA. In the 
guidelines, ``readily achievable'' is further defined in Section 1193.3 
(Definitions) as ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out 
without much difficulty or expense.'' The Board expects that the FCC 
will ultimately set forth factors that it will use to judge compliance 
under the readily achievable provisions of the Telecommunications Act. 
In the interim, the Board has provided a list of factors derived from 
the ADA as advisory guidance to assist manufacturers in making readily 
achievable assessments. Those factors include: (a) the nature and cost 
of the action needed to provide accessibility or compatibility; (b) the 
overall resources of the manufacturer, including financial resources, 
technical expertise, component supply sources, equipment, or personnel; 
(c) the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or 
entity, to the extent such resources are available to the manufacturer; 
and (d) whether the accessibility solution results in a fundamental 
alteration of the product. This latter factor, derived by extension 
from the ``undue burden'' criteria of the ADA, takes into consideration 
the effect adding an accessibility feature might have on a given 
product.
    Inherent in the concept of ``readily achievable'' is a recognition 
of the differences in the size and resources of

[[Page 5626]]

manufacturers and readily achievable assessments will necessarily 
require a case by case determination of the impact of the regulations 
on small businesses.
III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Businesses to 
Which These Guidelines Will Apply
    Covered Entities: Manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment are required by Sec. 255 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1966 to ``ensure that the equipment is 
designed, developed and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.'' Section 1193.3 
of the guidelines defines a manufacturer covered by Sec. 255 as ``a 
manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer premises 
equipment that sells to the public or to vendors that sell to the 
public; a final assembler.'' The definitions of customer premises 
equipment and telecommunications equipment help to further define which 
manufacturers are covered by Sec. 255:

    The term ``customer premises equipment'' means equipment 
employed on the premises of a person (other than a carrier) to 
originate, route, or terminate telecommunications. (See Sec. 1193.3 
Definitions)
    The term ``telecommunications equipment'' means equipment, other 
than customer premises equipment, used by a carrier to provide 
telecommunications services, and includes software integral to such 
equipment (including upgrades). (See Sec. 1193.3 Definitions)

    The Access Board guidelines cover those manufacturers of equipment 
that function as customer premises equipment and telecommunications 
equipment. Examples of customer premises equipment may include but are 
not limited to: wireline and wireless telephones, computers when 
employed on the premises of a person to originate, route or terminate 
telecommunications (i.e., Internet telephony or computer telephone 
calls with TTY software), or direct dial TTYs which ``originate, route 
or terminate telecommunications.'' The definition of telecommunications 
equipment includes switches used to direct telecommunications network 
services.
    This rule pertains only to functions directly related to 
telecommunications. For example, only a computer with a modem can 
function as telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment 
and only the modem functions are associated with telecommunications. 
Therefore, the requirements of this rule apply only to the modem 
functions (hardware and software operation), and incidental functions 
required for initialization (turning the computer on and launching the 
telecommunications program), necessary to engage in telecommunications. 
All other functions of the computer not related to telecommunications 
are not covered, such as word processing, file searching, operating 
system commands, and directory manipulation.
    Small Businesses: The term ``small business'' is defined by the RFA 
as having the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under 
section 632 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632. A ``small 
business concern'' under Section 632 is defined as ``one which is 
independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field 
of operation.'' Further, Section 632(a)(2)(A) provides that the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration may provide 
additional criteria by which a concern ``may be determined to be a 
small business concern.''
    There are three industry categories established by the Small 
Business Administration which are applicable to these guidelines:
    (1) Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire 
telephone and telegraph equipment.7 Included are 
establishments manufacturing modems and other telephone and telegraph 
communications interface equipment. Firms primarily engaged in the 
manufacturing of wire telephone and telegraph equipment are considered 
to be small businesses if they employ 1,000 or fewer employees. (See 13 
CFR 121.201.) Census data indicates that there are 471 such 
establishments, of which 92% or 432 are small business 
concerns.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987) (SIC 3561).
    \8\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Industry and Employment 
Size of Enterprise for 1994, Table 7, SIC 3561 (U.S. Bureau of the 
Census data under contract to the SBA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing electronic 
computers.9 As determined by the Small Business 
Administration, a manufacturer of electronic computers is considered to 
be a small business entity for purposes of the RFA if it has 1,000 or 
fewer employees. (See 13 CFR 121.201.) According to the U.S. Bureau of 
the Census data, there are approximately 632 such firms, of which 
approximately 594 or 94% percent qualify as small 
businesses.10 However, not all of the entities which are 
engaged in manufacturing electronic computers identified in the Census 
data are covered entities under the Telecommunications Act. For 
example, a computer which does not have a modem would not be a product 
which is subject to the requirements of the Telecommunications Act and 
therefore, the manufacturing of that computer would not be a function 
covered by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987) (SIC 3571).
    \10\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Industry and Employment 
Size of Enterprise for 1994, Table 7, SIC 3571 (U.S. Bureau of the 
Census data under contract to the SBA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcasting and communications equipment.11 
These establishments are considered to be small business concerns if 
they employ 750 or fewer employees. (See 13 CFR 121.201.) Census data 
indicates that there are 826 establishments engaged in the 
manufacturing of radio and television broadcasting and communications 
equipment, of which ninety-one percent or 755 of those firms are 
considered small business concerns.12 Not all of these 
businesses would be subject to the requirements of these guidelines. 
The Telecommunications Act addresses the transmittal of information 
between or among points specified by the user, of information of the 
user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the 
information as sent and received. (See Section 1193.3 Definitions). To 
the extent that the radio, broadcasting or computer equipment does not 
meet the definition of ``telecommunications'', the manufacturing of 
that equipment is not a covered function subject to the 
Telecommunications Act or these guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987) (SIC 3563).
    \12\ U.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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    Manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment are required by Section 255 to ``ensure that the equipment is 
designed, developed and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.'' And when it is 
not ``readily achievable'' to make products accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities, the manufacturer shall ensure that the 
equipment ``is compatible with existing peripheral devices or 
specialized customer

[[Page 5627]]

premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities to 
achieve access, if readily achievable.'' [47 U.S.C. 255(b)(d)] Section 
255 also places requirements on telecommunications service providers. 
Telecommunications service providers requirements are however under the 
jurisdiction of the FCC and therefore are not addressed in the Access 
Board guidelines.
    Section 1193.23  Product design, development and evaluation. This 
section requires that, where readily achievable, manufacturers must 
evaluate the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment and 
incorporate such evaluation throughout product design, development, and 
fabrication, as early and consistently as possible. Manufacturers must 
develop a process to ensure that products are designed, developed and 
fabricated to be accessible whenever it is readily achievable. Since 
what is readily achievable will vary according to the stage of 
development (i.e., some things will be readily achievable in the design 
phase which are not in later phases), barriers to accessibility, 
usability, and compatibility must be identified throughout product 
design and development, from conceptualization to production. The 
details of such a process will vary from one company to the next, and 
this section does not specify the structure or specific content of a 
process. Instead, this section sets forth a series of factors that a 
manufacturer must consider in developing such a process. How, and to 
what extent, each of the factors is incorporated in a specific process 
is up to the manufacturer. As the capability to evaluate the 
accessibility, usability, and compatibility of telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment is already available in-
house, this provision will not require additional professional skills. 
Under these guidelines, there are no recordkeeping requirements for 
this provision.
    There are many products for which evaluations can be relatively 
cursory as long as the company is confident that it is aware of all 
relevant access issues. At this end of the evaluation spectrum, only 
one hour of professional time is projected to be required, for an 
estimated cost of $80. At the other end of this spectrum, if there is a 
highly complex, convergent, or revolutionary new product this may 
require as much as 37.5 hours of professional evaluation throughout the 
product's development cycle, for an estimated cost of $3,000.
    Section 1193.33  Accessibility and usability. Section 1193.33 
requires that, where readily achievable, manufacturers must (1) provide 
a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the 
product upon request, including, as needed, in alternate formats or 
alternate modes at no additional charge; (2) provide end-user 
documentation in alternate format or alternate modes upon request at no 
additional charge where end-user documentation is provided; (3) ensure 
usable customer support and technical support in the call centers and 
service centers which support their products at no additional charge; 
and (4) include in general product information, the contact method for 
obtaining the information required in (1) and (2) above.
    In addition, where manufacturers provide employee training, they 
are required to provide training appropriate to an employee's function, 
where readily achievable. 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.
    The greatest cost involved with compliance with this provision is 
in the production of alternate formats. For persons with a visual 
impairment, four alternate formats exist: Braille, large print, 
electronic text, and audio cassette. It is estimated that, where it is 
readily achievable to do so, the cost of alternate formats for a 10 
page user's manual will involve the following:
     Braille: If the production of Braille documents is 
outsourced, costs range from $.25 to $2 per page, depending on the 
complexity of material (technical material is more expensive than 
literature) and the format in which the raw text arrives (print is more 
expensive than computer files). A reasonable estimate for producing 100 
copies of a 10 page user's manual (30 bound pages of Braille) would be 
$1800. The cost per brailled document is estimated at $18. If Braille 
is produced in-house, it can be produced by clerical staff, using a 
standard computer, Braille translation software, and a Braille printer. 
It is estimated that the cost to produce a ten page document in-house 
would be $10. Editing a 10 page document will require approximately 15 
hours of editorial time by clerical staff.
     Large Print: One hundred copies of a 10 page document 
would cost approximately $2.50 each to produce. The production of large 
print documents can be handled with clerical assistance and will 
involve approximately 15 hours of editorial work for a 10 page 
document.
     Electronic Text: Providing the information on computer 
disk will require an average of 15 hours of editorial work per product 
by clerical staff. The estimated cost of the disk, shipping and 
handling, is approximately $2.25 each.
     Audio Cassette: Producing the information in an audio 
cassette format will require approximately 15 hours of editorial work 
and recording time per product by clerical staff. The estimated cost of 
the cassette, shipping and handling is approximately $2.90 each.
    Section 1193.39  Prohibited reduction of accessibility, usability 
and compatibility. Section 1193.39 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. An exception provides that 
discontinuation of a product is not prohibited.
    The costs for this review, would be absorbed in the analysis for 
the replacement or upgraded product required under 1193.23 and 
manufacturers should not incur additional costs under this provision.
V. Description of Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic 
Impact Consistent With the Stated Objectives and Significant 
Alternatives Considered and Rejected
    In June 1996, the Access Board convened the Telecommunications 
Access Advisory Committee (TAAC) to assist the Board in fulfilling its 
mandate under section 255 of the Telecommunications Act. The members of 
the TAAC included representatives of small and large manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment, customer premises equipment, specialized 
customer premises equipment, peripheral devices, and software; 
organizations representing the access needs of individuals with 
disabilities; telecommunication providers and carriers; and other 
persons affected by the guidelines. In addition, entities and 
individuals who were not members of the TAAC were invited to 
participate in several subcommittees and task groups. Once the TAAC had 
prepared a working draft of its recommendations, that draft was posted 
on the Internet for interested businesses and individuals to comment 
on. Subsequent revisions to the draft

