FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No. 7 FCC 88.123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No. 7 INTRODUCTION Before the 2. In response to the Disabled Act. the Commission, on Federal Communications Commission December 1. 1983. adopted specific rules designed to im- Washington, D.C. 20554 prove the availability of telecommunications equipment and services for the hearing impaired and other disabled persons.' These2 rules: (1) require telephones classified as .essential. to be internally compatible with hearing aids CC Docket No. 87-124 specially designed for telephone use; 3 (2) set forth the technical standards hearing aid compatible telephones In the Matter of must meet: (3) require each telephone package to denote whether the telephone is hearing aid compatible or not; Access to Telecommunications and (4) allow carriers to provide "specialized terminal Equipment and Services by the Hearing equipment" to persons with hearing, sight, speech and mobility impairments, Impaired and Other Disabled Persons and permit state commissions to allow carriers to recover through tariffs "reasonable and prudent costs not charged directly to users of such equip- ment." During the 1982 Congressional hearings leading to NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING AND the Disabled Act and in Commission proceedings.! it was FURTHER NOTICE OF INQUIRY evident that a segment of the U.S. population was having difficulty obtaining telecommunications services and Adopted: March 24, 1988 Released: March 29, 1988 equipment because of certain physical disabilities. This Commission believed the rules adopted would improve By the Commission: access to telecommunications services by these disabled persons. The rules have been in place for nearly four years. This proceeding was initiated to examine the effec- SUMMARY tiveness of the current rules, particularly in the wake of 1. This proceeding was initiated to gather information recent technological and other changes. On May 15, 1987, concerning the telecommunications needs of the hearing we issued a Notice of Inquiry (hereinafter NOI) s to gather impaired and other disabled persons and to evaluate the information concerning the telecommunications needs of need for consideration of regulatory measures or legisla- the hearing impaired and other disabled persons and to tive initiatives to ensure reasonable access to telecom- provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on munications services by those persons. Ensuring what action, if any, is necessary or desirable to assist these reasonable access to telecommunications services by all persons in obtaining reasonable access to telecommunica- Americans has been, and continues to be, a top priority of tions services. this Commission. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making 3. The Commission currently is restricted from requir- portion of this Notice, we propose specific changes in our ing that all telephones be hearing aid compatible.6 Section regulations that should increase the ability of the hearing 610(b) of the Disabled Act directed the Commission to impaired to access telephone service by expanding our "require that essential telephones provide internal means regulatory definition of- "essential" telephones that must for effective use with hearing aids that are specially de- be compatible with hearing aids equipped with telecoils signed for telephone use . . ." (emphasis added). The (hereafter hearing aid compatible telephones or HAC). In Disabled Act also specifically directed the Commission, in the Notice of Further Inquiry portion of the Notice, we implementing the Act through regulations. to consider the seek comment on other important and difficult issues costs and benefits to "all telephone users, including per- involved in ensuring reasonable access to telephone ser- sons with and without hearing impairments," and to adopt vice for the hearing impaired and other disabled persons, rules that "encourage the use of currently available tech- and encourage existing groups with expertise in the area nology and do not discourage . . . the development of to coordinate the development of consensus proposals. For improved technology." 47 U.S.C. § 610(e). example, we ask for specific proposals for implementing an interstate relay system for users of Telecommunications 4. In response to these directives we adopted Section Devices for the Deaf (TDDs), which would enable deaf 68.112 of the rules. 47 C.F.R. § 68.112. This rule takes and cognizance of Congressional intent to allow the continued speech-impaired persons to carry on real-time inter- manufacture state conversations with voice telephone users. We also and sale of incompatible telephones while seek further comment on various ensuring that the needs of the hearing impaired are met. other issues on which Accordingly, our rules define there is not an adequate record. Finally, this Notice also essential telephones to in- serves as a report to the Congress of the information clude coin-operated telephones; credit card telephones gathered to date in this proceeding to aid it in deciding where there is not a coin-operated telephone nearby and whether to amend the Telecommunications for the Dis- readily available: telephones in elevators, tunnels and hos- abled Act pital and convalescent home rooms; telephones in ten of 1982, Public Law No. 97-410 (Disabled Act) percent to require that all telephones be compatible with telecoil of rooms in hotelstmotels; the work station tele- hearing aids. As stated below, we find, based on this phones of employees with hearing impairments requiring record, that various countervailing public interest consid- the use of a telephone to conduct their work assignments; erations make it a close and telephones made available for use by the public in question whether this amendment places of business to the Disabled Act should be adopted. On balance, we or buildings in which visits by the tentatively conclude that this amendment is not necessary public are reasonably expected. at this time to ensure reasonable access by the disabled to 5. The NOI first raised the issue whether anything telecommunications services. needed to be done to increase the availability of HAC telephones. The Commission has two primary options in 3 FCC Red No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 3 FCC Red No.7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 light of the Congressional mandate that only essential CURRENT RULES telephones be hearing aid compatible. First. we could 9. Comments. The comments varied on whether the expand the definition of "essential" under our rules. Sec- current provisions of the rules are adequate and whether ond, we could recommend Congress amend the statute. the Commission should expand the definition of Based on the current record, we are proposing certain "essential." changes in our rules that we tentatively conclude, after 10. Self Help for Hard of Hearing weighing the costs and benefits, would increase access of People. Inc. (SHHH) is an educational, self-help organization. The majority the hearing impaired to telephone service and would be in of its members wear hearing aids. SHHH believes that the the overall public interest. These changes would expand current rules have not been more effective because the definition of essential telephones to include all credit of card telephones and telephones located in common areas in a hearing-impaired employee's workplace. We also are (a) continued widespread ignorance of the rules, (b) seeking comment in our further inquiry on a number of delegation of enforcement powers to states adopting other suggestions that could lead to rule changes. How- the rules, and ever. we cannot conclude that, based on the current (c) inadequate consumer participation in implemen- record, it would be in the public interest to amend the tation of rules provided for their needs. A combina- statute to require that all telephones be hearing aid com- tion of these three factors adds up to slow progress patible.' We make this finding because it has not been toward Congressional intent. shown that amendment would be in the public interest. We have doubts about the wisdom of such an amendment SHHH Comments. because of indications in the record that: 1) there has been p. 1. an apparent decrease in hearing aids with the telecoil II. One area of the Commission's rules SHHH feels feature: 2) inexpensive alternative portable devices are warrants strengthening involves the workplace. Section available which are designed to enhance the hearing abil- 68.112(c)(2) requires employers to provide HAC tele- ity of persons with hearing disabilities while using a stan- phones only at the work stations of employees with a dard telephone: 3) it is not clear that such an amendment hearing impairment. To ensure such employees have ac- would address the actual problems being experienced by cess to a telephone throughout the work premises, SHHH the segment of our hearing impaired population that still suggests that employers be required to provide either appear to have unsatisfactory access to telecommunica- HAC telephones in whatever areas such employees may tions services; and 4) requiring universal compatibility have reason to visit, or portable external induction cou- with telecoil hearing aids could impair the development of pling devices. new network technology, including fiber optics. Based on 12. Maryland People's Counsela believes the Commis- this record, it appears that the Congress developed the sion has not adequately met its Congressional mandate to appropriate public interest balance in the Disabled Act. ensure that all the people of the United States have access 6. The Notice of Inquiry also addressed the communica- to