BEFORE THE 

Federal Communications Commission 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20554 

In the Matter of              
                         
IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 255 OF THE    
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996           
                         
ACCESS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,  
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT,      
AND CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT    
BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES        

WT Docket No. 96- 198

COMMENTS OF SIEMENS BUSINESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

Scott E. Wollaston
Vice President & General Counsel
SIEMENS BUSINESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
Old Ironsides Drive
P. O. Box 58075 M/ S 103
Santa Clara, CA 95052- 8075 (202) 383- 0100 

Randolph J. May
Timothy J. Cooney
SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP 4900
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20004-2404

June 30, 1998 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUMMARY

I. The Commission Should Adopt Flexible Guidelines Rather than Rigid Rules

II. To Encourage Innovations In Access Solutions As Well As To Provide Some
Assurance  of Compliance To Manufacturers, the Commission Should Establish a
Voluntary Mechanism to Assess a Product s Compliance Before the Manufacturer
Brings the Product to Market

III. The Readily Achievable Assessment Should Be Based Not On Whether
Specific Product Features Are Incorporated, But On The Effectiveness of
The Proposed Solution For Delivering Access

IV. In Evaluating A Product s Accessibility, The Commission Should Weigh The
Manufacturer s Customer Support Equally With The Product Features

V. Responsibility For Ensuring The Compatibility of CPE With Adaptive
Technology Must Be Shared By All Involved Parties

VI. Siemens Supports the Use of Organizations such as AAES In Developing
Broad Based Understanding and Commonly Held Expectations Among All Parties
As Well As In Providing the Commission Non- Binding Guidance In Complaint
Proceedings

VII. The FCC Should Define a Process for International Harmonization of
Disability Access Issues

VIII. The Commission Should Not Adopt The Access Board's Guideline For
Telephone Handset Volume Control

IX. CONCLUSION

SUMMARY 

As a manufacturer of telecommunications and customer premises equipment
(CPE), Siemens has a longstanding interest in facilitating access to the
telecommunications network by all of its customers and has devoted
significant attention to disability access issues for many years. Among
other things, Siemens has been a leading advocate for and participant in the
founding of The Association of Access Engineering Specialists (AAES). 

Siemens strongly supports the Commission s expressed end goal in this
proceeding: ensuring that consumers with disabilities have access to
telecommunications services and equipment. The Commission can achieve this
goal best by promoting technological flexibility and encouraging research
and innovation that will lead to improved access features. 

The Commission should perform its own independent and thorough analysis
before adopting any of the Access Board s guidelines. In particular, the
Commission should not adopt Access Board guideline Section 1193.43( e)
requiring telephone handsets to have volume control adjustable up to a
minimum of 20 dB. The data supporting this guideline has been refuted by
tests conducted by Siemens engineers, the results of which are summarized in
the appendix to these Comments. The Commission, therefore, should not adopt
Section 1193.43( e) -- or for that matter, any other Access Board guideline
-- without conducting its own independent analysis. 

To encourage innovations in access solutions, the Commission should
establish a voluntary mechanism by which manufacturers can obtain pre-
marketing assurance that they will not be subject to sanctions or damages
for new product designs. The Commission s current proposal to determine
Section 255 compliance depending entirely upon whether complaints are filed
does not provide sufficient incentives for manufacturers to incorporate
innovative access designs into their products. 

The Commission should not use its scarce resources to evaluate whether the
incorporation of any particular telecommunications accessibility feature is
readily achievable. Rather, the Commission should focus its analysis on the
manufacturer s total proposed access solution, including customer sales,
service and support. Indeed, Siemens supports the Commission s proposal to
evaluate a product s accessibility not only in terms of the equipment itself
but also of ancillary support services such as consumer information and
documentation. 

Siemens urges the Commission to ensure that the responsibility for the
compatibility of CPE with peripheral devices and specialized CPE (adaptive
technology) is shared by both the manufacturers of CPE and the suppliers of
adaptive technology. The lack of standard interfaces used by suppliers of
adaptive technology stands as one of the largest impediments to achieving
successful compatibility results. The Commission s staff has taken a
leadership role in the efforts to achieve hearing aid compatibility with
digital wireless handsets and should undertake a similar role with regard to
the compatibility of adaptive technology. 

The Commission long has relied on voluntary standards organizations such as
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in developing its technical regulations.
Siemens recommends that in implementing Section 225 the FCC similarly rely
on consensus industry standards and utilize existing broadbased access
engineering organizations such as AAES for advice in resolving disability
access complaints. 

The FCC also should define a process for international harmonization of
disability access issues. The European Community already has initiated
efforts to address disability access issues. Siemens recommends that the
Commission develop a process by which the EC efforts and the Commission s
own efforts may converge to establish parallel disability access
requirements and criteria similar to the Commission s proposal in GEN Docket
No. 98- 68 to implement the Mutual Recognition Agreement relating to
equipment authorizations. 