[[Page 5628]]

were also posted on the Internet. The Board established a ``listserve'' 
on the Internet for the TAAC to conduct business between its meetings. 
The listserve was opened to the public to follow and many of the 
discussion points received from outside parties were also posted on the 
listserve. The result of the Committee's work was a final report 
containing recommendations to the Access Board for implementing section 
255 of the Telecommunications Act. The Board then issued an NPRM which 
was based on those recommendations. In addition to a large distribution 
of the NPRM and the TAAC final report, the NPRM was posted on the 
Board's Internet page. Comments received in electronic format in 
response to the NPRM were also posted on the Internet for interested 
parties to review.
    The Board received 159 comments in response to the NPRM. A further 
discussion of the types of comments received may be found in the 
Background section of this rule. The Board has addressed the majority 
of the comments received in General Issues and Section-by-Section 
Analysis above.
    Efforts to minimize impact. (1) In implementing Section 255 of the 
Telecommunications Act, the Board has sought to minimize any 
disproportionate burdens imposed on small businesses. As previously 
discussed, inherent in the concept of ``readily achievable'' is a 
recognition of the differences in the size and resources of 
manufacturers. Assessments of what is readily achievable for a 
manufacturer to accomplish under the Telecommunications Act will 
necessarily require a case by case determination. In addition, where 
possible, the guidelines developed by the Board are written as 
performance standards rather than prescriptive requirements. The 
guidelines require an outcome, but do not prescribe in detail the 
process each entity much follow to achieve that outcome. As a result, 
small businesses will have more latitude and choice in how they comply 
with the requirements of the guidelines. For example, Section 1193.23 
(Product design, development and evaluation) requires manufacturers to 
evaluate the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment and 
incorporate such evaluation throughout the product design, development, 
and fabrication, as early and consistently as possible. The Board is 
fully aware that different size manufacturers, or even the same 
manufacturer at different times, must be given the flexibility to 
tailor any such plan to its own particular needs. Therefore, while this 
section sets forth the factors which must be considered in approaching 
how accessibility will be provided, it does not prescribe any 
particular plan or content. It does not require that such a process be 
submitted to any entity or that it even be in writing. The requirement 
is outcome-oriented, and a process could range from purely conceptual 
to formally documented, as suits the manufacturer.
    (2) The Board has included an Appendix with a list of strategies to 
make telecommunications equipment accessible. This list is advisory, 
not mandatory, and provides potential solutions for small manufacturers 
that do not have the resources to research and develop solutions for 
accessible products.
    (3) Several changes were made to the final rule to reduce the 
impact of the rule on all manufacturers in general, and small 
manufacturers in particular. Those modifications include the following:
    (a) The final guidelines do not require market research, testing or 
consultation, only that they be considered and incorporated to the 
extent deemed appropriate for a given manufacturer. If a large 
manufacturer has an extensive marketing effort, involving surveys and 
focus groups, it may be appropriate to include persons with 
disabilities in such groups. On the other hand, some small companies do 
not do any real marketing, per se, but may just notice that a product 
made by XYZ Corporation is selling well and, based on this ``marketing 
survey'' it decides it can make a cheaper one. Clearly, ``involvement'' 
of persons with disabilities is not appropriate in this case. The final 
provision, therefore, has been revised to make it clear that these 
activities are not expected to be created where none existed before. 
(See 1193.23 Product design, development and evaluation.)
    (b) Section 1193.35 (Redundancy and selectability) has been 
reserved in the final rule in recognition of the complexity such a 
requirement might add to the design process, as well as the equipment 
itself. While this provision was highly supported by the disability 
community, the Board felt it may be premature to impose the requirement 
in the early stages of this regulation. Initially, manufacturers will 
have enough difficulty finding a single readily achievable solution to 
many accessibility problems. In particular, small businesses with 
limited resources and design staff would be hard pressed to develop 
multiple solutions. Instead, the Board is planning to focus its first 
market monitoring report on this issue and then decide whether a 
requirement is needed.
    (c) Section 1193.37 was modified in the final rule to reduce the 
obligation for equipment to be designed to pass through all information 
for access. As proposed, the provision might have required 
manufacturers to constantly monitor information characteristics of all 
types of peripheral equipment. The final rule only requires the pass 
through of information presented in standard industry formats.
    (d) Section 1193.39 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. In response to concerns raised by 
manufacturers that this provision might prevent a manufacturer from 
discontinuing an obsolete product if it had an accessibility feature 
unless the same feature were incorporated in its replacement, an 
exception was added to allow for product discontinuation. In addition, 
the language as proposed was modified to reference the ``net'' 
accessibility, usability and compatibility of products.
    (e) Finally, section 1193.43(e) of the final rule adopts the 
private sector ANSI standard for the volume level to be achieved, 
rather than the higher level proposed in the NPRM.
    Efforts to maximize benefits. Both large and small manufacturers 
will be among the beneficiaries of the Telecommunications Act and these 
guidelines by virtue of the expanding market for accessible 
telecommunication products. The Electronic Industries Foundation, in 
its ``Resource Guide for Accessible Design of Consumer Electronics'', 
1996, notes ``Today, one factor contributing to market share is the 
increasing number of potential customers who experience functional 
limitations as a result of aging or disabling conditions.... While no 
product can be readily used by everyone, accessible design can impact 
market size and market share through consideration of the functional 
needs of all consumers, including those who experience functional 
limitations as a result of aging or disabling conditions.'' A National 
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) survey also indicates that people 
with disabilities are potentially an untapped market for the 
telecommunications industry. As accessibility is incorporated into new 
products they will be easier to use by the broadest audience possible.
    Significant alternatives that were rejected. Based on the comments

[[Page 5629]]

received in response to the NPRM, the Board considered the application 
of the guidelines to product ``lines'' or ``families'' rather than 
individual products as long as accessible products with comparable, 
substantially comparable, or similar features are available at a 
comparable cost. However, the statutory language of the 
Telecommunications Act requires that all covered products must be made 
accessible unless it is not readily achievable to do so. As the 
Telecommunications Act did not provide a qualifier other than readily 
achievable, the guidelines developed by the Board apply to all covered 
products, as opposed to product lines or families. (See Section 1193.2 
Scoping above for further discussion.)
VI. Report to Congress
    The Access Board will forward a copy of this Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis along with this Final Rule in a report to Congress 
pursuant to Section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act. (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)). A copy of this FRFA is also 
published in this final rule. (5 U.S.C. 604(b)).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not include any Federal mandate that may 
result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year.

Paperwork Reduction Act, Collection of Information: Telecommunications 
Act Accessibility Guidelines

    Section 1193.33 contains information collection requirements. As 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Board submitted a 
copy of this section (previously identified as section 1193.25 in the 
NPRM) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. In 
addition, the Board's NPRM solicited comments on any potential 
paperwork burden association with these guidelines. As noted in the 
NPRM, the Board would consider comments received (1) in evaluating 
whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the 
proper implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, including whether the information will have a practical use; (2) 
in evaluating the accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used; (3) to enhance the quality, 
usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) to 
minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to 
respond. The Board received 24 comments which addressed the 
appropriateness of the requirements of section 1193.33. The major 
issues raised in those comments and the Board's responses are discussed 
in the Section-by-Section analysis above. (See Section 1193.33). 
Comments which specifically addressed the costs associated with section 
1193.33 and the application of the Paperwork Reduction Act are 
discussed below.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the NPRM Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis and Annual Reporting Burden 
Estimate.
    Comment. The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) 
commented that the Paperwork Reduction Act would also apply to the 
provision of information in alternate formats or alternate modes. The 
calculations provided in the Board's NPRM did not address the annual 
reporting burden for such costs. TIA also suggested that the costs 
associated with training the ``call-takers and information providers'' 
should be included in the public reporting and record-keeping burden 
estimates under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Response. The Board agrees that the costs associated with providing 
information in alternate formats should be included in assessing the 
annual reporting burden associated with this section. The Board has 
revised its assessment to include such costs. However, to the extent 
that the costs of training are associated with the dispensing of 
technical assistance, the Board does not agree that those training 
costs should be included in the annual reporting burden assessments. 
Section 1193.33 requires that manufacturers (1) provide a description 
of the accessibility and compatibility features of the product upon 
request (including, as needed, alternate formats or alternate modes) 
and (2) provide end-user product documentation in alternate formats or 
alternate modes upon request. With respect to the reporting 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, only the training costs 
associated with responding to these requests are appropriate for 
inclusion in the annual reporting burden assessments.
    Comment. TIA noted that the burdens associated with the application 
of this section will ``vary widely with companies and the types of 
equipment they manufacture.'' While TIA did not provide final data 
concerning the estimated annual burdens, it suggested that, based on a 
fragmentary sampling, the Board's estimates of the number of 
respondents and the accessibility/compatibility feature description and 
caller referral were too low. TIA agreed that the Board's estimate of 
five minutes for average response time was appropriate, but commented 
that communicating with persons with disabilities, particularly in such 
alternate media as TTY, may require a longer call duration. TIA 
questioned the Board's estimates with respect to a contact point, 
citing the disparity between the Board's estimates for requests for a 
description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the 
product and the provision of a name and phone number for a contact 
point to request additional information. TIA also questioned the 
Board's estimate for the burden associated with providing the contact 
information noting that five seconds is barely sufficient to complete 
the mutual introduction of consumer caller and manufacturing employee 
responder.
    Response. The Board agrees that the burdens associated with the 
application of section 1193.33 will vary with companies and types of 
equipment. This is true not only because of the varying complexity of 
the products covered by these guidelines, but also because of the 
application of the concept of readily achievable. As more fully 
discussed in the Section-by-Section analysis above, manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment are 
required to comply with section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996 to the extent that it is ``readily achievable,'' which means that 
it is ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much 
difficulty or expense.'' Readily achievable assessments will 
necessarily require a case by case determination based on the size and 
resources of manufacturers. Because actual data concerning 
manufacturers' future costs and resources is not available at this 
time, the figures provided in the annual reporting burden estimates may 
be high depending on the readily achievable determinations made by each 
manufacturer. The Board has revised its estimates of the manufacturers 
of telecommunication products covered by these guidelines to reflect 
the estimated number of manufacturers assessed in the 1992 U.S. Census; 
Survey of Manufacturers. That number totals 479 manufacturers.
    With respect to the issue of the difference between the Board's 
initial assessment of the anticipated number of calls requesting a 
description of accessibility and compatibility features

[[Page 5630]]

and the anticipated number of responses per manufacturer to provide a 
contact point, the disparity is attributable to the fact that not all 
purchasers of products will request the description of features, 
whereas all products must contain contact point information. The 
estimate of five seconds is based on the Board's assessment that it 
will only take a negligible amount of time to include the contact 
information in its product literature. The annual reporting 
requirements do not apply to the technical assistance rendered in 
contacting the manufacturer at the number or address provided.
Collection of Information: Telecommunications Act Accessibility 
Guidelines; Annual Reporting Burden
    These regulations establish guidelines for accessibility, 
usability, and compatibility of telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment covered by the Telecommunications Act of 
1996. Based on the comments received in response to the NPRM, the Board 
has revised its estimates of the public reporting and recordkeeping 
burden for this collection of information. As revised, the burden is 
estimated to be 107,982 hours in order for manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to provide 
(1) a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of 
the equipment on request; (2) the contact method for obtaining 
information concerning the accessibility and compatibility description 
of the equipment, alternate formats and customer and technical support 
for the equipment; and (3) end-user product documentation in alternate 
formats or alternate modes upon request. Assuming there are 479 
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment covered by these 
guidelines, the annual hour burden averages 225 hours per manufacturer.
    The revised estimated burden for manufacturers to incorporate the 
requested information was calculated as follows:
    (1) The annual hour burden associated with providing a description 
of the accessibility and compatibility features of the equipment on 
request was calculated to be 29,979 hours as follows:

Responding to requests for                                              
 information:                                                           
                                                                        
Respondents.........................  479.                              
Average responses...................   x 191.                           
Hours per response..................   x .08 (5 minutes).               
                                     -----------------------------------
Annual reporting burden.............  7,319 hours.                      
                                                                        

    Alternate formats:
    Editorial (reformatting, reading for audio cassette, etc.): 22,500 
hours (assuming 5,000 new products are manufactured each year and that 
the description of accessibility and compatibility features will 
average three pages that will require an average of 1.5 hours per page 
of editorial work).
    Assuming that an average of 50% of the Braille production is 
performed in-house and 50% is outsourced, the impact would be 160 hours 
annually.
    (2) The annual hour burden associated with providing the contact 
method to obtain information concerning the accessibility and 
compatibility features of the equipment, alternate formats and customer 
and technical support for the equipment was calculated to be 2,500 
hours and was based on the following information: There are 
approximately 5,000 types of new telecommunications products 
manufactured each year or 10.44 per manufacturer. The burden in 
providing a contact method is in the identification of the contact 
method for each type of product. Once the contact method is 
established, the time involved in including the contact method in the 
existing product literature is inconsequential. The burden associated 
with identifying a contact method for each of the 5,000 types of new 
products manufactured each year is as follows:


Respondents.........................  479.                              
Average responses...................   x 10.44.                         
Hours per response..................   x .5 (30 minutes).               
                                     -----------------------------------
Annual reporting burden.............  2,500 hours.                      
                                                                        

    (3) The annual hour burden associated with providing end-user 
documentation in accessible formats on request was calculated to be 
75,503 hours as follows:
    Responding to requests for information: 0 hours. (Callers 
requesting alternate format will request a description of accessibility 
features and end-user documentation in a single call; or, the 
documentation will be combined in a single document. The hour burden 
for the request for alternate format is addressed in (1) above.
    Alternate formats:
    Editorial (reformatting, reading for audio cassette, etc.): 75,000 
hours (assuming 5,000 new products are manufactured each year and that 
the end-user documentation will average ten pages)
    Assuming that an average of 50% of the Braille production is 
performed in-house and 50% is outsourced, the impact would be 503 hours 
annually.
    The information collection requirements contained in Sec. 1193.33 
of this final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (42 
U.S.C. 3501--3530), and assigned OMB control number 3014-0010. An 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays 
a valid control number.

Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Board has submitted a report containing this final rule to 
Congress and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office 
prior to publication in the Federal Register as required by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The rule is not a 
``major rule'' under 5 U.S.C. 804 (2).

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1193

    Communications, Communications equipment, Individuals with 
disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Telecommunications.

    Authorized by vote of the Access Board on September 10, 1997.
Patrick D. Cannon,
Chair, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board adds part 1193 
to Chapter XI of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as 
follows:

PART 1193--TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES

Subpart A--General

Sec.
1193.1  Purpose.
1193.2  Scoping.
1193.3  Definitions.

Subpart B--General Requirements

1193.21  Accessibility, usability, and compatibility.
1193.23  Product design, development, and evaluation.

Subpart C--Requirements for Accessibility and Usability

1193.31  Accessibility and usability.
1193.33  Information, documentation, and training.
1193.35  Redundancy and selectability. [Reserved]
1193.37  Information pass through.
1193.39  Prohibited reduction of accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility.

[[Page 5631]]

1193.41  Input, control, and mechanical functions.
1193.43  Output, display, and control functions.

Subpart D--Requirements for Compatibility With Peripheral Devices and 
Specialized Customer Premises Equipment

1193.51  Compatibility.

Appendix to Part 1193--Advisory Guidance

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 255(e).

Subpart A--General


Sec. 1193.1  Purpose.

    This part provides requirements for accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment covered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 
255).


Sec. 1193.2  Scoping.

    This part provides requirements for accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility of new products and existing products which undergo 
substantial change or upgrade, or for which new releases are 
distributed. This part does not apply to minor or insubstantial changes 
to existing products that do not affect functionality.


Sec. 1193.3  Definitions.

    Terms used in this part shall have the specified meaning unless 
otherwise stated. Words, terms and phrases used in the singular include 
the plural, and use of the plural includes the singular.
    Accessible. Telecommunications equipment or customer premises 
equipment which comply with the requirements of subpart C of this part.
    Alternate formats. Alternate formats may include, but are not 
limited to, Braille, ASCII text, large print, and audio cassette 
recording.
    Alternate modes. Different means of providing information to users 
of products including product documentation and information about the 
status or operation of controls. Examples of alternate modes may 
include, but are not limited to, voice, fax, relay service, TTY, 
Internet posting, captioning, text-to-speech synthesis, and video 
description.
    Compatible. Telecommunications equipment or customer premises 
equipment which comply with the requirements of subpart D of this part.
    Customer premises equipment. Equipment employed on the premises of 
a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or terminate 
telecommunications.
    Manufacturer. A manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or 
customer premises equipment that sells to the public or to vendors that 
sell to the public; a final assembler.
    Peripheral devices. Devices employed in connection with 
telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment to 
translate, enhance, or otherwise transform telecommunications into a 
form accessible to individuals with disabilities.
    Product. Telecommunications equipment or customer premises 
equipment.
    Readily achievable. Easily accomplishable and able to be carried 
out without much difficulty or expense.
    Specialized customer premises equipment. Equipment, employed on the 
premises of a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route, or 
terminate telecommunications, which is commonly used by individuals 
with disabilities to achieve access.
    Telecommunications. The transmission, between or among points 
specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without 
change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.
    Telecommunications equipment. Equipment, other than customer 
premises equipment, used by a carrier to provide telecommunications 
services, and includes software integral to such equipment (including 
upgrades).
    Telecommunications service. The offering of telecommunications for 
a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be 
effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the 
facilities used.
    TTY. An abbreviation for teletypewriter. Machinery or equipment 
that employs interactive text based communications through the 
transmission of coded signals across the standard telephone network. 
TTYs can include, for example, devices known as TDDs (telecommunication 
display devices or telecommunication devices for deaf persons) or 
computers with special modems. TTYs are also called text telephones.
    Usable. Means that individuals with disabilities have access to the 
full functionality and documentation for the product, including 
instructions, product information (including accessible feature 
information), documentation, and technical support functionally 
equivalent to that provided to individuals without disabilities.

Subpart B--General Requirements


Sec. 1193.21  Accessibility, usability, and compatibility.

    Where readily achievable, telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment shall comply with the requirements of subpart C of 
this part. Where it is not readily achievable to comply with subpart C 
of this part, telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment shall comply with the requirements of subpart D of this part, 
if readily achievable.


Sec. 1193.23  Product design, development, and evaluation.

    (a) Manufacturers shall evaluate the accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment and shall incorporate such evaluation throughout product 
design, development, and fabrication, as early and consistently as 
possible. Manufacturers shall identify barriers to accessibility and 
usability as part of such a product design and development process.
    (b) In developing such a process, manufacturers shall consider the 
following factors, as the manufacturer deems appropriate:
    (1) Where market research is undertaken, including individuals with 
disabilities in target populations of such research;
    (2) Where product design, testing, pilot demonstrations, and 
product trials are conducted, including individuals with disabilities 
in such activities;
    (3) Working cooperatively with appropriate disability-related 
organizations; and
    (4) Making reasonable efforts to validate any unproven access 
solutions through testing with individuals with disabilities or with 
appropriate disability-related organizations that have established 
expertise with individuals with disabilities.

Subpart C--Requirements for Accessibility and Usability


Sec. 1193.31  Accessibility and usability.

    When required by Sec. 1193.21, telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment shall be accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities and shall comply with Secs. 1193.33 
through 1193.43 as applicable.


Sec. 1193.33  Information, documentation, and training.

    (a) Manufacturers shall ensure access to information and 
documentation it provides to its customers. Such information and 
documentation includes user guides, installation guides for end-user 
installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both 
the product in general

[[Page 5632]]

and the accessibility features of the product. Manufacturers shall take 
such other steps as necessary including:
    (1) Providing a description of the accessibility and compatibility 
features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in 
alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge;
    (2) Providing end-user product documentation in alternate formats 
or alternate modes upon request at no additional charge; and
    (3) Ensuring usable customer support and technical support in the 
call centers and service centers which support their products at no 
additional charge.
    (b) Manufacturers shall include in general product information the 
contact method for obtaining the information required by paragraph (a) 
of this section.
    (c) Where manufacturers provide employee training, they shall 
ensure it is appropriate to an employee's function. In developing, or 
incorporating existing training programs, consideration shall be given 
to the following factors:
    (1) Accessibility requirements of individuals with disabilities;
    (2) Means of communicating with individuals with disabilities;
    (3) Commonly used adaptive technology used with the manufacturer's 
products;
    (4) Designing for accessibility; and
    (5) Solutions for accessibility and compatibility.


Sec. 1193.35  Redundancy and selectability.  [Reserved]


Sec. 1193.37  Information pass through.

    Telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment shall 
pass through cross-manufacturer, non-proprietary, industry-standard 
codes, translation protocols, formats or other information necessary to 
provide telecommunications in an accessible format. In particular, 
signal compression technologies shall not remove information needed for 
access or shall restore it upon decompression.


Sec. 1193.39  Prohibited reduction of accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility.

    (a) No change shall be undertaken which decreases or has the effect 
of decreasing the net accessibility, usability, or compatibility of 
telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment.
    (b) Exception: Discontinuation of a product shall not be 
prohibited.


Sec. 1193.41  Input, control, and mechanical functions.

    Input, control, and mechanical functions shall be locatable, 
identifiable, and operable in accordance with each of the following, 
assessed independently:
    (a) Operable without vision. Provide at least one mode that does 
not require user vision.
    (b) Operable with low vision and limited or no hearing. Provide at 
least one mode that permits operation by users with visual acuity 
between 20/70 and 20/200, without relying on audio output.
    (c) Operable with little or no color perception. Provide at least 
one mode that does not require user color perception.
    (d) Operable without hearing. Provide at least one mode that does 
not require user auditory perception.
    (e) Operable with limited manual dexterity. Provide at least one 
mode that does not require user fine motor control or simultaneous 
actions.
    (f) Operable with limited reach and strength. Provide at least one 
mode that is operable with user limited reach and strength.
    (g) Operable without time-dependent controls. Provide at least one 
mode that does not require a response time. Alternatively, a response 
time may be required if it can be by-passed or adjusted by the user 
over a wide range.
    (h) Operable without speech. Provide at least one mode that does 
not require user speech.
    (i) Operable with limited cognitive skills. Provide at least one 
mode that minimizes the cognitive, memory, language, and learning 
skills required of the user.


Sec. 1193.43  Output, display, and control functions.

    All information necessary to operate and use the product, including 
but not limited to, text, static or dynamic images, icons, labels, 
sounds, or incidental operating cues, shall comply with each of the 
following, assessed independently:
    (a) Availability of visual information. Provide visual information 
through at least one mode in auditory form.
    (b) Availability of visual information for low vision users. 
Provide visual information through at least one mode to users with 
visual acuity between 20/70 and 20/200 without relying on audio.
    (c) Access to moving text. Provide moving text in at least one 
static presentation mode at the option of the user.
    (d) Availability of auditory information. Provide auditory 
information through at least one mode in visual form and, where 
appropriate, in tactile form.
    (e) Availability of auditory information for people who are hard of 
hearing. Provide audio or acoustic information, including any auditory 
feedback tones that are important for the use of the product, through 
at least one mode in enhanced auditory fashion (i.e., increased 
amplification, increased signal-to-noise ratio, or combination). For 
transmitted voice signals, provide a gain adjustable up to a minimum of 
20 dB. For incremental volume control, provide at least one 
intermediate step of 12 dB of gain.
    (f) Prevention of visually-induced seizures. Visual displays and 
indicators shall minimize visual flicker that might induce seizures in 
people with photosensitive epilepsy.
    (g) Availability of audio cutoff. Where a product delivers audio 
output through an external speaker, provide an industry standard 
connector for headphones or personal listening devices (e.g., phone-
like handset or earcup) which cuts off the speaker(s) when used.
    (h) Non-interference with hearing technologies. Reduce interference 
to hearing technologies (including hearing aids, cochlear implants, and 
assistive listening devices) to the lowest possible level that allows a 
user to utilize the product.
    (i) Hearing aid coupling. Where a product delivers output by an 
audio transducer which is normally held up to the ear, provide a means 
for effective wireless coupling to hearing aids.

Subpart D--Requirements for Compatibility With Peripheral Devices 
and Specialized Customer Premises Equipment


Sec. 1193.51  Compatibility.