communication services. In its view, there is no jus- tions service needs of the deaf and speech-impaired, who tification for the Commission establishing a different stan- access telecommunications services primarily through dard for people with disabilities. The disabled are an TDDs. Based on the comments, we seek specific proposals integral part of the total population, and share the same for implementing interstate relay systems of TDDs and problems, family life, and responsibilities as other citizens. seek further information on related issues. MPC thus feels this group should not be segregated and subjected 7. Finally. the NOI asked whether an advisory commit- to regulations which limit their access to tele- communications services. tee should be formed to address issues relating to ensuring reasonable access to telephone service for the hearing- 13. MPC believes the definition attached to the term "essential telephones" limits impaired and other disabled persons. Many of the com- the rights and privileges of ments indicate that some form of committee is desirable, the disabled. It feels the term was adopted to meet the but it does not seem that a formal federal advisory com- needs of the telephone industry, not those of the disabled. mittee is appropriate. We do not want to foreclose the Because there is no barrier to preclude the Commission further participation of any individual or group in this from adopting a broader definition of "essential tele- proceeding. Moreover, the comments indicate there cur- phones" and there is a need to expand the availability of rently exist at least two organizations whose memberships communication services for the hearing impaired, MPC include the expertise and the broad-based representation recommends that the Commission modify its rules. First it on these issues requested by the commenters desiring recommends that Section 68.112(c)(1) be modified to in- establishment of an advisory committee. Accordingly, we clude card-operated telephones. Noting that the rule does encourage these (or other) groups to coordinate the devel- not require card-operated telephones to be HAC if they opment of consensus proposals that will effectively and are nearby coin-operated telephones, MPC suggests the efficiently expand access of the disabled to telecommuni- term "nearby" is relative. To a hearing impaired athlete, it cations equipment and services. means one thing; to a mobility impaired person, some- thing else. 8. We will divide our consideration of the record into four parts: changes to the current rules to expand the 14. Second, it believes that Section 68.112(c)(2) requires category of "essential" telephones; changes to the statute modification, as it now creates a hardship in the work- to mandate universal hearing aid compatibility; other mat- place. Because the rule requires an employer to place a ters requiring additional action in the context of a Further HAC telephone only at the work station of an employee Notice of Inquiry; and the possible formation of a federal with a hearing deficiency, the employee's flexibility and advisory committee. mobility are impeded and his usefulness is lessened. To improve employment opportunities and the productivity of such individuals, MPC recommends that Section 68.112 (c)(2) be amended to require employers to install HAC FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 ° telephones at all sites within the work premises where device at least some of the time with some people.t In hearing impaired persons might expect to need a tele- generally outlining the problems which limit access of the phone and that all telephones installed on the premises disabled to telephone services, the Report does not asso- after a certain date be HAC. Third. it suggests that the ciate specific problems with a specific disability. However, Disabled Act allows the Commission to require coin- and certain listed complaints naturally attach to the hearing card-operated telephones to be equipped with amplifier impaired. e. g., "insufficient volume control," "public tele- handsets. MPC contends the additional volume is required phones without amplified handsets" and "should make " by many mildly and moderately hearing impaired in- ringers louder. t On the specific matter of workplace dividuals as well as those with severe hearing problems. In telephone access, some survey participants claim they ex- recognition of the importance of amplifier handsets, MPC perience (1) difficulty obtaining employment, (2) difficulty suggests that the Commission adopt a rule similar to a law understanding callers, and (3) problems using some tele- enacted by the State of Connecticut, which requires 25% phones. of coin and card-operated telephone to have amplifier 20. Analysis. Section 610(a) of the Disabled Act, 47 handsets. U.S.C. § 610(a), states: 15. Finding that the cost of HAC telephones is on par with incompatible ones, the supply of HAC telephones has The Commission shall establish such regulations as increased and vendors are now familiar with the Commis- are necessary to ensure reasonable access to tele- sion's rules, MPC suggests that hotels and motels be re- phone service by persons with impaired hearing. quired to implement a program of annually replacing 10% of their incompatible telephones with HAC units and all According to the new telephone installations be of the HAC variety. Such a legislative history, this section of the program, MPC feels, will result in hotels and motels being Disabled Act is intended to direct the Commission's atten- completely accessible to wearers of hearing aids equipped tion to the special communications needs of individuals with telecoils within a decade, as well as allowing them to with hearing impairments. The Commission's mandate to receive telephone service at the same rate as other guests. ensure reasonable access to telephone service focuses on establishing regulations and technical standards. 16. Finally, MPC relates that many inexpensive tele- phones fail to provide satisfactory performance even 21. While entrusting the Commission with this respon- though they meet the minimum magnetic field strength sibility, Congress included certain constraints. It enacted levels defined by Section 68.31"6. This rule defines the Section 610(b) of the Act, which sets limits on the tele- magnetic field strength levels a telephone must meet in phones that are to be hearing aid compatible. See note 6, order to be classifed as HAC. To rectify this deficiency it supra. At the time it enacted this law, Congress believed recommends that Section 68.316 be modified to increase its action would reasonably satisfy the needs of the hearing the minimum acceptable magnetic field strength level or, impaired. It noted: alternatively, to increase both the minimum and maximum levels but retain the current numerical difference between Under no circumstances may the Commission des- the levels. ignate as an essential telephone any residential tele- 17. GTE also states that the Commission, based upon a phone or any other telephone if all the persons who proper record, may broaden the definition of "essential would normally use it do not have hearing impair- 12 telephones." GTE contends hearing aid users should have ments. greater access to telephones in the workplace than in private homes. It believes all business telephones should 22. Congress also directed the Commission to evaluate be classified as "essential." If the Commission decides not the costs and benefits of any rule changes. That evaluation to include residential telephones in the essential category, must also consider costs and benefits to all telephone GTE suggests the Commission may want to strengthen the users, as well as the "social costs and benefits indirectly labeling requirement for non-hearing aid compatible tele- related to telephone use, including the benefits of reduced phones to provide consumers with more information re- institutionalization, increased mobility, and enhanced pro- garding the pros and cons of owning an incompatible ductivity by disabled persons." House Report, p. 12. Addi- telephone. tionally, Congress directed us to ensure that an progress. 18. Finally, GTE urges that should the Commission regulatory changes not impair technological decide to classify business and residential telephones as The language of Section 610(b) and its legislative history essential it should grandfather refurbished telephones. clearly provide that the Commission may not require uni- GTE estimates that the cost of retrofitting a refurbished versal hearing aid compatible telephones. However, the telephone to make it hearing aid compatible ranges be- Commission may modify its definition of essential tele- tween $2.60 and $4.50, depending upon the style. Impos- phones so long as it considers the costs and benefits of the ing this additional cost on refurbishers, GTE maintains, changed definition. would make refurbishing unattractive because new tele- 23. Most commenters support an expanded definition of phones are becoming less and less expensive, and would essential work place telephones. Section 68.112(c)(2) of probably destroy the refurbishing industry. the rules only requires that an HAC telephone be made 19. A report submitted by Gallaudet Research Institute available at the work station of the hearing impaired (GRI) discloses that 95 percent of the sample's visually employee, i. e., "the location within a workplace where impaired persons were satisfied with their ability to use that employee is usually found in the course of his or her the telephone, whereas only 20 percent of the hearing employment duties." The rule was based on language in ' impaired and deaf-blind were satisfied. Fifty percent of the House Report that "[aln employee should have access the hearing impaired surveyed could not hear using a to at least one compatible telephone . . . ." House Report hearing aid; the other fifty percent could hear and under- at 10. But that report also stated "[tihe Committee is stand normal speech when using an assistive listening concerned that inability to use telephones should not im- 1984 3 FCC Red No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 pair the productivity of persons using a hearing aid in 28. SHHH argues such an amendment would disserve their place of work." Id. We now propose a rule change to the hearing impaired community because as now struc- expand the areas where workplace telephones must be tured, the proposed legislation would exempt telephones HAC to include all common areas that hearing impaired from the HAC standard if they are not required to be employees may need to access in the ordinary course of registered under Part 68 of the Commission's rules. 