BEFORE THE 

Federal Communications Commission 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20554 

In the Matter of              
                         
IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 255 OF THE    
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996          
                         
ACCESS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,  
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT,      
AND CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT         
BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
          
WT Docket No. 96-198

COMMENTS OF SIEMENS BUSINESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc. (Siemens), by its attorneys,
hereby files these comments in response to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 98- 55, issued in the above- captioned docket (NPRM).
Siemens appreciates this opportunity to provide the FCC with comments on the
implementation of Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(" the Act"), 47 U. S. C.   255. 

As a manufacturer of telecommunications and customer premises equipment
(CPE), Siemens has a longstanding interest in facilitating access to the
telecommunications network by all of its customers and has devoted
significant attention to disability access issues for many years. For
example, Siemens, as co- chair, has led the way in establishing the ANSI
C63.19 standard for wireless hearing aid compatibility. Meetings held in
Copenhagen last month with the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) demonstrate the international recognition of that effort and promise
to open the way for international harmonization. Siemens continued
commitment to this issue also is demonstrated through its membership on the
Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee (TAAC) to the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (" Access Board"), on which it held
a co-chair on the compliance sub-committee. Early in the TAAC process, the
Siemens Desktop Products Division voluntarily instituted a process of
accessibility planning with every new product development project. This
process is based upon a customization of the Electronic Industries
Foundation (EIF) guidelines. As a result, Siemens has a substantial history
of incorporating accessibility considerations in its products. 

Subsequent to the TAAC, Siemens has been a leading advocate for and
participant in the founding of The Association of Access Engineering
Specialists (AAES). It is our belief that this organization holds great
promise as it pursues its efforts to develop the discipline of
telecommunications access and provides a neutral setting for all parties to
seek common understanding of the issues involved. In all these efforts
Siemens has enjoyed an active dialogue and collegial working relationship
with advocates for the disabled, manufacturers of adaptive technology,
regulators and researchers in related fields. This participation has given
Siemens an understanding of the issues involved in ensuring that
telecommunications services are accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities. 

Siemens filed comments in response to the Notice of Inquiry, FCC 96- 382, 11
FCC Rcd 19152 (1996), that initiated this proceeding and submitted the
following recommendations: 

* The Commission should adopt flexible guidelines, rather than rigid rules. 

* The Commission should establish clear guidelines by which a
manufacturers' compliance with Section 255 of the Communications Act would
be judged. 

* The Commission should rely on consensus engineering standards and should
consider establishment of a joint industry- consumer advisory board. 

Siemens continues to urge the Commission to follow these recommendations.
These issues and others raised by the NPRM are addressed below. 

I. The Commission Should Adopt Flexible Guidelines Rather than Rigid Rules 

Siemens observes and applauds the very evident care which the Commission and
its staff have invested in drafting the NPRM and in their continuing efforts
in support of disability access. Siemens expressly endorses the objective
stated by the Commission in paragraph 3 of the NPRM: 

First and foremost, we must never lose sight of the end goal, which is
ensuring that consumers with disabilities have access to telecommunications
services and equipment. In Siemens view, the Commission's end goal is best
achieved by promoting technological flexibility and encouraging research and
innovation that will lead to improved access features. Rigid rules should be
avoided because, by their very nature, they can define only a minimum level
of performance and often inhibit further innovation. Moreover, in the
rapidly changing field of telecommunications, rules that are tied to
specific types of technology or access features soon may become outmoded.
Indeed, Siemens had opposed the Access Board's action adopting guidelines
that are written in mandatory terms because such guidelines reduce rather
than promote manufacturers' incentives to develop innovative access
disability solutions. Contrary to the Access Board's expressed intent, the
guidelines it adopted can be interpreted to be rigid rules which do not
provide manufacturers sufficient flexibility to achieve disability access
design solutions that are both feasible and useable. Siemens supports the
Commission's tentative conclusion (NPRM at para 30) that it has discretion
regarding the use of the Access Board guidelines in developing its own
comprehensive implementation scheme under Section 255 of the Act. Siemens
notes, however, that despite acknowledging its own discretion, the
Commission several times states that it proposes to "adopt" the Access
Board's guidelines without revision. See, e. g., NPRM at paras 73- 75. The
Commission should not adopt any of the Access Board s guidelines without
its own independent and thorough analysis. In particular, the Commission
should clarify that it does not intend to adopt any of the mandatory
language of the Access Board guidelines and should confirm that
manufacturers are allowed to undertake innovative access design initiatives. 

II. To Encourage Innovations In Access Solutions As Well As To Provide Some
Assurance of Compliance To Manufacturers, the Commission Should Establish a
Voluntary Mechanism to Assess a Product s Compliance Before the Manufacturer
Brings the Product to Market 

Under the Commission s proposed Section 255 enforcement procedures, when a
manufacturer designs a new product it should make good faith efforts to
comply with Section 255 by undertaking some or all of the self- assessment,
outreach and other measures summarized in paragraph 165 of the NPRM. The
Commission, however, does not propose any means by which a manufacturer can
obtain pre- marketing assurance that its product actually is Section 255
compliant. The sole means by which a manufacturer can determine its
compliance is the absence of complaints after the product has reached end
users. 