    When required by subpart B of this part, telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment shall be compatible with 
peripheral devices and specialized customer premises equipment commonly 
used by individuals with disabilities to achieve accessibility, and 
shall comply with the following provisions, as applicable:
    (a) External electronic access to all information and control 
mechanisms. Information needed for the operation of products (including 
output, alerts, icons, on-line help, and documentation) shall be 
available in a standard electronic text format on a cross-industry 
standard port and 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. The 
cross-industry standard port shall not require manipulation of a 
connector by the user.
    (b) Connection point for external audio processing devices. 
Products providing auditory output shall provide the auditory signal at 
a standard signal

[[Page 5633]]

level through an industry standard connector.
    (c) Compatibility of controls with prosthetics. Touchscreen and 
touch-operated controls shall be operable without requiring body 
contact or close body proximity.
    (d) TTY connectability. 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. It shall also be possible for the user to easily turn any 
microphone on and off to allow the user to intermix speech with TTY 
use.
    (e) TTY signal compatibility. Products, including those providing 
voice communication functionality, shall support use of all cross-
manufacturer non-proprietary standard signals used by TTYs.

Appendix to Part 1193--Advisory Guidance

Introduction

    1. This appendix provides examples of strategies and notes to 
assist in understanding the guidelines and are a source of ideas for 
alternate strategies for achieving accessibility. These strategies 
and notes are not mandatory. A manufacturer is not required to 
incorporate all of these examples or any specific example. 
Manufacturers are free to use these or other strategies in 
addressing the guidelines. The examples listed here are not 
comprehensive, nor does adopting or incorporating them guarantee an 
accessible product. They are meant to provide a useful starting 
point for evaluating the accessibility of a product or conceptual 
design and are not intended to inhibit innovation. For a more 
complete list of all of the published strategies to date, as well as 
for further information and links to on-going discussions, the 
reader is referred to the National Institute on Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research's Rehabilitation Engineering Center on 
Access to Telecommunications System's strategies Web site (http://
trace.wisc.edu/world/telecomm/).
    2. This appendix is organized to correspond to the sections and 
paragraphs of the guidelines in this part to which the explanatory 
material relates. This appendix does not contain explanatory 
material for every section and paragraph of the guidelines in this 
part.

Subpart A--General

Section 1193.3  Definitions

Readily Achievable

    1. Section 255 defines ``readily achievable'' as having the same 
meaning as in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, 
the ADA applies the term to the removal of barriers in existing 
public accommodations. Not all of the factors cited in the ADA or 
the Department of Justice (DOJ) implementing regulations (July 26, 
1991) are easy to translate to the telecommunications context where 
the term applies to telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment which is designed, developed and fabricated after 
February 8, 1996, the effective date of the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996.
    2. It may not be readily achievable to make every product 
accessible or compatible. Depending on the design, technology, or 
several other factors, it may be determined that providing 
accessibility to all products in a product line is not readily 
achievable. The guidelines do not require accessibility or 
compatibility when that determination has been made, and it is up to 
the manufacturer to make it. However, the assessment as to whether 
it is or is not readily achievable cannot be bypassed simply because 
another product is already accessible. For this purpose, two 
products are considered to be different if they have different 
functions or features. Products which differ only cosmetically, 
where such differences do not affect functionality, are not 
considered separate products.
    3. Below is a list of factors provided as interim guidance to 
manufacturers to assist them in making readily achievable 
assessments. The factors are derived from the ADA itself and the DOJ 
regulations and are presented in the order in which they appear in 
those sources. Ultimately, the priority or weight of these factors 
is a compliance issue, under the jurisdiction of the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC). Factors applicable to a 
determination of whether an action is readily achievable include: 
the nature and cost of the action needed to provide accessibility or 
compatibility; the overall resources of the manufacturer, including 
financial resources, technical expertise, component supply sources, 
equipment, or personnel; the overall financial resources of any 
parent corporation or entity, only to the extent such resources are 
available to the manufacturer; and whether the accessibility 
solution results in a fundamental alteration of the product.
    a. One factor in making readily achievable assessments is the 
nature and cost of the action needed to provide accessibility or 
compatibility. The term readily achievable means that an action is 
``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much 
difficulty or expense.'' The nature of the action or solution 
involves how easy it is to accomplish, including the availability of 
technology and expertise, and the ability to incorporate the 
solution into the production process. Obviously, knowing about an 
accessibility solution, even in detail, does not mean it is readily 
achievable for a specific manufacturer to implement it immediately. 
Even if it only requires substituting a different, compatible part, 
the new part must be ordered and integrated into the manufacturing 
process. A more extreme implementation might require re-tooling or 
redesign. On the other hand, a given solution might be so similar to 
the current design, development and fabrication process that it is 
readily achievable to implement it virtually overnight.
    b. Another factor in making readily achievable assessments is 
the overall resources of the manufacturer, including financial 
resources, technical expertise, component supply sources, equipment, 
or personnel. The monetary resources of a manufacturer are obviously 
a factor in determining whether an action is readily achievable, but 
it may be appropriate to consider other resources, as well. For 
example, a company might have ample financial resources and, at 
first glance, appear to have no reason for not including a 
particular accessibility feature in a given product. However, it 
might be that the company lacks personnel with experience in 
software development, for example, needed to implement the design 
solution. One might reason that, if the financial resources are 
available, the company should hire the appropriate personnel, but, 
if it does, it may no longer have the financial resources to 
implement the design solution. One would expect that the company 
would develop the technical expertise over time and that eventually 
the access solution might become readily achievable.
    c. Another factor in making readily achievable assessments is 
the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity, 
only to the extent such resources are available to the manufacturer. 
Both the ADA statutory definition of readily achievable and the DOJ 
regulations define the resources of a parent company as a factor. 
However, such resources are considered only to the extent those 
resources are available to the subsidiary. If, for example, the 
subsidiary is responsible for product design but the parent company 
is responsible for overall marketing, it may be appropriate to 
expect the parent company to address some of the marketing goals. 
If, on the other hand, the resources of a parent company are not 
available to the subsidiary, they may not be relevant. This 
determination would be made on a case-by-case basis.
    d. A fourth factor in making readily achievable assessments is 
whether the accessibility solution results in a fundamental 
alteration of the product. This factor, derived by extension from 
the ``undue burden'' criteria of the ADA, takes into consideration 
the effect adding an accessibility feature might have on a given 
product. For example, it may not be readily achievable to add a 
large display for low vision users to a small pager designed to fit 
in a pocket, because making the device significantly larger would be 
a fundamental alteration of the device. On the other hand, adding a 
voice output may not involve a fundamental alteration and would 
serve both blind and low vision users. In addition, adding an 
infrared port might be readily achievable and would allow a large-
display peripheral device to be coupled to it. Of course fundamental 
alteration means a change in the fundamental characteristic of the 
product, not merely a cosmetic or esthetic change.

Subpart B--General Requirements

Section 1193.23  Product Design, Development and Evaluation

Paragraph (a)

    1. This section requires manufacturers to evaluate the 
accessibility, usability, and compatibility of telecommunications

[[Page 5634]]

equipment and customer premises equipment and incorporate such 
evaluation throughout product design, development, and fabrication, 
as early and consistently as possible. Manufacturers must develop a 
process to ensure that products are designed, developed and 
fabricated to be accessible whenever it is readily achievable. Since 
what is readily achievable will vary according to the stage of 
development (i.e., some things will be readily achievable in the 
design phase which may not be in later phases), barriers to 
accessibility and usability must be identified throughout product 
design and development, from conceptualization to production. 
Moreover, usability can be seriously affected even after production, 
if information is not provided in an effective manner.
    2. The details of such an evaluation process will vary from one 
company to the next, so this section does not specify its structure 
or specific content. Instead, this section sets forth a series of 
factors that a manufacturer must consider in developing such a 
process. How, and to what extent, each of the factors is 
incorporated in a specific process is up to the manufacturer.
    3. Different manufacturers, or even the same manufacturer at 
different times, have the flexibility to tailor any such plan to its 
own particular needs. This section does not prescribe any particular 
plan or content. It does not require that such a process be 
submitted to any entity or that it even be in writing. The 
requirement is outcome-oriented, and a process could range from 
purely conceptual to formally documented, as suits the manufacturer.
    4. The goal is for designers to be aware of access and 
incorporate such considerations in the conceptualization of new 
products. When an idea is just beginning to take shape, a designer 
would ask, ``How would a blind person use this product? How would a 
deaf person use it?'' The sooner a manufacturer makes its design 
team cognizant of design issues for achieving accessibility; and 
proven solutions for accessibility and compatibility, the easier 
this process will be.

Paragraph (b)(1)

Market Research

    1. The guidelines do not require market research, testing or 
consultation, only that they be considered and incorporated to the 
extent deemed appropriate for a given manufacturer. If a 
manufacturer has a large marketing effort, involving surveys and 
focus groups, it may be appropriate to include persons with 
disabilities in such groups. On the other hand, some small companies 
do not do any real marketing, per se, but may just notice that a 
product made by XYZ Corporation is selling well and, based on this 
``marketing survey'' it decides it can make a cheaper one. Clearly, 
``involvement'' of persons with disabilities is not appropriate in 
this case.
    2. A manufacturer must consider how it could include individuals 
with disabilities in target populations of market research. It is 
important to realize that any target population for which a 
manufacturer might wish to focus a product contains individuals with 
disabilities, whether it is teenagers, single parents, women between 
the ages of 25 and 40, or any other subgroup, no matter how narrowly 
defined. Any market research which excludes individuals with 
disabilities will be deficient.

Paragraph (b)(2)

Product Design, Testing, Pilot Demonstrations, and Product Trials

    1. Including individuals with disabilities in product design, 
testing, pilot demonstrations, and product trials will encourage 
appropriate design solutions to accessibility barriers. In addition, 
such involvement may result in designs which have an appeal to a 
broader market.

Paragraph (b)(3)

Working Cooperatively With Appropriate Disability-Related Organizations

    1. Working cooperatively with appropriate disability-related 
organizations is one of the factors that manufacturers must consider 
in their product design and development process. The primary reason 
for working cooperatively is to exchange relevant information. This 
is a two-way process since the manufacturer will get information on 
barriers to the use of its products, and may also be alerted to 
possible sources for solutions. The process will also serve to 
inform individuals with disabilities about what is readily 
achievable. In addition, manufacturers will have a conduit to a 
source of subjects for market research and product trials.
    2. Manufacturers should consult with representatives from a 
cross-section of disability groups, particularly individuals whose 
disabilities affect hearing, vision, movement, manipulation, speech, 
and interpretation of information.
    3. Because of the complex interrelationship between equipment 
and services in providing accessibility to telecommunications 
products, coordination and cooperation between manufacturers and 
service providers will be beneficial. Involving service providers in 
the product development process will encourage appropriate design 
solutions to accessibility barriers and permit the exchange of 
relevant information.

Paragraph (b)(4)

Making Reasonable Efforts to Validate Unproven Access Solutions

    1. Manufacturers must consider how they can make reasonable 
efforts to validate any unproven access solutions through testing 
with individuals with disabilities or with appropriate disability-
related organizations that have established expertise with 
individuals with disabilities. It is important to obtain input from 
persons or organizations with established expertise to ensure that 
input is not based merely on individual preferences or limited 
experience.
    2. This input should be sought from representatives from a 
cross-section of disability groups, particularly individuals whose 
disabilities affect hearing, vision, movement, manipulation, speech, 
and interpretation of information.

Subpart C--Requirements for Accessibility and Usability

Section 1193.33  Information, Documentation, and Training

Paragraph (a)

    1. This section requires that manufacturers provide access to 
information and documentation. The 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 
should be provided to people with disabilities at no additional 
charge. Alternate formats or alternate modes of this information is 
also required to be available. Manufacturers should also encourage 
distributors of their products to establish information 
dissemination and technical support programs similar to those 
established by the manufacturer.