47 their employment. These would include telephones in li- C.F.R. Part 68. Falling in this category are coin telephones brary, reception, and similar areas. We seek comment on owned by telephone companies. On the other hand, cur- the costs and benefits of this proposal. We also ask what. rent legislation requires all coin operated telephones to be if any, grandfathering would be appropriate. See 47 compatible. SHHH states that the philosophy of "choice" U.S.C.§ 610(f). is deeply rooted in our society. It then suggests that the 24. We also propose a rule change to require HAC for hearing impaired could minimize their problems by edu- credit card telephones. Section 68.112(c)(1) of the rules cating those persons who buy incompatible telephones to currently provides that such telephones generally must be this group's needs rather than seeking federal legislation hearing aid compatible, "unless a hearing aid compatible which eliminates consumer choice.ti coin-operated telephone providing similar services is near- 29. Several commenters state that economical special- by and readily available." The "unless" clause was based ized telephone equipment designed for the hearing im- on the Commission's interpretation of language in the paired mitigates the need and demand for HAC House Report: "The Committee intends that the Commis- telephones. For example, the American Telephone and sion employ a common-sense approach; if a usable pay Telegraph Company (AT&T) notes that it offers the Por- phone is nearby and readily available, the incompatible table Telephone Amplifier through its National Special instrument is not 'needed by the hearing impaired'." Needs Center and Phone Centers. This device sells for House Report at 10. Although MPC has not identified any approximately $24.95 and easily attaches to any telephone. specific instances where a non-HAC credit card telephone It transforms an incompatible telephone to a HAC unit or has precluded access to telephone services, our prelimi- provides 20 dB additional amplification for wearers of nary view is that the benefits of deleting the clause out- hearing aids not equipped with telecoils. It also offers an weigh the costs. As MPC argues, the use of credit card amplifier handset which may be used with earlier model telephones is growing. In addition, the factor governing telephones. whether a credit card HAC telephone need be - whether 30. AT&T states that, with the exception of its cordless a coin-operated HAC telephone is "nearby and readily telephones, all telephones it supplies are HAC. To make available" - is difficult to define or enforce. Congress felt its cordless units HAC, AT&T claims it would cost an so strongly that coin-operated telephones should be HAC additional $1.50 per unit. Otherwise, a rule requiring uni- that it mandated retrofitting, where necessary. Our records versal MAC would not alter its manufacturing costs. It show 12 models of credit card telephones have been regis- explains it has embedded costs of $0.25 per corded tele- tered under Part 68 since 1982, and 10 clearly are HAC. phone to accommodate HAC. Two applications were granted which did not affirmatively 31. Commenters also argue that requiring universal state the telephones were HAC, but it is not clear that the compatibility could impede innovation which telephones in question are not HAC,and if they are not, could lower prices and could impede what costs would be incurred to make them so. Accord- the introduction of new technol- ogy. AT&T argues that such a rule could impose ingly, we propose to delete the "unless" clause from Sec- addi- tional costs of $0.50 to $1.00 for all future telephones tion 68.112(c)(1). We seek comment on the costs and and imposition of technical standards on telephone manufac- benefits of this proposal. In the event manufacturers are turers could producing and selling non HAC credit card telephones, we be useless unless similar standards are im- posed on hearing aid manufacturers. Without such there ask that they document any costs that would be incurred is no guarantee that hearing by our proposal, and state what level of grandfathering aid technology will always mesh with that of telephones. protection would be appropriate. See 47 U.S.C. § 610(f); Bell Atlantic Telephone Com- panies contend House Report at 13. generally that hearing aid and telephone technologies are changing rapidly and therefore regulatory 25. MPC suggests that all new hotel and motel tele- requirements should not be imposed making their future phones eventually be HAC. There is no indication that the application impractical. Bell South maintains that the best current provisions are not adequate to ensure access by approach to the issue is one which allows the marketplace hearing impaired persons to hotel and motel HAC tele- to respond to the needs of the disabled. This view is also phones. Therefore. we do not propose at this time to shared by United States Telephone Association (USTA). amend that portion of the rule. 32. MPC recommends that the Commission support leg- 26. Thus, we propose two specific changes to our rules islation now before Congress to require all new telephones to increase the availability of HAC telephones. We also to be hearing aid compatible. It feels that. if enacted, such are seeking additional information in our further inquiry legislation would enable hearing impaired persons to have on a number of the other suggestions made by commen- the same access to the telecommunications network as ters. ' others, would relieve the Commission of certain monitor- ing and enforcement responsibilities, and would eliminate the restraining language of Section 610(b) of the Disabled 6 STATUTORY CHANGES Act.1 27. Comments. The comments varied on whether we 33. Other commenters also endorse requiring future should 17 recommend that the Congress amend the Disabled telephones to be HAC. Ameritech Operating Companies Act to require that all telephones be hearing aid compati- say they do not anticipate any impediments to develop- ble. ment and growth of their networks as a result of such a rule. They caution, however, that such a requirement should contain a proviso making HAC mandatory and FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 uniform on a national basis. Otherwise. incompatible tech- Fraction Fraction nology might be developed resulting in future stranded of ITE Total No. of Non-ITE plant investment. GTE Service Corporation (GTE) also aids with of non-ITE aids with favors the idea. It discloses that its unit costs for HAC Telecoils aids sold telecoils telephones (including cordless ones) range between $0.20 - 495.458 $0.50. But, it notes, the true cost 76.3% of such a rule includes 521.028 76.1% more than the unit cost. Legislating a design parameter 464,139 75.9% might impede network technological advances, resulting in 406.554 75.8% a cost too high to pay. Thus, it recommends that the 374,196 75.8% Commission. in evaluating the costs/benefits of universal 2.261.369 76.0% HAC, may wish to adopt a waiver standard permitting research and development to continue on devices which Total number of hearing aid users 4.0 million a cannot be made HAC. Alternatively, it suggests that the Commission may want to adopt a "sunset" provision on Total number of users employing the HAC requirement which would force a review of the ITE aids "costs/benefits" to determine whether technological 2.3 million b/ changes warrant retention of the rule. For example, hear- ing aids' design could advance to the point where mag- Estimated number of users employing netic coupling with the telephone would no longer be telecoils 1.5 million c/ necessary. In GTE's view, by allowing exceptions to a universal HAC rule, the Commission would be operating a/ SHHH comments, p. 6. within Congressional intent to permit the manufacturing b/ SHHH comments, p. 5. and marketing of telephones incompatible with hearing c/ Computed by staff. (2.3 million ITE aid users x 10.1% aids. According to GTE, not only was the intent of the + 1.7 million non-ITE aid users legislation to define essential telephones, but also to allow x 76%) for the production and retail of incompatible telephones. Without a statutory change, GTE urges, the Commission 35. Interpretation of the above data varies among the cannot impose a 100% HAC requirement. commenters. Our NOI, based on previous available data, stated that the number of hearing aids purchased incor- 34. Commenters were asked to provide specific statisti- porating the telecoil feature seemed to cal data regarding hearing aids and their wearers. All data be declining. SHHH states that the figures show a decline in supplied appear to be based on information originally the retail of telecoil equipped hearing aids. collected by HIA. In view of that, there is little variation It attributes this reduc- tion to wearers being unfamiliar