In effect, a manufacturer of CPE is forced to wait to determine if it is
compliant until the product hits the market and after all the up- front
design, fabrication and product distribution costs been incurred. Moreover,
because new innovations typically have weaknesses, particularly in their
early embodiments, manufacturers will be reluctant to introduce new access
designs if they face potential sanctions under the Commission s complaint
procedures. The Commission s proposed wait and see regulatory structure
imposes a clear disincentive for manufacturers to incorporate innovative
designs and innovative access features into their products. This is
counterproductive to the Commission s end goal of promoting greater access
by consumers with disabilities to telecommunications. Without a mechanism by
which manufacturers can obtain some assurance that they will not be subject
to sanctions or damages for new product designs, therefore, they will be
discouraged from using any significant variations from the access methods of
the past. 

Siemens recommends that the Commission establish a mechanism by which a
manufacturer voluntarily may obtain a pre- marketing assessment of a new
product s compliance by submitting to the Commission (or a designated body
with disability access expertise) the manufacturer s product specifications
and company access support processes. Product designers require clear and
objective specifications in order to design access features into new
products, and these specifications could be submitted for pre- marketing
evaluation. Similarly, documentation of company procedures can be submitted
for evaluation to assure that new products are delivered to customers with
the sales, service and support required for the products effective use. A
manufacturer should be allowed on a voluntary basis to submit these product 

specifications and company processes for compliance assessment before the
product is brought to market. Although the Commission may not be able to
provide a manufacturer a binding certification that compliance has been
attained, the Commission at least should be able to provide the manufacturer
with assurance that it will not be subject to penalties and enforcement
actions for new innovative access designs that have passed voluntary pre-
marketing review. The establishment of such a voluntary pre- marketing
program may provide manufacturers with the incentive to develop and
implement new and innovative access specifications. Moreover, the
information voluntarily provided to the Commission ultimately will help the
Commission build a body of knowledge that will assist it in formulating
standards to evaluate Section 255 compliance. 

III. The  Readily Achievable  Assessment Should Be Based Not On Whether
Specific Product  Features  Are Incorporated, But On The Effectiveness of
The Proposed Solution For Delivering Access 

The Commission proposes to establish a three- part standard for determining
whether a particular telecommunications accessibility feature is readily
achievable.  NPRM at para. 100. Siemens urges the Commission to reconsider
the underlying premise of its proposal. The Commission should not be using
its scarce resources to evaluate whether the incorporation of any particular
telecommunications accessibility feature is readily achievable,  but
should focus its analysis on the manufacturer s total proposed access
solution. 

By calling attention to specific access features in isolation from a
manufacturer s overall system for accessibility, the Commission may lead
both manufacturers and end users down the wrong path. For example, a
manufacturer may design a product that incorporates a number of features
deemed by the Commission to be readily achievable,  but the product may
remain inaccessible because customer sales, service and support functions
are lacking. Alternatively, a manufacturer may concentrate on incorporating
into a single piece of equipment so many isolated features that have been
designated readily achievable by the Commission that the manufacturer
fails to ensure that the numerous features compatibly may be used together
by individuals with disabilities. 

Similarly, end users inappropriately may focus on whether a product has a
specific feature that the Commission found readily achievable in another
context. The more suitable question for an end user is not why a product
lacks a specific feature but how is the product designed to be used by
individuals with certain disabilities. Indeed, the Commission should return
a complaint which is based primarily on the absence of a specified product
feature and ask the complainant to clarify whether there is a lack of
accessibility taking into account the entirety of the manufacturer's system. 

For example, an appropriate assessment would take a system approach like
the following: 

* What set of features and processes would be required to deliver the
desired access? 

* Would the system proposed in fact have the desired access? 

* Is the desired access feasible? 

* What would be the expense of providing the desired access? 

* Given its expense, is the desired access practical? The system approach
described above immediately leads to the question of effectiveness, which
the feature approach does not necessarily do. Using the access functions
summarized in para. 74 of the NPRM, an evaluation can be made of what
combination of functions and processes are required to make a product
accessible to individuals with certain disabilities. Such system approach
is more likely than the proposed feature approach to produce both a set of
features and a process that results in end user products that are
accessible. 

IV. In Evaluating A Product s Accessibility, The Commission Should Weigh The
Manufacturer s Customer Support Equally With The Product Features 

Siemens supports the Commission s proposal, NPRM at para. 75, that the
evaluation of whether a provider has satisfied its accessibility obligations
should include not only use of the equipment itself but also support
services (such as consumer information and documentation).  The Commission
s proposal to weigh support services equally with product features in its 
evaluation is consistent with the system approach recommended by Siemens
in the preceding section. Siemens has learned from its dialogue with
representatives of individuals with disabilities that historically many
problems of accessibility arise not from the lack of product features but
rather from deficiencies in the sales, service or support of the product. 