Alternate Formats and Alternate Modes

    1. Alternate formats may include, but are not limited to, 
Braille, ASCII text, large print, and audio cassette recording. 
Alternate modes may include, but are not limited to, voice, fax, 
relay service, TTY, Internet posting, captioning, text-to-speech 
synthesis, and video description.
    2. In considering how to best provide product information to 
people with disabilities, it is essential that information be 
provided in an alternate format or mode that is usable by the person 
needing the information. For example, some individuals who are blind 
might require a manual in Braille to understand and use the product 
effectively. Other persons who are blind may prefer this information 
on a computer disk. Persons with limited reading skills may need 
this information recorded on audio cassette tape so they can listen 
to the manual. Still other persons with low vision may be able to 
read the text version of the manual if it is provided in a larger 
font. Likewise, if a tutorial video is provided, persons who are 
deaf may require a captioned version so that they will understand 
how to use the product effectively. Finally, individuals who rely on 
TTYs will need direct TTY access to a customer service line so they 
can ask questions about a product like everyone else.
    3. This portion of the appendix explains how to provide 
information in alternate formats (Braille, ASCII text, large print, 
audio cassette) to persons with disabilities.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This information was provided by the American Foundation for 
the Blind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Braille

    4. Some persons who are blind rely on the use of Braille in 
order to obtain information that is typically provided in print. 
These persons may need Braille because of the nature of their 
disability (such as persons who are deaf-blind) or because of the 
complexity of the material. Most large urban areas have companies or 
organizations which can translate printed material to Braille. On 
the other hand, manufacturers may wish to consider producing Braille 
documents ``in house'' using a personal computer, Braille 
translation software, and a Braille printer.

[[Page 5635]]

The disadvantage is the difficulty in ensuring quality control and 
accuracy. Software programs exist which can translate common word 
processing formats directly into Braille, but they are not always 
error free, especially if the document contains special characters, 
jargon, graphics, or charts. Since the typical office worker will 
not be able to proofread a Braille document, the initial apparent 
cost saving may be quickly lost by having to re-do documents. The 
Braille translation software costs approximately $500 and most 
Braille printers sold range from $2,000 to $5,000, however some 
Braille printers, depending on the speed and other features, do cost 
more. Depending on the quality of Braille to be generated, a Braille 
printer in the $4,000 range should be adequate for most users. By 
using automatic translation software, individuals who do not have 
knowledge of Braille or who have limited computer skills may be able 
to produce simple Braille documents without much trouble. If the 
document is of a complex format, however, such as a text box over 
multiple columns, a sophisticated knowledge of Braille translation 
software and formatting will be required.

Electronic Text

    5. People who are blind or have low vision and who have access 
to computers may be able to use documents in electronic form. 
Electronic text must be provided in ASCII or a properly formatted 
word processor file. Using electronic text allows this information 
to be transmitted through e-mail or other on-line 
telecommunications. Blind or low vision persons who have access to a 
personal computer can then read the document using synthetic speech, 
an electronic Braille display, a large print computer monitor, or 
they can produce a hard copy in large print or Braille.
    6. Documents prepared for electronic transmission should be in 
ASCII. Documents supplied on disk should also be provided in either 
ASCII or a word processor format usable by the customer. Word 
processing documents should be properly formatted before 
distribution or conversion to ASCII. To be correctly formatted, the 
document should be in Courier 10 point size and formatted for an 80 
character line. Tables should be converted to plain text. Graphics 
or text boxes should be deleted and explained or described in text 
format. This will allow the reader to understand all of the 
documentation being presented. Replace bullets () with ``*'' 
or ``-'' and convert other extended ASCII characters into text. When 
converting a document into ASCII or word processor formats, it is 
important to utilize the appropriate ``tab key'' and ``centering 
key'' rather than using the space bar. This is necessary because 
Braille translation software relies on the proper use of commands to 
automate the formatting of a Braille document.

Large Print

    7. Persons with low vision may require documentation to be 
provided in large print. Large print documents can easily be 
produced using a scalable font from any good word processing program 
and a standard laser printer. Using the document enlargement option 
on a photocopier will usually yield unsatisfactory results.
    8. To obtain the best results follow these guidelines:
    a. It is preferable to use paper that is standard 8\1/2\ x 11 
inches. Larger paper may be used, but care should be taken that a 
document does not become too bulky, thus making it difficult to 
read. Always use 1 inch margins. Lines longer than 6\1/3\ inches 
will not track well for individuals who must use a magnifier.
    b. The best contrast with the least glare is achieved on very 
pale yellow or cream-colored non-glossy paper, such as paper that is 
used for photocopying purposes. To produce a more aesthetic looking 
document, an off-white paper may be used and will still give good 
contrast while producing less glare than white. Do not use dark 
colors and shades of red. Double-sided copying (if print does not 
bleed through) will produce a less bulky document.
    c. Remove formatting codes that can make reading more difficult. 
For example, centered or indented text could be difficult to track 
because only a few words will fit on a line. All text should begin 
at the left margin. Use only left margin justification to maintain 
uniform spacing across lines. Right margin justification can produce 
uneven spacing between letters and words. Use 1\1/4\ (1.25) line 
spacing; do not double space. Replace tabs with two spaces. Page 
numbering should be at the top or bottom left. Avoid columns. If 
columns are absolutely necessary, use minimum space between columns. 
Use dot leaders for tabular material. For those individuals who are 
able to read graphics (via the use of a magnifier or other assistive 
device) graphics should be included, but placed on a separate page 
from the text. For those individuals with low vision who are unable 
to read graphics, tables, and charts this material must be removed 
from the document and an accurate description of this material 
should be included in a text format.
    d. There is no standard typeface or point size. For more 
universal access, use 18 point type; anything larger could make text 
too choppy to read comfortably. Use a good strong bold typeface. Do 
not use italics, fine, or fancy typefaces. Do not use compressed 
typefaces; there should be normal ``white space'' between 
characters.
    e. Use upper and lowercase letters.
    f. Using these instructions, one page of print (11-12 point 
type) will equal approximately three pages of large print (14-18 
point) depending on the density of the text.

Cassette Recordings

    9. Some persons who are blind or who have learning disabilities 
may require documentation on audio cassettes. Audio materials can be 
produced commercially or in-house. Agencies sometimes record 
material in-house and purchase a high speed tape duplicator ($1,000-
2,000) which is used to make cassette copies from the master. The 
cost of a duplicator can be higher depending upon the number of 
copies produced on a single run, and whether the duplicator can 
produce standard speed two-sided copies or half-speed four-sided 
copies. Although unit costs can be reduced by using the four-track, 
half-speed format, this will require the reader to use a specially 
designed playback machine. Tapes should be produced with ``tone 
indexing'' to allow a user to skip back and forth from one section 
to another. By following a few simple guidelines for selecting 
readers and creating recordings, most organizations will be able to 
successfully record most simple documents.
    10. Further guidance in making cassette recordings includes:
    a. The reader should be proficient in the language being 
recorded.
    b. The reader should be familiar with the subject. Someone who 
is somewhat familiar with the technical aspects of a product but who 
can explain functions in ordinary language would be a logical person 
to record an audio cassette.
    c. The reader should have good diction. Recording should be done 
in a conversational tone and at a conversational pace; neither too 
slow nor too fast.
    d. The reader should be familiar with the material to minimize 
stumbling and hesitation.
    e. The reader should not editorialize. When recording a 
document, it should be read in full. Graphic and pictorial 
information available to sighted readers should be described in the 
narrated text. Tables and charts whose contents are not already 
contained in text should be converted into text and included in the 
recording.
    f. The reader should spell difficult or unusual words and words 
of foreign origin.
    g. At the beginning of the tape, identify the reader, i.e., 
``This document is being read by John Smith.''
    h. On each side of the tape, identify the document and the page 
number where the reader is continuing, i.e., ``tape 2, side 1, Guide 
to Barrier Free Meetings, continuing on page 75.''
    i. For blind users, all cassettes should be labeled in Braille 
so that they can easily be referenced in the appropriate order.

Alternate Modes

    11. Information is provided increasingly through a variety of 
means including television advertisements, Internet postings, 
information seminars, and telephone. This portion of the appendix 
explains how to provide information in some alternate modes 
(captioning, video description, Internet postings, relay service, 
and TTY).

Captioning

    12. When manufacturers of telecommunications equipment or 
customer premises equipment provide videos with their products (such 
as tutorials or information explaining various components of a 
product) the video should be available with captioning. Closed 
captioning refers to assistive technology designed to provide access 
to television for persons with hearing disabilities that is visible 
only through the use of a decoder. Open captions are visible at all 
times. Captioning is similar to subtitles in that the audio portion 
of a television program is displayed as printed words on the 
television screen. Captions should be carefully placed to identify 
speakers, on-and off-screen sound effects, music and laughter. 
Increased captioning was made possible

[[Page 5636]]

because of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act which requires all 
television sets sold in the United States with screens 13 inches or 
larger to have built-in decoder circuitry.
    13. Although captioning technology was developed specifically to 
make television and video presentations accessible to deaf and hard 
of hearing people, there has been widespread interest in using this 
technology to provide similar access to meetings, classroom 
teaching, and conferences. For meetings, video-conferences, 
information seminars, and the like, real-time captioning is 
sometimes provided. Real-time captioning uses a stenographic machine 
connected to a computer with translation software. The output is 
then displayed on a monitor or projected on a screen.

Video Description

    14. Just as manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and 
customer premises equipment need to make their videos accessible to 
persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, they must also be 
accessible to persons who are blind or have low vision. This process 
is known as video description. Video description may either be a 
separate audio track that can be played simultaneously with the 
regular audio portion of the video material (adding description 
during pauses in the regular audio), or it can be added to (or 
``mixed'' with) an existing soundtrack. The latter is the technique 
used for videotapes.

Internet Postings

    15. The fastest growing way to obtain information about a 
product is through use of the Internet, and specifically the World 
Wide Web. However, many Internet users with disabilities have 
difficulty obtaining this information if it is not correctly 
formatted. This section provides information on how to make a World 
Wide Web site more accessible to persons with disabilities 
2. Because of its structure, the Web provides tremendous 
power and flexibility in presenting information in multiple formats 
(text, audio, video, and graphic). However, the features that 
provide power and elegance for some users present potential barriers 
for people with sensory disabilities. The indiscriminate use of 
graphic images and video restrict access for people who are blind or 
have low vision. Use of audio and non-captioned video restrict 
access for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This information is based on the document ``Writing HTML 
Documents and Implementing Accessibility for the World Wide Web'' by 
Paul Fountaine, Center for Information Technology Accommodation, 
General Services Administration. For further information, see http:/
/ www.gsa.gov/coca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The level of accessibility of the information on the Web is 
dependent on the format of the information, the transmission media, 
and the display system. Many of the issues related to the 
transmission media and the display system cannot be affected by the 
general user. On the other hand, anyone creating information for a 
Web server has control of the accessibility of the information. 
Careful design and coding of information will provide access to all 
people without compromising the power and elegance of the Web site.
    17. A few suggestions are:
    a. Every graphic image should have associated text. This will 
enable a person using a character-based program, such as Lynx, to 
understand the material being presented in the graphical format. It 
also allows anyone who does not want to wait for graphics to load to 
have quick access to the information on the site.
    b. Provide text transcriptions or descriptions for all audio 
output. This will enable people who are deaf or hard of hearing to 
have access to this information, as well as individuals who do not 
have sound cards.
    c. Make any link text descriptive, but not verbose. For example, 
words like ``this'', ``here'', and ``click'' do not convey enough 
information about the nature of the link, especially to people who 
are blind. Link text should consist of substantive, descriptive 
words which can be quickly reviewed by the user. Conversely, link 
text which is too long bogs down efficient browsing.
    d. Provide alternate mechanisms for on-line forms. Forms are not 
supported by all browsers. Therefore, it is important to provide the 
user with an opportunity to select alternate methods to access such 
forms.
    e. All Web pages should be tested using multiple viewers. At a 
minimum, pages should be tested with the latest version of Lynx to 
ensure that they can be used with screen reader software.

Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS)

    18. By using telecommunications relay services (TRS), it has now 
become easier for persons with hearing and speech disabilities to 
communicate by the telephone. TRS links TTY users with those who do 
not have a TTY and use standard telephones. With TRS, a TTY user 
communicates with another person with the help of a communications 
assistant who is able to talk on the telephone and then communicate 
by typing the message verbatim, to the TTY user. The communications 
assistant also reads the message typed by the TTY user, or the TTY 
user may speak for him or herself using voice carry over.
    19. There are now TRS programs in every state. Although TRS is 
very valuable, it does have limitations. For example, relay calls 
take longer, since they always involve a third party, and typing 
words takes longer than speaking words.

Text Telephones (TTYs)

    20. A TTY also provides direct two-way typed conversations. The 
cost of these devices begins at approximately $200 and they can be 
operated by anyone who can type.
    21. The following information is excerpted from the brochure 
``Using a TTY'' which is available free of charge from the Access 
Board:
    a. If the TTY line is also used for incoming voice calls, be 
sure the person who answers the phone knows how to recognize and 
answer a TTY call. You will usually hear silence, a high-pitched, 
electronic beeping sound, or a pre-recorded voice message when it is 
a TTY call. If there is silence, assume it is a TTY call.
    b. TTYs should be placed near a standard telephone so there is 
minimal delay in answering incoming TTY calls.
    c. To initiate a TTY call, place the telephone headset in the 
acoustic cups of the TTY adapter. If the TTY unit is directly 
connected to the phone line, there is no need to put the telephone 
headset in the acoustic cups. Turn the TTY on. Make sure there is a 
dial tone by checking for a steady light on the TTY status 
indicator.
    d. Dial the number and watch the status indicator light to see 
if the dialed number is ringing. The ring will make a long slow 
flash or two short flashes with a pause in between. If the line is 
busy, you will see short, continuous flashes on the indicator light. 
When the phone is answered, you will see an irregular light signal 
as the phone is picked up and placed in the cradle. If you are 
calling a combination TTY and voice number, tap the space bar 
several times to help the person on the other end identify this as a 
TTY call.
    e. The person who answers the call is the first to type. Answer 
the phone as you would by voice, then type ``GA''.
    f. ``GA'' means ``I'm done, go ahead and type''. ``HD'' means 
hold. ``GA or SK'' means ``Is there anything more, I'm done''. 
``SK'' means stop keying. This is how you show that the conversation 
is ended and that you will hang up. It is polite to type good-bye, 
thank you for calling, or some other closing remark before you type 
``SK''. Stay on the line until both parties type SKSK.
    22. Because of the amount of time it takes to send and receive 
messages, it is important to remember that short words and sentences 
are desired by both parties. With some TTY calls it is often not 
possible to interrupt when the other person is typing. If you get a 
garbled message in all numbers or mixed numbers and letters, tap the 
space bar and see if the message clears up. If not, when the person 
stops typing, you should type, ``Message garbled, please repeat.'' 
If the garbled messages continue, this may mean that one of the TTYs 
is not working properly, there is background noise causing 
interference, or that you may have a bad connection. In this case 
you should say something like, ``Let's hang up and I'll call you 
back.''
    23. The typical TTY message will include many abbreviations and 
jargon. The message may also include misspelled words because, if 
the meaning is clear, many callers will not bother to correct 
spelling since it takes more time. Also, some TTY users communicate 
in American sign language, a language with its own grammar and 
syntax. English may be a second language. Extend the same patience 
and courtesy to TTY callers as you do to all others.

Paragraph (b)

    1. This paragraph requires manufacturers to supply a point of 
contact for obtaining information about accessibility features of 
the product and how to obtain documents in alternate formats. This 
could be the name of a specific person, a department or an office. 
Supplying a telephone number, and preferably a separate TTY number, 
is the most universal method. Web site and e-mail

[[Page 5637]]

addresses are also desirable, but should not substitute for a 
telephone number since many more people have access to a telephone 
than have e-mail or Internet access. Of course, the means for 
requesting additional accessibility information must, itself, be 
accessible.
    2. Automated voice response systems are not usable by deaf and 
hard of hearing persons. An approach to consider is to augment an 
automated voice response system with an automated TTY response 
system that also detects whether a caller is using voice or TTY.
    3. The phone number should be prominently displayed in product 
literature. Ideally, it should be displayed on the outside of the 
package so that a potential buyer can obtain information about the 
accessibility before purchase. In addition, manufacturers should 
acquaint their distributors with this information so that they can 
assist customers with disabilities, such as a blind person unable to 
read the package information.

Paragraph (c)

    1. This paragraph requires manufacturers to consider including 
information on accessibility in training a manufacturer provides to 
its staff. For example, if technical support staff are trained on 
how to provide good technical support, such a program should be 
expanded to include information on accessibility features of the 
manufacturer's products and peripheral devices that are compatible 
with them. Such staff should also have basic information on how to 
handle TTY and relay calls. Personnel who deal directly with the 
public, including market researchers, should be trained in basic 
disability ``etiquette.''

Section 1193.35  Redundancy and Selectability [Reserved]

    1. Although this section is reserved, manufacturers of 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment are 
encouraged to provide redundancy such that input and output 
functions are available in more than one mode.
    2. Alternate input and output modes should be selectable by the 
user.
    3. Products should incorporate multiple modes for input and 
output functions so the user is able to select the desired mode.
    a. Since there is no single interface design that accommodates 
all disabilities, accessibility is likely to be accomplished through 
various product designs which emphasize interface flexibility to 
maximize user configurability and multiple, alternative and 
redundant modalities of input and output.
    b. Selectability is especially important where an accessibility 
feature for one group of individuals with disabilities may conflict 
with an accessibility feature for another. This potential problem 
could be solved by allowing the user to switch one of the features 
on and off. For example, a conflict may arise between captioning 
(provided for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing) and a large 
font size (provided for persons with low vision). The resulting 
caption would either be so large that it obscures the screen or need 
to be scrolled or displayed in segments for a very short period of 
time.
    c. It may not be readily achievable to provide all input and 
output functions in a single product or to permit all functions to 
be selectable. For example, switching requires control mechanisms 
which must be accessible and it may be more practical to have 
multiple modes running simultaneously. Whenever possible, it is 
preferable for the user to be able to turn on or off a particular 
mode.
    4. Some experiments with smart cards are showing promise for 
enhancing accessibility. Instead of providing additional buttons or 
menu items to select appropriate input and output modes, basic user 
information can be stored on a smart card that triggers a custom 
configuration. For example, insertion of a particular card can cause 
a device to increase the font size on a display screen or activate 
speech output. Another might activate a feature to increase volume 
output, lengthen the response time between sequential operations, or 
allow two keys to be pressed sequentially instead of simultaneously. 
This technology, which depends on the issuance of a customized card 
to a particular individual, would allow redundancy and selectability 
without adding additional controls which would complicate the 
operation. As more and more functions are provided by software 
rather than hardware, this option may be more readily achievable.
    5. The increasing use of ``plug-ins'' allow a product to be 
customized to the user's needs. Plug-ins function somewhat like 
peripheral devices to provide accessibility and there is no 
fundamental problem in using plug-ins to provide access, as long as 
the accessibility plug-ins are provided with the product. For 
example, at least one computer operating system comes packaged with 
accessibility enhancements which a user can install if wanted. In 
addition, modems are typically sold with bundled software that 
provides the customer premises equipment functionality. A compatible 
screen reader program, for example, could be bundled with it. At 
least one software company has developed a generalized set of 
accessibility tools designed to be bundled with a variety of 
software products to provide access. As yet, such developments are 
not fully mature; most products are still installed by providing on-
screen visual prompts, not accompanied by meaningful sounds.

Section 1193.41  Input, Controls, and Mechanical Functions

Paragraph (a)

Operable Without Vision

    1. Individuals who are blind or have low vision cannot locate or 
identify controls, latches, or input slits by sight or operate 
controls that require sight. Products should be manufactured to be 
usable independently by these individuals. For example, individuals 
who cannot see must use either touch or sound to locate and identify 
controls. If a product uses a flat, smooth touch screen or touch 
membrane, the user without vision will not be able to locate the 
controls without auditory or tactile cues.
    2. Once the controls have been located, the user must be able to 
identify the various functions of the controls. Having located and 
identified the controls, individuals must be able to operate them.
    3. Below are some examples of ways to make products accessible 
to persons with visual disabilities:
    a. If buttons are used on a product, make them discrete buttons 
which can be felt and located by touch. If a flat membrane is used 
for a keyboard, provide a raised edge around the control areas or 
buttons to make it possible to locate the keys by touch. Once an 
individual locates the different controls, he or she needs to 
identify what the keys are. If there is a standard number pad 
arrangement, putting a nib on the ``5'' key may be all that is 
necessary for identifying the numbers. On a QWERTY keyboard, putting 
a tactile nib on the ``F'' and ``J'' keys allows touch typists to 
easily locate their hands on the key.
    b. Provide distinct shapes for keys to indicate their function 
or make it easy to tell them apart. Provide Braille labels for keys 
and controls for those who read Braille to determine the function 
and use of controls.
    c. Provide large raised letters for short labels on large 
objects. Where it is not possible to use raised large letters, a 
voice mode selection could be incorporated that announces keys when 
pressed, but does not activate them. This would allow people to turn 
on the voice mode long enough to explore and locate the item they 
are interested in, then release the voice mode and press the 
control. If it is an adjustable control, voice confirmation of the 
status may also be important.
    d. Provide tactile indication on a plug which is not a self-
orienting plug. Wireless connections, which eliminate the need to 
orient or insert connectors, also solve the problem.
    e. Avoid buttons that are activated when touched to allow an 
individual to explore the controls to find the desired button. If 
touch-activated controls cannot be avoided (for example, on a touch 
screen), provide an alternate mode where a confirm button is used to 
confirm selections (for example, items are read when touched, and 
activated when the confirm button is pressed). All actions should be 
reversible, or require confirmation before executing non-reversible 
actions.
    f. Once controls have been located and users know what the 
functions are, they must be operable. Some types of controls, 
including mouse devices, track balls, dials without markings or 
stops, and push-button controls with only one state, where the 
position or setting is indicated only by a visual cue, will not be 
usable by persons who are blind or have low vision. Providing a 
rotational or linear stop and tactile or audio detents is a useful 
strategy. Another is to provide keyboard or push-button access to 
the functions. If the product has an audio system and 
microprocessor, use audio feedback of the setting. For simple 
products, tactile markings may be sufficient.
    g. Controls may also be shaped so that they can easily be read 
by touch (e.g., a twist knob

[[Page 5638]]

shaped like a pie wedge). For keys which do not have any physical 
travel, some type of audio or tactile feedback should be provided so 
that the individual knows when the key has been activated. A two-
state key (on/off) should be physically different in each position 
(e.g., a toggle switch or a push-in/pop-out switch), so the person 
can tell what state the key is in by feeling it.
    h. If an optional voice mode is provided for operating a 
product, a simple ``query'' mode can also be provided, which allows 
an individual to find out the function and state of a switch without 
actually activating it. In some cases, there may be design 
considerations which make the optimal mode for a sighted person 
inaccessible to someone without vision (e.g., use of a touch screen 
or mouse). In these cases, a primary strategy may be to provide a 
closely linked parallel method for efficiently achieving the same 
results (e.g., keyboard access) if there is a keyboard, or 
``SpeedList'' access for touch screens.