with that feature in the information supplied by the parties. Other than the of their hearing aids, their refusal to use it or their lack total number of users requiring hearing aids equipped of know- ledge of how to with telecoils, a datum commenters state is indeterminate, use it. HIA also credits the reduction of telecoil equipped hearing aids to the the table below display the information requested by the emergence of the in NOI. the ear hearing aid model. According to HIA, these units generally are purchased by persons experiencing little dif- ficulty using the telephone. Consequently, they are buying hearing aids without the inductive feature. TABLE 1 Accordingly, HIA notes that less than 30% of hearing aid purchasers Total No. Fraction of Total No. are buying hearing aids with telecoils. "the necessary other of aids aidswith of ITE aids half of the hearing aid compatibility equation." sold Telecoila sold 36. MPC maintains that the purchase of hearing aids actually fluctuated from year to year during the 1980-1985 854,485 48.5% 359,027 period. This fluctuation reflects, according to MPC, the 1.029.680 43.5% 508,652 variation of incidence of severe hearing loss as opposed to 1.102,887 37.8% 638,748 a decreasing trend of relying on inductive reception. Only 1,136,864 33.6% 730,310 when there is a decrease in the number of severely 1,268,142 29.5% hear- 893,952 ing impaired or a superior alternative coupling will there 5,392,058 37.7% 3,130,689 be a substantial reduction in the number of hearing aids equipped with telecoils, asserts MPC. MPC observes that in the period 1980 - 1986, approximately 2,865,000 telecoil equipped hearing aids were sold. It argues Congress did not predicate its enactment of the Disabled Act on per- centages. Congress was concerned with ensuring that peo- ple have reasonable access to telephone service. GTE believes the number of telecoil equipped hearing aids is relatively stable and represents those persons having se- vere or profound hearing loss. Accordingly, they need HAC telephones and GTE thus urges the Commission to recognize their needs. 37. AT&T, on the other hand, believes MPC's argument does not rebut the inferences the statistics suggest. It explains that it is unlikely that the number of hearing impaired will rise and fall from year to year. The suitabil- 3 FCC Rcd No. '7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 3 FCC Red No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 ity of ITE models for the moderately hearing impaired 42. We seek comment on a number of issues: (1) wheth- might explain the declining trend in the sale of telecoil er we should propose rules regarding Telecommunications s equipped hearing aids. Devices for the Deaf:' (2) whether we should propose to 38. None of the commenters identified any anticipated amend the rules with regard to amplifier handsets: and (3) technological advances that would enhance the access to whether other rule changes are appropriate. telecommunications services by the hearing impaired. 43. TDDs - Comments. Based on the comments filed, GTE states that regulating technology can be counter- only AT&T among interstate carriers currently provides n productive without safety valves. Although it is true the special operator services for TDD users." These services telephone network is evolving into a digital network, GTE include operator assistance for aiding TDD users in mak- concludes this does not preclude telephone receivers from ing AT&T credit card calls, third number billed calls, generating an adequate magnetic field for coupling with collect calls, person-to-person calls and calls from hotels hearing aids. It explains that the human ear is an acoustic and motels. In addition. TDD users are offered help in input device, which will not be affected by network reaching directory assistance operators and provided typed changes. Regardless of the technology used the final out- messages of information received from recorded messages. put must be in acoustic energy, it continues. GTE suggests These services are available via a toll free number and what is most likely to happen is that hearing aid designs accessible 24 hours per day. One additional carrier, U.S. will improve to permit acoustic coupling without the ad- Sprint, does plan to offer this kind of operator service, but verse feedback prevalent among today's hearing aids. Such does not plan to offer disabled TDD users discounted a feat would moot the need for HAC telephones. rates. 39. HIA, an organization of firms that manufacture and 44. For the present, GTE maintains that there is a need distribute hearing aids and their component parts, notes to standardize the code for TDD devices. Currently two that its industry remains committed to the availability of coding schemes are used by TDD manufacturers. Baudot induction coil compatible telephone handsets and hearing and ASCII. Baudot is the original format incorporated in instruments. GRI relates that there is no inductive tech- TDDs and is the least expensive because the equipment is nology substitute on the horizon. Based on its clinical typically older and less complex than ASCII. ASCII is experience, magnetic coupling is the most effective means more widely employed among terminal devices, including for the moderately hearing impaired to use the telephone TDDs and personal computers. Because of its wide use without feedback. GRI further explains that because it is and the possible enlargement of the community TDD impractical to directly, electrically connect telephones and users could access, GTE recommends that the Commission hearing aids, direct audio input is infeasible. require future TDD units incorporate the ASCII format. 40. Analysis. Although it is clear that the hearing im- Electronic Industries Association (EIA), on the other paired currently are unable to fully utilize telecommunica- hand, suggests the issue be directed to a user group such tions services, the record before us does not indicate that as the Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., while universal HAC will provide a signficant improvement in SHHH urges the Commission to permit the matter to be the ability of the hearing impaired to access telecommuni- resolved on a voluntary basis. cations services. The comments indicate that there would 45. A number of commenters addressed questions relat- be an increased embedded cost of between S.25 to $1.50 ing to relay services for TDD users, which generally en- per non-HAC telephone if Congress were to mandate able TDD users to have telephone conversations with universal compatibility. In addition, it appears that the use voice telephone users. A few states are offering or are in of hearing aids with the telecoil device is on the decline the final stage of providing manned relay servicesl5 for and non-telecoil equipped hearing aids are improving. TDD users. California provides a system, and. according Universal HAC would also restrict the freedom to design to the comments. Illinois' and New York's systems should innovative telephones, but the cost of that restriction can- be functional shortly. With the exception of the New York not be quantified with the record before us. Further, as proposal, these programs limit the users to intrastate calls. stated above,. there are inexpensive alternative portable New York plans to permit interstate calls over its system devices available to enhance the ability of persons with so long as one end of the conversation is in New York. In hearing disabilities while using a standard telephone. Fi- addition to these relay systems, there are many private nally, it is not clear that such an amendment would organizations providing manned relay services. To further address the actual problems being experienced by the ease the expense of communicating via these relay sys- segment of our hearing impaired population that still ap- tems, some states have ordered carriers providing intra- pear to have unsatisfactory access to telecommunications state toll services within their states to provide such services. After carefully balancing all the facts in the services to TDD users at a discounted rate. On the inter- record before us, we reach the same conclusion as did state level, only AT&T offers toll discounts to TDD users. Congress in enacting the Disabled Act; that it does not Some of its competitors indicate they would offer dis- appear that mandatory universal compatibility would serve counted rates if they were subsidized, presumably by other the public interest. ratepayers. 