For that reason, Siemens recommends that improvements in product delivery,
education and customer support be counted equally with the addition of
product features in assessing accessibility and what is readily achievable.
A focus on all the components of a product system, including all forms of
customer support, rather than just on isolated product features will better
promote the Commission's end goal of increased accessibility. 

V. Responsibility For Ensuring The Compatibility of CPE With Adaptive
Technology Must Be Shared By All Involved Parties 

The obligation to make telecommunications services and equipment compatible
with adaptive technology is established under Section 255( d): 

Whenever the requirements [concerning the accessibility of (b)
telecommunications equipment and CPE and (c) services] are not readily
achievable, such 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. (Emphasis supplied). 

Manufacturers responsibilities under Section 255 (d) can be narrowly
construed to require compatibility only with peripheral devices and
specialized customer premises equipment (collectively, adaptive devices)
that are both existing as of the date of the statute s enactment (February
8, 1996) and that are commonly used.  Under this reading of the statute,
the responsibility for compatibility arguably may fall solely on the
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and CPE and not on the
supplier of adaptive devices, but the manufacturers are not responsible for
compatibility with any post- 1996 adaptive technology or any pre- existing
adaptive technology that is not commonly used. Unless the statute is
implemented properly, a vicious circle can emerge whereby advancements in
adaptive technology are not incorporated into products because the suppliers
of existing adaptive technology do not utilize standard interfaces and their
technology never becomes commonly used so as to trigger the CPE
manufacturers obligations under Section 255( d). In response to this
potential scenario, Siemens supports the Commission s tentative conclusion,
NPRM at para. 92, that this is an area where the establishment of
cooperative processes (such as negotiated rulemakings) involving all
interested entities, including industry and consumer groups, CPE
manufacturers, telecommunication service providers and regulators, would
prove useful. For example, Siemens has been extensively involved in the
efforts to achieve hearing aid compatibility with digital wireless handsets.
Most participants find that this effort, while not yet complete, has been
very successful in identifying the relevant issues and establishing
cooperative efforts to resolve them. This success is due in large part to
the Commission s own effort of convening a summit hearing in which
representatives of all interested sectors voluntarily participated. Indeed,
the Hearing Industry Association and its member companies have been full
partners with the wireless handset manufacturers through the standard
setting process. This partnership and the cooperation it has engendered is
critical to the efforts to achieve an effective hearing aid compatibility
solution for wireless handsets. 

The leadership the Commission exhibited in bringing the hearing aid and
wireless handset industries together should be brought to bear on the
Section 255 compatibility issue also. Otherwise, CPE manufacturers and
suppliers of adaptive devices could become adversaries rather than partners
with a common goal. Here again, Siemens advocates a system approach rather
than focusing on specific compatibility features. For example, a requirement
to incorporate specified compatibility features in telecommunications
equipment will bring negligible benefits to consumers with disabilities if
there is no corresponding commitment from the suppliers of adaptive
technology to utilize those features. Indeed, the lack of standard
interfaces used by suppliers of adaptive technology stands as one of the
largest impediments to achieving successful compatibility results. Placing
the burden solely on manufacturers of telecommunications and CPE to
incorporate into their products all interfaces that potentially may be
designed by suppliers of adaptive technology is neither realistic nor
reasonable. Siemens urges the Commission once again to take a leadership
role in bringing together manufacturers of CPE, suppliers of adaptive
technology, and individuals with disabilities to achieve consensus
solutions. 

VI. Siemens Supports the Use of Organizations such as AAES In Developing
Broad Based Understanding and Commonly Held Expectations Among All Parties
As Well As In Providing the Commission Non- Binding Guidance In Complaint
Proceedings 

The Commission long has relied on voluntary standards organizations such as
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in developing its technical regulations. The
Commission also has made use of the expertise of outside groups in
evaluating questions related to assessment of compliance, such as the ANSI
C63 sub- committee which advises, when requested, on how testing for Part 15
compliance should be conducted. Siemens recommends that in implementing
Section 255 the FCC similarly rely on consensus industry standards and
utilize existing broad- based access engineering organizations for advice in
resolving disability access complaints. 

One consensus- building organization the Commission should consider working
with is the Association of Access Engineering Specialists (AAES). AAES was
founded to foster the continuing development of the field of
telecommunications access, promote related education and outreach efforts,
and encourage dialogue among all affected parties with the purpose of
constructing consensus solutions to access issues. 