Paragraph (b)

Operable With Low Vision and Limited or No Hearing

    1. Individuals with low vision often also have hearing 
disabilities, especially older individuals. These persons cannot 
rely solely on audio access modes commonly used by people who are 
blind. Tactile strategies are still quite useful, although many 
older persons may not be familiar with Braille. The objective, 
therefore, is to maximize the number of people who can use their 
residual vision, combined with tactile senses, to operate a product.
    2. Strategies for addressing this provision may include the 
following: a. Make the information on the product easier to see. Use 
high-contrast print symbols and visual indicators, minimize glare on 
the display and control surfaces, provide adequate lighting, 
position controls near the items they control to make them easy to 
find, and use Arabic instead of Roman numerals.
    b. The type-face and type-spacing used can greatly affect 
legibility. The spacing between letters should be approximately 1/16 
the height of uppercase letters and the spacing should be uniform 
from one label to the next. Also, symbols can sometimes be used 
which are much more legible and understandable than fine print.
    c. Where the display is dynamic, provide a means for the user to 
enlarge the display and to ``freeze'' it. In addition to making it 
easier to see, there are strategies which can be used to reduce the 
need to see things clearly in order to operate them.
    d. A judicious use of color-coding, always redundant with other 
cues, is extremely helpful to persons with low vision. These cues 
should follow standard conventions, and can be used to reduce the 
need to read labels (or read labels more than the first time). In 
addition, all of the tactile strategies discussed under section 
1193.41 (a) can also be used here.

Paragraph (c)

Operable With Little or No Color Perception

    1. Many people are unable to distinguish between certain color 
combinations. Others are unable to see color at all.
    2. Strategies for addressing this provision include:
    a. Eliminate the need for a person see color to operate the 
product. This does not eliminate the use of color completely but 
rather requires that any information essential to the operation of a 
product also be conveyed in some other fashion.
    b. Avoid color pairs such as red/green and blue/yellow, that are 
indistinguishable by people with limited color perception.
    c. Provide colors with different hues and intensity so that 
colored objects can be distinguished even on a black and white 
screen by their different appearance. Depending upon the product, 
the manufacturer may also be able to allow users to adjust colors to 
match their preferences and visual abilities.
    d. Avoid colors with a low luminance.

Paragraph (d)

Operable Without Hearing

    1. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing cannot locate or 
identify controls that require hearing. Products that provide only 
audio prompts cannot be used by individuals who are deaf or hard of 
hearing. For example, a voice-based interactive product that can be 
controlled only by listening to menu items and then pressing buttons 
is not accessible. By addressing the output issues under section 
1193.43(d) many accessibility problems that affect input under this 
section can be solved.
    2. Some strategies include:
    a. Text versions of audio prompts could be provided which are 
synchronized with the audio so that the timing is the same.
    b. If prompts are provided visually and no speech or 
vocalization is required, most problems associated with locating, 
identifying, and operating controls without hearing will be solved.

Paragraph (e)

Operable With Limited Manual Dexterity

    1. Individuals may have difficulty manipulating controls on 
products for any number of reasons. Though these disabilities may 
vary widely, these persons have difficulty grasping, pinching, or 
twisting objects and often have difficulty with finer motor 
coordination. Some persons may use a headstick, mouthstick, or 
artificial limb.
    2. Below are some strategies which will assist in designing 
products which will meet the needs of these persons:
    a. Provide larger buttons and controls, or buttons which are 
more widely spaced, to reduce the likelihood that a user will 
accidentally activate an adjacent control.
    b. Provide guard bars between the buttons or near the buttons so 
that accidental movements would hit the guard bars rather than 
accidentally bumping switches.
    c. Provide an optional mode where buttons must be depressed for 
a longer period of time (e.g., SlowKeys) before they would accept 
input to help separate between inadvertent motions or bumps and 
desired activation.
    d. Where two buttons must be depressed simultaneously, provide 
an option to allow them to be activated sequentially (e.g., 
StickiKeys).
    e. Avoid buttons which are activated merely by touch, such as 
capacitance switches. Where that is difficult to do (e.g., with 
touchscreens), provide a ``confirm'' button which an individual can 
use to confirm that the item touched is the desired one. Also, make 
all actions reversible, or request confirmation before initiating 
non-reversible actions.
    f. Avoid latches, controls, or key combinations which require 
simultaneous activation of two or more buttons, or latches. Also, 
avoid very small controls or controls which require rotation of the 
wrist or pinching and twisting. Where this is not possible, provide 
alternate means for achieving the same functions.
    g. Controls which have non-slip surfaces and those that can be 
operated with the side of the hand, elbow or pencil can be used to 
minimize physical activity required. In some cases, rotary controls 
can be used if they can be operated without grasping and twisting 
(e.g., a thin pie slice shape control or an edge control). Providing 
a concave top on buttons makes them easier to use.
    h. Make it easier to insert cards or connectors by providing a 
bevel around the slot or connector, or use cards or connectors which 
can be inserted in any orientation or which self-center or self-
align. Placing the slot or connector on the front and near a ledge 
or open space allows individuals to brace their hands or arms to 
make use of the slot or connector easier.
    i. For some designs, controls which pose problems for 
individuals with disabilities may be the most efficient, logical or 
effective mechanism for a majority of users. In these cases, provide 
alternate strategies for achieving the same functions, but which do 
not require fine manipulation. Speech input or voice recognition 
could be provided as an alternate input, although it should not be 
the only input technique.

Paragraph (f)

Operable With Limited Reach and Strength

    1. Some individuals may have difficulty operating systems which 
require reach or strength. The most straight-forward solution to 
this problem is to place the controls where they can be easily 
reached with minimal changes to body position. Many products also 
have controls located on different parts of the product.
    2. When this is the case, the following strategies may be used:
    a. Allow the functions to be controlled from the keyboard, which 
is located directly in front of the user.
    b. Allow voice recognition to be used as an option. This 
provides input flexibility, but should never be the only means for 
achieving a function.
    c. Provide a remote control option that moves all of the 
controls for the product together on a unit that can be positioned 
optimally for the individual. This allows the individual to operate 
the product without having to move to it. If this strategy is used, 
a standard communication format would be

[[Page 5639]]

important to allow the use of alternate remote controls for those 
who cannot use the standard remote control.
    d. Reduce the force needed to operate controls or latches and 
avoid the need for sustained pressure or activity (e.g., use guards 
rather than increased strength requirements to avoid accidental 
activation of crucial switches).
    e. Provide arm or wrist rests or supports, create short cuts 
that reduce the number of actions needed, or completely eliminate 
the need to operate controls wherever possible by having automatic 
adjustments.
    f. Section 4.34.3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) also contains specific information 
concerning reach ranges. ADAAG gives specific guidance concerning 
access to the built environment. Section 4.34.3 indicates the reach 
ranges for a front or parallel approach to equipment for individuals 
using a wheelchair. This information may prove useful for those 
telecommunications manufacturers whose equipment is stationary, such 
as an information kiosk.

Paragraph (g)

Operable Without Time-Dependent Controls

    1. Many persons find it very difficult to operate time-dependent 
controls.
    2. Some strategies which address this problem include:
    a. Avoid any timed-out situations or provide instances where the 
user must respond to a question or moving display in a set amount of 
time or at a specific time (e.g., a rotating display).
    b. Where timed responses are required or appropriate, allow the 
user to adjust them or set the amount of time allotted to complete a 
given task. Warn users that time is running out and allow them to 
secure extended time.
    c. If the standard mode of operation would be awkward or 
inefficient, then provide an alternate mode of operation that offers 
the same functions.

Paragraph (h)

Operable Without Speech

    1. Many individuals cannot speak or speak clearly. Products 
which require speech in order to operate them should also provide an 
alternate way to achieve the same function.
    2. Some strategies to achieve this include:
    a. Provide an alternate mechanism for achieving all of the 
functions which are controlled by speech. If a product includes 
speech identification or verification, provide an alternate 
mechanism for this function as well.
    b. Include individuals who are deaf or who have speech 
disabilities in the subject populations that are used to develop 
voice recognition algorithms, so that the algorithms will better 
accommodate a wider range of speech patterns.

Paragraph (i)

Operable With Limited Cognitive Skills

    1. Many individuals have reduced cognitive abilities, including 
reduced memory, sequence tracking, and reading skills. This does not 
necessarily prevent these persons from using a telecommunications 
product or feature.
    2. The following strategies are extensions of techniques for 
making products easier for everyone to learn and use:
    a. Use standard colors and shapes and group similar functions 
together. On products which have some controls that are used by 
everyone and other controls which would only be used by advanced 
users, it is generally good practice to separate the two, putting 
the more advanced features behind a door or under a separate menu 
item.
    b. Products which read the contents of the display aloud, or 
controls which announce their settings, are easier for individuals 
who have difficulty reading.
    c. Design products that are self-adjusting to eliminate 
additional controls which must be learned, and reduce the visual 
clutter.
    d. On products which have sign-in procedures, allow user 
settings to be associated with them when they sign in or insert 
their identification card. The system can then autoconfigure to 
them. Some new ``smart cards'' are being designed with user 
preferences encoded on the card.
    e. Where a complex series of steps is required, provide cuing to 
help lead the person through the process. It is also helpful to 
provide an ``undo'' or back up function, so that any mistakes can be 
easily corrected. Most people will find this function helpful.
    f. Where functions are not reversible, request some type of 
confirmation from the user before proceeding. On labels and 
instructions, it is helpful to use short and simple phrases or 
sentences. Avoid abbreviations wherever possible. Eliminate the need 
to respond within a certain time or to read text within a certain 
time.

Section 1193.43  Output, Displays, and Control Functions

Paragraph (a)

Availability of Visual Information

    1. Just as persons with visual or cognitive disabilities need to 
be able to operate the input, controls, and mechanical functions of 
a product, they must also have access to the output functions.
    2. The following are strategies for addressing this provision:
    a. Provide speech output of all displayed text and labels. For 
information which is presented in non-text form (e.g., a picture or 
graphic), provide a verbal description unless the graphic is just 
decorative. When speech output is provided, allow for the spoken 
message to be repeated if the message is very long. Also, if the 
information being provided is personal in nature, it is recommended 
that headphones be provided in order to assure privacy. A message 
for stepping through menus is also helpful.
    b. Providing Braille labels for controls is an extremely 
effective mechanism for those individuals who read Braille.
    c. Large raised print can also be used but is generally 
restricted to rather large objects due to the size of the letters.

Paragraph (b)

Availability of Visual Information for Low Vision Users

    1. Individuals with low vision often also have hearing 
disabilities, especially older individuals. These persons cannot 
rely solely on audio access modes commonly used by people who are 
blind. Tactile strategies are still quite useful. Many people who 
have low vision can use their vision to access visually presented 
information on a product.
    2. Strategies for meeting this provision involve:
    a. Provide larger, higher contrast text and graphics. 
Individuals with 20/200 vision can see lettering if they get close 
to it, unless it is very small or has very poor contrast. Although 
14 or 18 point type is recommended for visual displays, it is 
usually not possible to put this size text on small products.
    b. Make the lettering as large and high contrast as possible to 
maximize the number of people who can use the product.
    c. On displays where the font size can be varied, allow the user 
to increase the font size, even if it means that the user must pan 
or move in order to see the full display.

Paragraph (c)

Access to Moving Text

    1. Moving text can be an access problem because individuals with 
low vision, or other disabilities may find it difficult or 
impossible to track moving text with their eyes.
    2. Strategies to address this requirement may include the 
following:
    a. Provide a mechanism for freezing the text. Thus, persons 
could read the stationary text and obtain the same information.
    b. Provide scrolling to display one full line at a time, with a 
pause before the next line replaces it.
    c. Provide the same information in another type of display which 
does not move. The right-to-left scrolling text on a TTY does not 
usually present a problem because it can be controlled by asking the 
sender to type slower or pause at specified intervals.