46. Several user groups discuss the problems attendant to existing and planned intrastate manned relay systems. FURTHER NOTICE OF INQUIRY They relate that many users are disappointed and do not 41. The comments indicate there are a number of areas understand why communication cannot be established in which a further proceeding may enhance the access of with out-of-state locations. Efforts to obtain these services the hearing impaired and other disabled persons to tele- by state commissions and local telephone companies have communications services. been met with jursidictional disputes. notes MPC. Accord- ing to MPC, both parties (state commissions and tele- phone companies) argue that local public utility commissions do not have authority to order telephone FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No. 7 FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 companies to provide interstate relay services. This denial the TDD user. We also note that if the TDD users were to of interstate service has meant many deaf individuals have migrate to the more common ASCII technology they been denied access to relatives and friends in other states. would be able to communicate with millions of such To remedy the problem, NARUC, in a petition for further terminals in residences and businesses. inquiry, asks that the Commission (a) establish the com- 53. Generally available relay services appear to restrict mittee discussed in its NOI to investigate the implementa- users to intrastate use. In this proceeding several parties, tion of interstate relay systems and (b) issue a further including EIA and SHHH, argue the Commission should notice of inquiry to obtain specific proposal for the com- defer the matter to private organizations for resolution. mittee's evaluation. Others, including MPC, GRI, NARUC and some private 47. With regard to possible technological advances af- citizens, seek Commission action to create an interstate fecting relay systems, AT&T reveals that it and other firms relay system for TDD users. NARUC points out that as are conducting tests on unmanned relay systems designed many as 15 states have plans for an intrastate TDD relay to recognize speech and transform it to written form and system. It urges the Commission to develop a federal vice-versa. But it indicates the pace of development does policy on interstate relay systems to achieve coordination not offer any immediate hope of employing this system and consistency in the development of intra-and interstate soon. systems. 48. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Com- 54. An effective interstate TDD system has the potential pliance Board states it is an independent federal regulatory to substantially improve access by the deaf to telecom- agency charged with insuring that certain facilities de- munications services. The question is what is the most signed, constructed, altered or leased with federal funds efficient, cost effective way of facilitating one. There are comply with accessibility standards issued under the Ar- no specific proposals before us at this time. To conduct chitectural Barriers Act of 1968. It offers to serve on any the sort of cost/benefit analysis Congress intended, we advisory board the Commission may establish. It states it solicit the submission of specific proposals. has sponsored a demonstration, federal government wide 55. We believe the current record must be supplemen- TDD relay service since August 1986 that is to expire ted with data regarding the technical, economic and regu- August 1988. The service is used by federal employees latory parameters for an interstate system. Specific, who are TDD users and by others who communicate with detailed proposals for an interstate relay system that can those employees, both inside and outside the government. be used by all, or most, TDD users, i.e., users with Baudot The relay serves approximately 700 persons each month. or ASCII format units must be developed. The proposals The board intends to explore the possibility of another should include technical requirements and should indicate organization, either government or nongovernment, ad- what organization would establish standards. Proposals ministering the relay service as an ongoing activity. should be offered on ways to foster Baudot-ASCII com- 49. None of the commenters revealed any technological patibility. In light of the research and development under- advances likely to have an immediate impact on the way way to discover means of implementing an unmanned communication services are provided the deaf and speech relay system, each proposal should consider the means of impaired. Some did note that research is under way to phasing in possible replacement of manned stations with take advantage of research conducted in the computer unmanned facilities. We specifically seek comment on the field to improve the communication ability of the deaf. feasibility of developing packet switched services based on GTE is also conducting some tests. It is attempting to new or existing packet switched networks that could pro- devise a technique which would allow transmitting Ameri- vide low cost connectivity for Baudot and ASCII TDD can Sign Language using a voice grade line and slow speed users. In addition, commenters are asked to discuss the video techniques. roles of all the entities anticipated to be a part of render- 50. - Analysis. Based on this record, we seek specific ing the service, including private organizations currently proposals for an interstate relay system for TDD users. We providing service. The roles of interstate carriers in par- also believe commenters have raised other issues deserving ticular should be addressed. of further comment by interested parties. 56. Proposed plans should incorporate an economic as- 51. The record shows that a number of telephone com- sessment of the impact such a system would have on panies have available an array of devices specifically de- ratepayers. The record suggests that potential users of the signed to assist the. deaf in accessing the telephone system will require a subsidy. The economic analysis network. Many states also maintain programs which pro- should discuss the amount of subsidy, the form it should vide equipment for the disabled at little or no cost to the take, and a cost/benefit study showing the number of users. Only AT&T offers discounted interstate toll rates persons benefiting and the specific ways they will benefit. and operator services for TDD users. Its competitors ex- Suggested rates for use of the system would further assist plain they would provide discounted rates for TDD users the assessment of implementing such a system. Potential if they were subsidized in some manner. users supporting implementation of an interstate relay sys- 52. More generally, since the development of the basic tem are invited to also comment on their anticipated use TDD system 20 years ago ASCII terminal technology and of an interstate system and features they feel are necessary modem technology have advanced significantly to the to enhance their access to their community of interest. point where low cost, personal computers with modems 57. Finally, all plans must include proposed regulations (which can serve as ASCII TDDs) are mass produced applicable to the use and operation of an interstate sys- consumer items which may have lower cost than tradi- tem. The Commission's ability to mandate an interstate tional TDDs. In addition, packet switching technology has TDD relay system and establish a funding mechanism for also progressed to the point where it may provide long it appears to raise new and novel questions of law. Ac- cordingly, we request comment on our statutory authority distance connectivity for typing at a signficantly lower cost 2 than MTS. However, no packet switching provider pres- to mandate and fund such a system. ' Proposed regula- ently offers end to end services that are appropriate for tions should include user eligibility requirements, common 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 carrier responsibilities, details regarding the administrative them to define what the Commission's role in such activi- operation and the organizational structure if the plan en- ties should be and to include cost estimates for distribu- visions a system to be governed by a body other than the tion of necessary information. We would be especially provider of the service. Any expected limitations deemed interested in knowing of complaints filed with the states necessary should be highlighted and accompanied with an alleging noncompliance with the rules. Analysis of such explanation. complaints would provide a base from which to determine 58. Amplifier Handsets. As indicated above, both MPC patterns of noncompliance and could indicate an educa- and the GRI Report indicate a need for more tion program that could target such problems. 22 amplifier handsets. MPC states that "[alugmented volume is need- 63. There is little information on record concerning the ed by a great many mildly and moderately hearing- hearing aid's role in these matters. It would certainly impaired people as well as those who are severely or appear to play an integral role in the way the hearing profoundly impaired and use the extra amplification to impaired access telephone service. An assessment of how supplement their inductive reception." MPC comments, p. the quality of the hearing aid relates to the user's ability 4. To assist this group of impaired persons. MPC requests to access the telephone or use telephone services is re- a rule modification requiring at least 25 percent of coin- quired to determine what Commission action is appro- and card-operated telephones to be equipped with an priate. Further. itwould be helpful to know if efforts are amplifier. underway to standardize the hearing aid telecoil perfor- 59. We do not mance have sufficient facts upon which to23 requirements, and the levels being proposed. Also, conduct a cost/benefit analysis, as intended by Congress. commenters should consider the need for greater dissemi- Therefore, we seek comment on the following: The size of nation of information to consumers relating to the hearing the population the rule would address, the number of aid's usefulness in telephone conversations, the merits of handsets involved, or the total cost to industry to comply grading hearing aids for telephone use and offer sugges- with such a regulation, and the type of amplification tions on how, and by whom, such information can be (speech, hearing or both) necessary to resolve the per- distributed. If the marketplace for hearing aids is workably 2 ceived problems. ' In addition, the GRI study notes other competitive, compatibility with telephone use should be access problems that would not be remedied by amplifier an important point of product differentiation. Manufactur- handsets. These include such things as reaching a handset ers should have incentives to enhance the compatibility of and the need for push button telephones. We seek com- aids with the telephone. In fact, we note the percentage of ment on whether requiring all interstate pay telephones to in-the-ear devices with telecoils has increased (Table 1, be push button would be more beneficial to a greater infra). number of people than requiring amplifier handsets. 