The concept for AAES was developed during the deliberations of the
Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee (TAAC), which was convened by
the Access Board. A number of the participants felt that there was a need to
establish a neutral coordination point, where all affected parties could
meet and develop the field of telecommunications access. Because many
disciplines, interests and viewpoints must be involved if disability access
to telecommunications is to be effectively developed, AAES is actively
exploring ways in which it can effectively partner with all involved
organizations. AAES is filing separate comments in which it will describe
its history, organization and mission. Siemens recommends that the
Commission utilize the expertise of inclusive organizations such as AAES in
resolving Section 255 complaints. Siemens supports adoption of a process by
which the Commission will refer consumer inquiries and complaints for
informal resolution to the manufacturer or service provider concerned. If
the Commission provides the manufacturer a reasonable period of 30- 60 days
to engage in a dialogue with the consumer, many access complaints will be
able to be resolved amicably on an informal basis without significant
expenditure of Commission resources. For complaints not resolved informally
through direct contact between the manufacturer and the end user, the
Commission should consider granting itself the discretion to seek counsel
from broad- based organizations such as AAES. Although such advice would not
be binding upon the Commission, the advice could help provide benchmarks by
which the Commission better may judge the manufacturer s compliance with
Section 255. Siemens urges that the Commission explore this and other means
to avoid the delays and expenses associated with the Commission s
traditional formal complaint process. Siemens recommends, therefore, that
the Commission supplement its proposed informal complaint resolution process
with other means such as referrals to expert organizations for informal
guidance to aid in its resolution of the access problems of individuals. 

VII. The FCC Should Define a Process for International Harmonization of
Disability Access Issues 

Siemens recommends that the Commission establish in this proceeding clear
mechanisms by which the disability access requirements of Section 255 will
be harmonized with those of other countries and international trading areas.
The Commission already has initiated a separate rulemaking 1/ in which it
proposes to implement the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between the
United States and the European Community that is intended to harmonize the
testing and certification procedures for telecommunications products and
electronic equipment between the U. S. and the EC in order to promote
bilateral market access and competition. The Commission should establish a
parallel process by which the requirements of Section 255 will be harmonized
with the requirements of the MRA so that Section 225 requirements do not
effectively constitute a trade barrier that isolates the U. S. market for
telecommunications products from those of its international trading
partners. 

Indeed, substantial parallel efforts toward harmonization already are under
way in Europe, as documented in the recent report from the Technical
Regulations Applications Committee (TRAC) ad hoc group on Telecom for People
with Special Needs (TPSN), (Reference TRAC/ 29/ 09). The report notes that
in May 1997 the European Commission released a final draft of a proposal for
a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States concerning connected telecommunications equipment and
the mutual recognition of the conformity of the equipment. This draft
directive, also known as the CTE Directive, will replace the current
directives for terminal equipment (91/ 263/ EEC) and for satellite earth
stations (93/ 97/ EEC). 

Recital fourteen of the draft directive states that telecommunications is
important to the well being and employment of people with disabilities who
are substantial and growing proportion of the population of Europe.
Moreover, the Explanatory Memorandum for the draft CTE Directive expressly
recognizes that there is an international trend to extend requirements in
the area of features for users with disabilities and that the requirements
should call for a proportionate range of features according to the type of
equipment and the needs of different disability groups.[1] 

Because the EC clearly shares similar concerns for disability access issues
and has parallel efforts underway to address these issues, Siemens
recommends that the Commission develop a process by which the EC efforts
will converge with the Commission's own efforts to establish parallel
disability access criteria and requirements. 

According to Art. 3 of the draft, the essential requirements are divided
into general essential requirements (Art. 3( 1)) and specific essential
requirements (Art. 3( 2)). The general essential requirements are applicable
to all CTE types and consist of requirements contained in the LVD and EMC
Directive. The specific essential requirements applicable to each type of
CTE may be selected from the list given in Art. 3( 2). According to Art. 4(
1), the Commission shall identify the specific essential requirements; and
in selecting the applicable essential requirements, the Commission shall
give, where justified, due consideration to, among other issues, features
for users with disabilities. 

VIII. The Commission Should Not Adopt The Access Board's Guideline For
Telephone Handset Volume Control 

As discussed in Section I above, the Commission should not adopt any of the
Access Board's guidelines without its own independent and thorough analysis.
One Access Board guideline in particular that the Commission should not
adopt without independent analysis is Section 1193.43( e), 36 C. F. R.  
1193.43( e), concerning volume control of telephone handsets. That Section
reads as follows: 

Section 1193.43. 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: 

* * *

(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. 