Paragraph (d)

Availability of Auditory Information

    1. Individuals who have hearing disabilities are unable to 
receive auditory output, or mechanical and other sounds that are 
emitted by a product. These sounds are often important for the safe 
or effective operation of the product. Therefore, information which 
is presented auditorial should be available to all users.
    2. Some strategies to achieve this include the following:
    a. Provide a visual or tactile signal that will attract the 
person's attention and alert the user to a call, page, or other 
message, or to warn the user of significant mechanical difficulties 
in the product.
    b. In portable products, a tactile signal such as vibration is 
often more effective than a visual signal because a visual signal 
may be missed. An auxiliary vibrating signaler might be effective if 
it is not readily achievable or effective to build vibration into a 
portable product.
    c. For stationary products, a prominent visual indicator in the 
field of vision (e.g., a screen flash for a computer, or a flashing 
light for a telephone) is effective. To inform the user of the 
status of a process (e.g., line status on a telephone call, power 
on, saving to disk, or disconnected), text messages may

[[Page 5640]]

be used. It is also desirable to have an image or light that is 
activated whenever acoustic energy is present on a telephone line.
    d. Speech messages should be portrayed simultaneously in text 
form and displayed where easily seen by the user. Such captions 
should usually be verbatim and displayed long enough to be easily 
read. If the product provides speech messages and the user must 
respond to those messages (e.g., interactive voice response and 
voice mail), a TTY accessible method of accessing the product could 
be provided.
    e. 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 a test installation is currently 
operating at the Butler plaza on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. In 
addition, if the product provides interactive communication using 
speech and video, it would be helpful to provide a method and 
channel for allowing non-speech communication (e.g., text 
conversation) in parallel with the video.
    f. Certain operations of products make sounds that give status 
information, although these sounds are not programmed signals. 
Examples include the whir of an operating disk drive and the click 
of a key being pushed. Where sounds of this type provide information 
important for operating the product, such as a ``beep'' when a key 
is activated, provide a light or other visual confirmation of 
activation.

Paragraph (e)

Availability of Auditory Information for People Who Are Hard of Hearing

    1. People who are hard of hearing but not deaf can often use 
their hearing to access auditory information on a product.
    2. Strategies for addressing this requirement may include the 
following:
    a. Improve the signal to noise ratio by making the volume 
adjustable, between 18-25 dB, increasing the maximum undistorted 
volume, and minimizing background noise by such methods as better 
coupling between the signal source and the user.
    b. Alerting tones are most likely to be heard if they involve 
multiple tones, separated in frequency, which contrast with the 
environment.
    c. Occasionally, varying tones may be preferred for attracting 
attention. If speech is used, it is best to test its intelligibility 
with individuals who are hard of hearing to maximize its clarity and 
ease of understanding. Provide the ability for the user to have any 
messages repeated or to repeat the message if no response is 
received from the user.
    d. For essential auditory information, the information might be 
repeated and an acknowledgment from the user requested.
    e. The intelligibility of the output can also be maximized by 
the location of the speakers and by keeping the speakers away from 
noise sources. However, visual displays are often more desirable 
than loud prompts or alerts, because the latter reduce privacy and 
can annoy others unless the amplified signal is isolated by means of 
a headphone, induction coupling, direct plug-in to a hearing aid, or 
other methods.
    f. The use of a telephone handset or earcup which can be held up 
to the ear can improve intelligibility without disturbing others in 
the area. If a handset or earcup is used, making it compatible with 
a hearing aid allows users to directly couple the auditory signal to 
their hearing aids. If the microphone in the handset is not being 
used, turning it off will also reduce the amount of background noise 
which the person hears in the earpiece. Providing a headphone jack 
also allows individuals to plug in headphones, induction loops, or 
amplifiers which they may use to hear better.

Paragraph (f)

Prevention of Visually-Induced Seizures

    1. Individuals with photo-sensitive epilepsy can have a seizure 
triggered by displays which flicker or flash, particularly if the 
flash has a high intensity and within certain frequency ranges.
    2. Strategies to address this requirement involve reducing or 
eliminating screen flicker or image flashing to the extent possible. 
In particular, the rates of 2 Hz or lower or 70 Hz or higher are 
recommended. This recommendation reflects current research data on 
people with photosensitive epilepsy which indicates that the peak 
sensitivity for these individuals is 20 Hz and that the sensitivity 
then drops off in both directions.
    3. The chance of triggering seizures can also be reduced by 
avoiding very bright flashes which occupy a large part of the visual 
field (particularly in the center of the visual field) in order to 
minimize the impact on the visual cortex.

Paragraph (g)

Availability of Audio Cutoff

    1. Individuals using the audio access mode, as well as those 
using a product with the volume turned up, need a way to limit the 
range of audio broadcast.
    2. If an audio headphone jack is provided, a cut-off switch can 
be included in the jack so that insertion of the jack would cut off 
the speaker. If a telephone-like handset is used, the external 
speakers can be turned off when the handset is removed from the 
cradle.

Paragraph (h)

Non-Interference With Hearing Technologies

    1. Individuals who are hard of hearing use hearing aids and 
other assistive listening devices but these devices cannot be used 
if a telecommunications product introduces noise into the listening 
aids because of stray electromagnetic interference.
    2. Strategies for reducing this interference (as well as 
improving hearing aid immunity) are being researched. The most 
desirable strategy is to avoid the root causes of interference when 
a product is initially designed. If the root sources of interference 
cannot be removed, then shielding, placement of components to avoid 
hearing aid interference, and field-canceling techniques may be 
effective. Standards are being developed to limit interference to 
acceptable levels, but complete elimination for some technologies 
may not yet be practical.
    3. In April 1996, the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) established a task group (ANSI C63) under its subcommittee on 
medical devices to develop standards to measure hearing aid 
compatibility and accessibility to digital wireless 
telecommunications. The C63.19 task group is continuing to develop 
its standard, C63.19-199X, American National Standard for Methods of 
Measurement for Hearing Aid Compatibility with Wireless 
Communications Devices. When the standard is completed, the Board 
intends to reference it in this appendix.

Paragraph (i)

Hearing Aid Coupling

    1. Many individuals who are hard of hearing use hearing aids 
with a T-coil (or telecoil) feature to allow them to listen to audio 
output of products without picking up background noise and to avoid 
problems with feedback, signal attenuation or degradation.
    2. The Hearing Aid Compatibility (HAC) Act defines a telephone 
as hearing aid compatible if it provides internal means for 
effective use with hearing aids and meets established technical 
standards for hearing aid compatibility.
    3. The technical standards for HAC telephones are specified in 
ANSI/EIA-504-1989, ``Magnetic Field Intensity Criteria for Telephone 
Compatibility with Hearing Aids,'' ANSI/TIA/EIA-504-1-1994, ``An 
Addendum to EIA-504,'' which adds the HAC requirements, and the FCC 
regulations at 47 CFR 68.317 (a).
    4. A good strategy for addressing this requirement for any 
product held up to the ear would be to meet these same technical 
requirements. If not readily achievable to provide built-in telecoil 
compatibility, other means of providing the electro-magnetic signal 
is the next strategy to be considered.

Subpart D `` Requirements for Compatibility With Peripheral Devices and 
Specialized Customer Premises Equipment

Section 1193.51  Compatibility

Paragraph (a)

External Electronic Access to All Information and Control Mechanisms

    1. Some individuals with severe or multiple disabilities are 
unable to use the built-in displays and control mechanisms on a 
product.
    2. The two most common forms of manipulation-free connections 
are an infrared connection or a radio frequency connection point. 
Currently, the Infrared Data Association (IrDA) infrared connection 
point is the most universally used approach.
    3. The Infrared Data Association together with dominant market 
players in the cellular and paging industries, Ericsson, Matsushita/
Panasonic, Motorola, NEC, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Puma, and TU-KA Phone 
Kansai, announced on April 25, 1997 a proposed set of standards 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. 
Because the proposed standard is designed to be scalable, it is 
easy-to-adopt by a wide range of wireless devices

[[Page 5641]]

from pagers to more enhanced communications tools such as smart 
phones. (See http://www.irda.org).
    4. Adding an infrared connector to the serial port of a 
peripheral device or specialized customer premises equipment will 
make these products more compatible with each other and with 
customer premises equipment.
    5. An infrared link can provide a mechanism for providing access 
to smaller, more advanced telecommunication devices and provide a 
safety net for products which are unable to incorporate other 
technologies. There is a joint international effort to develop a 
Universal Remote Console Communication (URCC) protocol which would 
achieve this functionality. (See http://trace.wisc.edu/world/urc/).

Paragraph (b)

Connection Point for External Audio Processing Devices

    1. Individuals using audio peripheral devices such as 
amplifiers, telecoil adapters, or direct-connection into a hearing 
aid need a standard, noise free way to tap into the audio generated 
by a product.
    2. Individuals who cannot hear well can often use products if 
they can isolate and enhance the audio output. For example, they 
could plug in a headphone which makes the audio louder and helps 
shut out background noise; they might feed the signal through an 
amplifier to make it louder, or through filters or frequency 
shifters to make it better fit their audio profile. If they are 
wearing a hearing aid, they may directly connect their hearing aid 
to the audio signal or plug in a small audio loop which allows them 
to couple the audio signal through their hearing aid's built-in T-
coil.
    3. Devices which can process the information and provide visual 
and/or tactile output are also possible. The most common strategy 
for achieving this requirement is the use of a standard 9 mm 
miniature plug-in jack, common to virtually every personal tape 
player or radio. For small products, a subminiature phone jack could 
be used.

Paragraph (c)

Compatibility of Controls With Prosthetics

    1. Individuals who have artificial hands or use headsticks or 
mouthsticks to operate products have difficulty with capacitive or 
heat-operated controls which require contact with a person's body 
rather than a tool. Individuals who wear prosthetics are unable to 
operate some types of products because they either require motions 
that cannot easily be made with a prosthetic hand, or because 
products are designed which require touch of the human skin to 
operate them (e.g., capacitive touchscreen kiosks), making it 
impossible for individuals with artificial arms or hands to operate, 
except perhaps with their nose or chin. Some individuals who do not 
have the use of their arms use either a headstick or a mouthstick to 
operate products. Controls and mechanisms which require a grasping 
and twisting motion should be avoided.

Paragraph (d)

TTY Connectability

    1. Acoustic coupling is subject to interference from ambient 
noise, as many handsets do not provide an adequate seal with TTYs. 
Therefore, alternate (non-acoustic) connections are needed. Control 
of the microphone is needed for situations such as pay-phone usage, 
where ambient noise picked up by the mouthpiece often garbles the 
signal. For the use of voice carry-over, where the person can speak 
but not hear, the user needs to be able to turn the microphone on to 
speak and off to allow them to receive the TTY text replies.
    2. A TTY can be connected to and used with any 
telecommunications product supporting speech communication without 
requiring purchase of a special adapter, and the user is able to 
intermix speech and clear TTY communication. The most common 
approach today is to provide an RJ-11 jack. On very small products, 
where there may not be room for this large jack, a miniature or 
subminiature phone-jack wired as a ``headset'' jack (with both 
speaker and microphone connections) could be used as an alternate 
approach. In either case, a mechanism for turning the phone 
mouthpiece (microphone) on and off would reduce garbling in noisy 
environments, while allowing the user to speak into the microphone 
when desired (to conduct conversations with mixed voice and TTY). 
For equipment that combines voice communications, displays, 
keyboards and data communication functions, it is desirable to build 
in direct TTY capability.

Paragraph (e)

TTY Signal Compatibility

    1. Some telecommunications systems compress the audio signal in 
such a manner that standard signals used by a TTY is distorted or 
attenuated preventing successful TTY communication over the system. 
A TTY can be used with any product providing voice communication 
function.
    2. The de facto standard of domestic TTYs is Baudot which has 
been defined in ITU-T Recommendation V.18. Although the V.18 
standard has been adopted, products are not yet available which meet 
its requirements.
    3. This provision can be addressed by ensuring that the tones 
used can travel through the phones compression circuits undistorted. 
It is even more desirable to provide undistorted connectivity to the 
telephone line in the frequency range of 390 Hz to 2300 Hz (ITU-T 
Recommendation V.18), as this range covers all of the TTY protocols 
known throughout the world. Although it may not be achievable with 
current technology, an alternate strategy might be to recognize the 
tones, transmit them as codes, and resynthesize them at the other 
end. In addition, it should be possible for individuals using TTYs 
to conduct conversations with mixed voice and TTY, and to control 
all aspects of the product and receive any messages generated by the 
product.

[FR Doc. 98-2414 Filed 2-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P