60. Other Issues. The Gallaudet study raises some par- ticular suggestions for other changes. Twenty four percent ADVISORY COMMITTEE of those interviewed suggested improving accessibility of 64. Comments. The NOI suggested that the issues that the disabled can be accomplished by lowering placement must be addressed to improve disabled persons' access to of public telephones for wheel chair use, Telecommunica- telecommunications services may be more appropriately tions Devices for the Deaf in all public places, portable handled by a committee comprised of various interested TDD telephones and amplified handsets "everywhere." parties. It was suggested that such a committee could We ask commenters to address each of these proposals in operate under the auspices of the Exchange Carriers Stan- their further comments. Although the Disabled Act fo- dards Association (ECSA) or the EIA. Both of these or- cuses on measures to assist the hearing impaired, a sub- ganizations indicate that these matters may be more stantial number of commenters address issues of suitably addressed by some other organization. importance to the deaf, speech impaired and other dis- 65. Most of the commenters favor the creation of this abled persons. We also seek comment on other appro- committee. But many urge that the efforts of the commit- priate rule changes. tee not be focused exclusively on the needs of the hearing 61. For example, analysis of the GRI study raises the impaired and the deaf. There are other persons with dis- question of how often the problems cited occur or wheth- abilities that impede their access to telephone services. As er the hearing impaired are attempting to use noted by GRI, there are issues of like importance for "non-essential" telephones because they lack knowledge persons with speech, vision and mobility impairments. regarding HAC regulations. Although our current hearing Some individuals have several disabilities. In addition, aid compatibility rules have been in effect for nearly four technological changes and different governments' actions years, SHHH argues there is no general awareness of their make these issues even more complex. Many of those existence and intent by the general public, including many favoring the formation of a committee recommend that members of the hearing impaired community. SHHH sug- the Commission establish a Federal Advisory Committee gests that greater efforts be extended by organizations on Telecommunications and the Disabled. Proposed mem- representing the hearing impaired and the Commission to bership should consist of representatives from the tele- educate the public on this matter. In other words, it phone industry, disabled consumers, state regulatory appears that it could be a lack of knowledge of the rules commissions, manufacturers of specialized customer prem- by those who must comply with them and those who are ises equipment, audiologists, rehabilitation engineers, and designed to benefit from them (and are in the best posi- Commission personnel. According to GRI, the commit- tion to know if they are being observed) that contributes tee's functions should include: to the rules being less effective than they should be. 62. To further advance access by the hearing impaired tracking and informing the Commission of develop- to telephone services, we request that commenters con- ments, including technological advances, that affect sider plans that they believe will achieve greater dissemi- access to telecommunications for disabled people; nation of information related to our rules. We also ask considering and debating policy options; advising on 1989 FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No. 7 development of regulations: recommending the cre- other) groups to coordinate the development of consensus ation of ad hoc working groups outside the FCC: proposals to facilitate Commission consideration for fur- [andl defining research needs. ther action. 71. As is noted above, NARUC specifically requested Gallaudet Research Institute Comments, pp. 8-9. that a further NOI be initiated to consider implementation 66. According to some proponents, there exist two or- of an interstate TDD system. We have asked that inter- ganizations, Future of Induction Technology (FIT) and ested parties submit specific proposals in this next stage of Telecommunications for Hearing Impaired Consumers Fo- our inquiry. As explained above, many details will have to rum (THIC), that could serve as the nucleus of the pro- be considered, such as the extent of the need for such a posed committee. Each of 'these organization's system, the costs of operating it, the financial scheme to membership is composed of the representatives of interests make it viable, qualifications for use, regulations pertain- deemed essential for successful operation. According to ing to its operation and the Commission's role. SHHH, FIT brings together members of the hearing aid 72. We encourage the parties to discuss the matters and telephone industries, government, consumers and oth- raised herein among themselves before comments are filed ers to investigate any technology that gives the promise of so that effective and efficient means are. identified to providing greater accessibility to the consumer. MPC de- enhance access by the disabled to telecommunications scribes THIC as a forum that has met semi-annually for equipment and services. To aid in this regard, we are more than a decade for consultative and information ex- including the mailing addresses of the commenters in this change purposes. Its membership is similar in composition proceeding. Greater interaction among interested parties, to FIT. USTA urges that any committee formed should such as those participating in this proceeding, is likely to have a defined organizational time frame, a balanced enhance access by the disabled. membership and meet the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.S. Appx. 2. 67. EIA details its involvement in matters leading to CONCLUSION services for the hearing impaired and handicapped. How- 73. Although it is clear that the disabled do not have ever, at this juncture, it does not see the need for the the same access to telecommunications equipment and proposed committee. It implies that the Commission's ob- services enjoyed by others in society, identifying effective jective could be achieved by merger of FIT and THIC remedial measures is a difficult matter. Section 610 of the (EIA being an active member of both) on a coequal basis. Communications Act and our implementing regulations 68. In their reply comments, NYNEX (New York Tele- are an attempt to assist one segment of the disabled - the phone Company and New England Telephone and Tele- hearing impaired. We believe the fairest reading of the graph Company) oppose the idea of creating a committee Congressional history of Section 610 is that it is a careful under the auspices of ECSA. ECSA, they indicate, does balance of a number of competing interests, and that not deal with issues related to the subject matter. Al- changes in our rules should not be made unless we are though NYNEX is not-opposed to formation of a commit- confident, on the basis of a careful cost/benefit analysis, tee if operated under some other entity, it feels the issues that the changes would be effective and efficient. Upon raised are being resolved with consumer premises equip- preliminary analysis two proposals --requiring all credit ment and normal telephone calls. Therefore, the need for card telephones to be hearing aid compatible and expand- the committee is not that great. ing hearing aid compatible workplace telephones to in- 69. PTC concludes that the charter of any committee clude telephones in common areas the hearing impaired formed should not include questions regarding pay tele- are likely to access in the ordinary course of their employ- phone modifications. However, should such issues be for- ment - seem to offer benefits that outweigh likely costs. warded to a committee, PTC would be a willing We are unable to make that finding with respect to the participate. Other parties filing replies think the idea has various proposals before us on the basis of the comments wide support and recommend that the Commission estab- filed to date. Therefore, we seek further comment on what lish a committee.2s additional steps are appropriate. 70. Analysis. The commenters generally agree that some 74. Accordingly. pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of sort of committee is appropriate. The comments vary, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, IT IS however, regarding what form that comMittee should take. ORDERED that a Further Notice of Inquiry and Notice Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law of Proposed Rule Making IS INSTITUTED. No. 92-463, (FACA), new advisory committees should be established only when they are determined to be essential and their functions cannot be performed by Commission INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS staff or by an existing committee. We cannot conclude at 75. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of this time that forming a committee pursuant to FACA is 1980. 