This Access Board guideline for volume control with a minimum gain of 20 dB
is based on faulty technical premises. The Access Board accepted, without
adequate analysis, information submitted to it based upon a very narrow
product sampling of three telephone handsets. The derivation of general
conclusions for all telecommunications products from a test of only three
handsets is exceedingly perilous. The Access Board's guideline conflicts
with the telephone industry consensus that a 20 dB gain is not readily
achievable without special circuitry. Siemens' engineers tested the three
telephone handset models used in the tests cited in the Access Board's
commentary (63 Fed. Reg. 5621- 22 (February 3, 1998)), and found that
extending the mandatory volume control range to 20 dB or 25 dB could not be
justified based on the test results from these three handsets. Siemens
engineers found that two of the telephones became unstable (squealed) when
the handset was placed face down on a desktop or when placed on its cradle.
The third telephone, the one not subject to such feedback, employed DSP
circuitry not found in a typical telephone, had a noise problem, and did not
have 20 dB gain. The three telephones tested also had other characteristics
that indicate that they should not be the standard for general use
telephones. These characteristics, the evaluation criteria for the Siemens'
tests, and the test results themselves are summarized in the Appendix to
these comments. Because the data show the underlying Access Board's volume
control guideline is at best questionable, the Commission should not adopt
Section 1193.43( e) without its own independent analysis. 

IX. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Siemens urges the Commission to take actions
consistent with the recommendations expressed above. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SIEMENS BUSINESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 

____________________________________ 
Scott E. Wollaston Randolph J. May 

Vice President & General Counsel Timothy J. Cooney SIEMENS BUSINESS
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP 4900 Old
Ironsides Drive 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. P. O. Box 58075 M/ S 103
Washington, DC 20004- 2404 Santa Clara, CA 95052- 8075 (202) 383- 0100 

June 30, 1998 Its Attorneys 

INDEX 

Page 2 Introduction 2 Conclusions 3 Description of Telephones Tested 3
Evaluation Criteria 4 - 11 Test Results 

12 Test Setup 12 ROLR and SPL Discussion 13- 14 ANNEX A 

Text from Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines 15- 16 ANNEX B 

Text from FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking April 20, 1998 

INTRODUCTION: 

The Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines, Section 1193.43
paragraph (e) states that 

".. the proposed gain of 25 dB is not a problem for current telephone
technology." and that "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" This is in conflict
with telephone industry assertions that such a range is not easily
achievable without special circuitry. 

The complete text of section 1193.43 (e) is attached as Annex A of this
report. Also attached as Annex B is the relevant section of the FCC Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking released April 20, 1998. 

The same three manufacturers telephone models used as proof- of- achievable
in the Access Board guidelines were purchased and tested. The volume
controls were tested as well as other related parameters important for safe
and reliable operation. The samples are designated Sample "A", Sample "B"
and Sample "C" in this report. 

Both Sound Pressure Level (SPL) at 1 kHz and Receive Objective Loudness
Ratings (ROLR) were used to determine the volume control range. A discussion
of both methods is on page 12. 

CONCLUSIONS: 

Refer to EVALUATION CRITERIA (page 3) and TEST RESULTS (pages 4- 7) for
detailed results. 1. Extending the mandatory volume control range to 20 dB
or 25 dB should not be justified using these three telephones as a rational.
2. Stability (feedback) is a problem with increased volume. Two of the
telephones became unstable (" squealed") when the handset was placed face
down on a desktop, or when replacing it on cradle. One unit occasionally
became unstable when bringing the handset near the head. The one telephone
that did not feedback employed DSP circuitry not found in a typical
telephone, had a noise problem and did not have 20 dB gain. 

Stability becomes a bigger problem when manufacturing tolerances are
considered. The samples tested had less than nominal transmit level. TIA-
470B tolerances allow a 5 dB higher than nominal send level which would
directly take away from the stability margin. 

3. None of the telephones had a 25 dB volume control range. One telephone
had a 23 dB range but started out 6 dB quieter than the specification for a
nominal telephone. 

4. Two of the telephones require wall- warts (ac supplies) which may be
acceptable for a specialized telephone but not for general use telephones. 

5. Either Loudness (ROLR) or Sound Pressure Level (SPL) at 1 kHz may be used
to measure the volume control range as long as the shape of the frequency
response curve remains constant over the range. If the shape of the
frequency response curve changes then ROLR is a more accurate indicator. SPL
level at 1 kHz is not a good indicator of absolute loudness, however, since
it does not account for the frequency response of the handset (i. e., the
receiver could have a peak or dip at 1 kHz). In addition, the input circuit
and voltage must be specified for the SPL measurement to be usable. 

These telephones no doubt are useful to the hearing impaired but should not
be the standard for general use telephones. 

DESCRIPTION OF TELEPHONES TESTED: 

All three models tested were designed specifically for the hearing-
impaired. All models had extra large keys. All had memory dialing. None had
speakerphones. 

SAMPLE A

* This model uses a slide- potentiometer volume control. 

* A "Tone" control allows the frequency response of the received voice to be
changed. Testing was done using the middle position of this control. 

* There is also an "Outgoing Voice Volume" switch  the instruction book
states that when activated the transmit level is increased by 15 dB. 

SAMPLE B

* This design uses a 4 band Graphic Equalizer for a volume control. The
bands are centered on 600,1200,1800 and 2400 Hz. Each band has a labeled
gain range of 0 to +20 dB. 