5 U.S.C. § 601, the Commission issues the following essential. Rather, we believe that it would be more appro- initial regulatory fiexibitiy analysis: priate to seek comments from all interested parties. We note, however, that FIT and THIC are existing groups A. Action Contemplated and Reason for Action whose memberships include the type of representation 76. By this NPRM, the Commission seeks to elicit com- suggested by those commenters supporting establishment ment on a proposal to change its rules to provide the of a Commission-sponsored committee. There are indica- hearing impaired with greater access to telecommunica- tions the FIT and THIC have considered some of the tions services. issues pertinent to the disabled's access to telecommunica- tions services and equipment. We encourage these (or B. Objective 3 FCC Rcdl No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 77. The objective of this Rule Making is to fulfill the time which commences with the release of a public notice intent of Congress. that a matter has been placed on the Sunshine Agenda and terminates when the Commission (1) releases the text C. Legal Basis of a decision or order in the matter: (2) issues a public 78. The legal authority for this action is contained in notice stating that the matter has been deleted from the Sections 1 and 4(i) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. Sunshine Agenda: or (3)issues a public notice stating that § 151 and 154(i). the matter has been returned to the staff for further consideration, whichever occurs first. Section 1.1202(0. During the Sunshine Agenda period, no presentations, ex D. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small pare or Entities Affected. otherwise, are permitted unless specifically re- quested by Commission or staff for the clarification or 79. The effect of the proposed rules will depend upon adduction of evidence or the resolution of issues in the whether businesses and manufacturers currently are using proceeding. Section 1.1203. In general, an ex parte pre- hearing aid compatible telephones and what amount of sentation is any presentation directed to the merits or grandfathering they demonstrate is appropriate. The over- outcome of the proceeding made to decision-making per- all economic impact of the proposed rules should be sonnel which (1), if written, is not served on the parties to small. the proceeding, or (2), if oral. is made without advance notice to the parties to the proceeding and without op- E. Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance portunity for them to be present. Section 1.1202(b). Any Requirements. person who submits a written ex pane presentation must 80. No additional burdens anticipated. provide on the same day itis submitted a copy of same to the Commission's Secretary for inclusion in the public F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict record. Any person who makes an oral ex pare presenta- with these Proposed Rules tion that presents data or arguments not already reflected in that person's previously-filed written comments, 81. None. memo- randa, or filings in the proceeding must provide on the day of the oral presentation a written memorandum to the G. Any Significant Alternatives to Minimize the Impact Secretary (with a copy to the Commissioner or staff mem- on Small Entities. ber involved) which summarizes the data and arguments. 82. None. Each ex pare presentation described above must state on its face that the Secretary has been served, and must also state by docket number the proceeding to which it relates. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Section 1.1206. 83. In accordance with the applicable procedures set 86. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexi- forth in Section 1.415 of the Commission's Rules, 47 bility Act, we have prepared an initial regulatory flexibility C.F.R. § 1.415, interested parties may file comments on or analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact of these proposed before July 26, 1988, and reply comments on or before policies and rules on small entities. Written comments are September 9. 1988. All relevant and timely comments will requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in be considered by the Commission before final action is accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on taken in this proceeding. In reaching its decision, the the rest of the Notice, but they must have a separate and Commission may take into consideration information and distinct heading designating them as responses to the regu- ideas not contained in the comments, provided that such latory flexibility analysis. information or a writing indicating the nature and source 87. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in of such information is placed in the public file and pro- Sections I and 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as vided that the Commission's reliance on such information amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 and 154(i), IT IS PROPOSED is noted in the Report and Order. that the amendments to Part 68 of the Commission's rules 84. Interested parties shall file an original and 5 copies set forth in Appendix A be adopted. of all comments, replies, or other documents. Participants 88. The Secretary shall cause a copy of this Notice, wishing each Commissioner to have a personal copy of including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to be their comments should file an original and 11 copies. sent to the Chief Counsel for advocacy of the Small Members of the public who wish to express their interest Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) by participating informally in the Rule Making proceeding of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 603(a) (1981). may do so by submitting one copy of the comments The Secretary shall also cause a summary of this Notice to provided that the docket number is specified in the head- appear in the Federal Register. ing. All filings in this proceeding will be available for public inspection by interested persons during regular FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION business hours in the Commission's Public Reference Room at its headquarters. 1919 M Street, N.W., Washing- ton, D.C. For general information on how to file com- ments, parties should contact the FCC Consumer Assistance and Information Division at (202) 632-7000. H. Walker Feaster, III 85. For purposes of this non-restricted notice and com- ment Rule Making proceeding, members of the public are Acting Secretary advised that ex pare presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda period. See generaly Section 1.1206(a). The Sunshine Agenda period is the period of FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No. 7 FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Rcd No.7 APPENDIX A Information and Telecommunications Section 68.112 is amended by revising current para- Technologies Group, User Premises Equipment graphs (c)(l) and (c)(2) to read as follows: Division 2001 Eye Street, N.W. § 68.112. Hearing aid-compatibility Washington, DC 20006 Exchange Carriers Standards Association. Standards Committee T-I (c) Telephones frequently needed by the hearing im- Bell Communications Research paired. 331 Newman Springs Road Red Bank, NJ 07701 (1) Any telephone for which calls may only be paid for by credit card or other pre-arranged credit. Gallaudet Research Institute (2) Any telephone made available at the work sta- 800 Florida Avenue, N.E. tion or in common areas used by a hearing impaired Washington, DC 20002 employee for use by that employee in his or her employment duty. An employee's "work station" is Gallaudet University defined as the location within a workplace where 800 Florida Avenue, N.E. that employee is usually found in the course of his Washington. DC 20002 or her employment duties. "Common areas used by a hearing impaired employee" include libraries, re- ception areas and other similar locations the em- GTE Service Corporation ployee may need to .access in the course of his or 1850 M Street, N.W. her employment duties. Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036 Hearing Industries Association APPENDIX B 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Parties FIling Comments Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf Maryland's People Counsel: Hearing and Speech Agency of Metropolitan Baltimore, Inc.; Maryland Department of 3417 Volta Place Health and Mental Hygiene; Maryland Governor's Com- Washington, D.C. 20007-2778 mission on Hearing Impairments; Maryland Governor's Office for Handicapped Individuals; National Center for American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Law and the Deaf; Organization of Use of the Telephone, 10801 Rockville Pike Inc.; and Telecommunications Exchange for the Deaf, Inc. Rockville, MD 20850 American Building, Ninth Floor 231 East Baltimore Street American Telephone and Telegraph Company Baltimore, MD 21202 295 North Maple Avenue Basking Ridge, NJ 07290 Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, Ameritech Operating Companies Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, 30 South Wacker Drive and Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Chicago, IL 60606 1020 19th Street, N.W. Suite 700 Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies Washington, DC 20036 1710 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Bell South Corporation, 1102 ICC Building South Central Bell Telephone Company, P.O. Box 684 and Southern Bell Telephone and Washington, D.C. 20044 Telegraph Company 4300 Southern Bell Center New York State Department of Public Service 675 West Peachtree St., N.E. Three Empire State Plaza Atlanta, GA 30375 Albany, NY 12223 Electronic Industries Association, 3 FCC Rcd No. 7 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 88-123 Pacific Bell 120 Bloomingdale Road 444 North Capitol Street. N.W. White Plains. NY 10605 Suite 718 Washington. DC 20001 Pacific Bell Public Telephone Council People of the State of California Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California United States Architectural and 505 Van Ness Avenue Transportation Barriers Compliance Board San Francisco, CA 94102 330 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20202 Public Telephone Council c/o Pierson, Ball & Dowd 1200 18th Street, N.W. FOOTNOTES Washington, DC 20036 Access to Telecommunications Equipment by the Hearing Impaired and Other Disable Persons, Order, CC Docket No. 83-427, 49 Fed. Reg. 1352 (January 11, 1984), modified. 