* An "EQUALIZER" button enables the equalizer. The equalizer is reset to
"OFF" after each call. 

* Equalization, and probably acoustic echo control, are accomplished using
Digital Signal Processing functions. The DSP implementation does not allow
sine wave signals to pass to the receiver. DTMF tones, clearly heard at the
receiver in the unamplified mode, are reduced to chirps, clicks and pops
when the equalizer is used. Testing requires the use of special voice- like
test signals. A pulsed pink test signal, similar to that commonly used for
speakerphone testing, was used when the equalizer was enabled. 

SAMPLE C

* This telephone uses a slide potentiometer for the volume control. 

* In addition there is a "Clarity" switch which, when activated, causes the
receive signal to have a rising response starting around 300 Hz. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA: 

The following criteria were used to judge the tested units. The telephones
must pass the following requirements: 

1. The telephones must have 20 dB gain delta between default volume and
maximum volume. 2. The telephone must remain stable (no feedback or echo)
when placed on a desk or brought near the face. A common test is to place
the handset face down on a flat surface. 3. An external power supply is not
allowed. 4. The Receive and Send Loudness (ROLR, TOLR) should be within the
tolerances of TIA- 470B. 

The following are desirable features: 5. Receive Noise should meet telephone
industry requirements at default volume. 6. The telephone should return to
its unamplified state when returning on- hook so as not to hurt the ears of
a normal- hearing person.

TEST RESULTS: 

Using the criteria above, none of the telephones met requirements. 

SAMPLE A

* The handset was unstable and "squealed" when placed face down on the desk. 

* Requires an external AC supply. 

SAMPLE B 

* This telephone is stable (no "squealing").  Did not quite meet the 20 dB
criteria (is 18- 19 dB). 

* Is very noisy. 

* Requires an external AC supply. 

* Employs Special Circuitry that does not allow sine wave tones to pass when
the volume control (equalizer) is active. This includes DTMF tones and dial
tone. TDD and modem tones probably will not pass but this was not tested.
Tones are received when the equalizer is turned off. See Figure 11. 

SAMPLE C 

* The handset "squeals" when placed face- down on a table. Sometimes it also
squeals when bringing the handset near the ear. The owner's manual states: "
In addition, the high performance of this Clarity Power Control may cause
the handset to "squeal" or produce feedback if the handset is set down on a
hard surface during the course of a phone call." 

* This sample was 6 dB quieter than a nominal telephone when the volume
control was set in its minimum position. If this is typical of all units
then the actual volume control range would be effectively be reduced by 6 dB
compared to the other models tested. Although this telephone had the widest
volume control range it was 4 to 5 dB quieter than the other telephones at
the maximum position. 

* The volume control does not reset between calls. The owner's manual
states: "Important: Reset the Clarity Power Control to zero after every call
to protect other users of the telephone" 

* This is the only telephone that does not require an external power supply. 

Test results are summarized on the following page (Figure 1 and 2) 

PARAMETER SAMPLE A SAMPLE B SAMPLE C 

At least 20 dB volume control? YES NO (18- 19 dB) YES (Note 1) Stable at
Maximum Volume? NO YES NO Works without External Power Supply? NO NO YES
Meets Receive Loudness Requirement? (Set to minimum volume) YES YES NO 

(6 dB quiet) Meets Transmit Loudness Requirement? (TOLR) YES YES YES 

Meets Noise requirements at default? NO NO YES Volume Control Resets when
placed back on- hook? YES YES NO 

Employs conventional circuitry? ? NO (DSP) ? 

Figure 1: Comparison of Tested Units 

Note 1. Sample C is 6 dB quieter than nominal at the minimum volume
control. 

PARAMETER SAMPLE A SAMPLE B SAMPLE C Noise at Minimum 

< 40 dB SPL (A) 41.4 46.7 31.0 

Noise at Maximum 

(No Spec.) dB SPL (A) 64.1 69.1 56.6 

Transmit Loudness (TOLR) 

-48 +8, -5 dB -45.6 -46.6 -44.1 

ROLR Loudness at Minimum 

+46  5 dB 42.3 43.5 52.0 

ROLR Loudness at Maximum 

dB 22.9 25.2 28.5 

SPL Level at Minimum 

dB SPL (1 kHz) 95.5 96.9 87.7 

SPL Level at Maximum 

dB SPL (1 kHz) 116.2 115.7 111.5 

Volume Control Range 

Calculated using ROLR 

Proposed > 20 dB 19.4 18.3 23.5 

Volume Control Range 

Calculated using SPL 

Proposed > 20 dB 20.7 18.8 23.9 

Figure 2: Summary of Measurements 

Note: Since ROLR and TOLR are calculated using losses the more negative the
ROLR or TOLR the louder the telephone. 