49 Fed. Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc. Reg. 19666 (May 9, 1984). further modified. FCC 84-382 (released 7800 Wisconsin Avenue August 13, 1984). and 47 C.F.R. Part 64, subpart F, Sections 68.4, Bethesda, MD 20814 68.112. 68.224 and 68.316. The Disabled Act is codified at 47 U.S.C. 1 610. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Public Law No. 98-549, redesignated the Disabled Act as Section 1010 Pine Street, Rm. 2305 710. but did not add a new Section 610. We will continue to refer to the Disabled Act as Section 610 to be consistent with other St. Louis, MO 63101 references in this Docket. 2 "Essential Telephones" include only coin-operated telephones, United Telephone System Companies telephones provided for emergency use, and other telephones 1875 Eye Street, N.W. frequently needed for use by persons using hearing aids specially Suite 1250 designed for telephone use. 47 U.S.C. § 610(b). Washington, DC 20006 3 Most external hearing aids have a built-in telephone pick-up. or "telecoil." which is activated by a switch on the hearing aid. United States Telephone Association When this switch is placed in the "telephone" position, the micro- phone is turned off and the 900 19th Street, N.W. hearing aid can be used at full volume without feedback and with minimal background noise. Suite 800 These hearing aids are activated by the magnetic field generated Washington, DC 20006-2102 by telephone handsets. In-the-ear hearing aids generally rely on audio amplification rather than electromagnetic coupling (and a U.S. Spring Communications Company telecoil) to provide the wearer with telephone access. Unless 1850 M Street, N.W. otherwise indicated, references to hearing aid compatible tele- phones refer to equipment Suite 1110 which is compatible with a telecoil type hearing aid. See House Report No. 97-888, 97th Cong. 2d Washington. DC 20036 Sets., at p.8 (House Report). ' SeeTelecommunications Services for the Deaf and Hearing Parties Filing Reply Comments Impaired. Notice of Inquiry. CC Docket No. 78-50. 67 FCC 2d American Telephone & Telegraph Company 1602 (1978). terminated FCC 83-177 (released May 3, 1983) and Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies CC Docket No. 83-427, note I, supra. GTE Service Corporation 52 FCC Rcd 2836 (1987); 52 Fed. Reg. 19198 (May 21. 1987). 6 The House Report accompanying the Disabled Act stated: MCI Telecommunications Corporation 1133 19th Street, N.W. The reported bill does not require all telephones to be Washington, DC 20036 compatible with hearing aids. Rather, the bill preserves consumer choice while ensuring that the needs of the Maryland's People Counsel: Hearing and Speech Agency hearing impaired are fully served. The legislation focuses of Metropolitan Baltimore, Inc.; Maryland Department of on those "essential telephones" to which the hearing im- Health and Mental Hygiene; Maryland Governor's Com- paired must have access if they are to function effectively mission on Hearing Impairments; Maryland Governor's in modern society. Companies are free to manufacture and Office for Handicapped Individuals; National Center for to market non-compatible telephones, and businesses and Law and the Deaf, Organization of Use of the Telephone, consumers may purchase these instrumentsfor use by per- Inc.; and Telecommunications Exchange for the Deaf, Inc. sons who do not have hearing impairments. NYNEX Telephone Companies House Report at p. 9. Seealso infra paras. 20-21. (New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company) 1993 FCC 88-123 Federal Communications Commission Record 3 FCC Red No. 7 7 Comments were received from telephone common carriers, character. This signal is passed over the telephone network via a state public utility commissions, equipment manufacturers. or- voice circuit. Connection to the network generally is implemented ganizations representing persons with impaired hearing and other through audio coupling via a telephone handset. disabilities (Appendix B). 19A number of telephone companies disclose that they provide 8 Maryland People's Counsel submitted comments on behalf of an array of devices beyond TDDs designed to assist the disabled itself and the Hearing and Speech Agency of Metropolitan Bal- to communicate via the telephone. Some of the products available timore. Inc.. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hy- include hands-free speakerphones. amplifier-handsets, artificial giene. Maryland Governor's Commission on Hearing larynxes, automatic dialers, different types of signaling devices Impairments, Maryland Governor's Office for Handicapped In- and special equipment arrangements to meet the needs of mobil- dividuals, National Center for Law and the Deaf, Organization for ity impaired individuals. The record shows that a number of Use of the Telephone, Inc. and TelecommunicationsExchange for states have established programs which provide disabled in- the Deaf, Inc. (hereinafter jointly referred to as MPC). dividuals needed equipment to use the telephone network. In 9 Final Report, Disabled Consumers: An Exploratory Opinion many cases users are given free instructionson using the devices. Survey. Joint Telecommunications Project of the Consumer Fed- Users of this equipment either receive the equipment for free or eration of America. The American Association of Retired Persons incur a very minimal charge. Generally, these programs are subsi- and American Telephone and Telegraph, Inc. January 1987 dized through a surcharge levied on ratepayers or local telephone (Report). The Report notes the study "was limited in scope and companies. not intended to be generalizable to the population as a whole. 20 Manned relay service enables speech or hearing impaired The study examined the opinions of persons from three categories TDD users to communicate with voice telephone users. The of disabling conditions: hearing impairment (43 interviewsl, visual service is accessed via telephone by either a TDD or voice impairment [25 interviews], and mobility impairment (33 telephone user. The caller speaks to or types a call request to a interviews]". Report, Summaryp. I. translator who is equipped with a special video display system. to Report at p. 8. Using this equipment, the translator translates the typed or voice 11Report at p. 13. message from one medium to the other, and completes the call to 12 House Report, note 6;supra, at p. 9. the called party. AT&T Comments, p. 11. 2i See i3 "In any Rule Making to implement the provisions of this , e. g., Rural Telephone Coalition v. FCC, No. 84-1110, slip op. at 15-19 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 5, 1988). Section, the Commission shall specifically consider the costs and 22See par. 14,supra. benefits to all telephone users, including persons with and with- 23 For the same reasons we are unable out hearing impairments. The Commission shall ensure that regu- to find that the other lations adopted to implement this Section encourage the use of proposals, such as changing technical performance standards will currently available technology and do not discourage or impair effectively improve access by the hearing impaired. This issue is the development of improved technology." Section 610(e) of the best left to consensus recommendations by affected parties. See Disabled Act. further NOI, infra. 14 See infra para. 41 et.,seq. 24 PTC states that the cost per new amplifier handset is as much Is The idea of greater dissemination of information to improve as S85.00 and retrofitting existing units would range between hearing impaired access to telephone services is also supported by $20.00 and S30.00 per telephone. That cost is likely to rise Gallaudet Research Institute, among others. because these units are frequently vandalized. t Section 610(b) of the Disabled Act reads: 25 AT&T, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies. MPC. GTE, Pacific Bell and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. (TIhe Commission shall require that essential telephones provide internal means for effective use with hearing aids that are specifically designed for telephone use. For pur- poses of this subsection, the term "essential telephones" means only coin-operated telephones, telephones provided for emergency use. and other telephones frequently needed for use by persons using such hearing aids. i7 United Telephone System Companies state they do not op- pose universal hearingaid compatibility after a certain date. In fact, these companies say they have been purchasing and using only hearing aid compatible telephones since 1984. The New York State Department of Public Service supports a universal hearing aid compatibility requirement if the Commission finds the additional manufacturingcost in fact is de minimus as claimed by some parties. Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf also supports this idea. It offers this support because it believes there always will be a segment of the hearing impaired population whose hearing deficiency will be such that a telecoil equipped hearing aid will be necessary in order for them to use a tele- phone. is The term TDD generally refers to a typewriter style device equipped with a message display (screen). This device generates from the keyboard a coded signal corresponding to the typed