SAMPLE A Volume Control Range 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 7/ 4/ 1998 18: 39 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB Pa/V 

-10.00 0.00 

10.00 20.00 

30.00 40.00 

Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

RECEIVE Volume Control Range 

TIA470 4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 Tone= Mid Amp Off/ ON Vol= MAX 

SAMPLE "A" 

ROLR Def 46+- 5 ROLR Max SPL 1kHz Def Vol SPL 1kHz Max Vol 

dB dB dB SPL dB SPL 42.26 

95.50 1: 2: 

22.89 116.20 

Figure 3 SAMPLE A Volume Control Range 

SAMPLE B Volume Control Range 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 21/ 3/ 1998 14: 37 C:...\ TIA470.006 dB
Pa/V 

-10.00 0.00 

10.00 20.00 

30.00 40.00 

Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

P x 

1: 2: 

RECEIVE Volume Control Range 

TIA470 4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 Top = EQ on +20 dB Bottom = OFF 

Sample "B" 

ROLR Def 46+- 5 ROLR Max SPL 1kHz Def Vol SPL 1kHz Max Vol 

dB dB dB SPL dB SPL 43.53 

96.85 25.24 115.65 

Figure 4 Top - All equalizers set to +20 dB (Maximum) 

Bottom - Equalizer OFF (Default Volume) 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 21/ 3/ 1998 14: 44 C:...\ TIA470.006 dB
Pa/V 

-10.00 0.00 

10.00 20.00 

30.00 40.00 

100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k F 1: 2: 

RECEIVE Volume Control Range 

TIA470 4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 Top =1200 on +20 dB Bottom = No Eq 

Sample "B" 

ROLR Def 46+- 5 ROLR Max SPL 1kHz Def Vol SPL 1kHz Max Vol 

dB dB dB SPL dB SPL 43.53 

96.85 33.46 111.75 

Figure 5 Top - 1200 Hz Band Only set to +20 dB 

Bottom - Equalizer OFF 

SAMPLE C Volume Control Range 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 30/ 3/ 1998 17: 43 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB
Pa/V 

-10.00 0.00 

10.00 20.00 

30.00 40.00 

Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

RECEIVE Volume Control Range 

TIA470 4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 Clarity= Off Vol = Min to Max 

Sample "C" 

ROLR Def 46+- 5 ROLR Max SPL 1kHz Def Vol SPL 1kHz Max Vol 

dB dB dB SPL dB SPL 52.00 

87.60 1: 2: 

28.49 111.50 

Figure 6 Note: "Clarity" Switch set to "OFF" 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 30/ 3/ 1998 17: 51 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB
Pa/V 

-10.00 0.00 

10.00 20.00 

30.00 40.00 

Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

RECEIVE Volume Control Range 

TIA470 4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 Clarity= ON Vol = Min then Max 

ROLR Def 46+- 5 ROLR Max SPL 1kHz Def Vol SPL 1kHz Max Vol 

dB dB dB SPL dB SPL 49.62 

90.70 1: 2: 

30.44 109.60 Sample "C" 

Figure 7 Note: "Clarity" Switch set to "ON" 

SAMPLE A Unamplified Receive and Transmit 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 7/ 4/ 1998 18: 18 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB Pa/V

-10.00 0.00 

10.00 20.00 

30.00 40.00 

Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

RECEIVE 0 feet TIA470B 

4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 -10dBV Tone= Mid, Amp= Off, Vol = MIN 

Sample "A" 

ROLR O 46 +- 5 Noise <= 40 SPL Level @ 1kHz V Open Circuit 

dB SPL( A) dB SPL dBV 42.21 P 

41.40 F 95.60 -10.00 

P x 

1: 

Figure 8 Receive 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 7/ 4/ 1998 18: 17 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB V/
Pa 

-35.00 -25.00 

-15.00 -5.00 

5.00 Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

SEND - 0 feet TIA470B 

4.2.1.2 & 4.2.1.3 FB1 -6dBPa Tone= Mid, Amp= Off, Vol = Min 

TOLR 0k -48+- 6 Noise <= 15 1 kHz Level SLR P. 79 900ohm 

dB dB Cms dBV/ Pa dB -45.64 P 

17.00 F -15.32 

10.07 F 

x 1: 

Sample "A" Figure 9 Transmit 

SAMPLE B Unamplified Receive and Transmit 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 7/ 4/ 1998 19: 45 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB Pa/V 

-10.00 0.00 

10.00 20.00 

30.00 40.00 

Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

RECEIVE 0 feet TIA470B 

4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 -10dBV Equalizer = OFF 

Sample "B" 

ROLR O 46 +- 5 Noise <= 40 SPL Level @ 1kHz V Open Circuit 

dB SPL( A) dB SPL dBV 41.78 P 

46.70 F  97.30 -10.00 

P x 

1: 

Figure 10 - Receive with Equalizer Off 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 21/ 3/ 1998 13: 44 C:...\ TIA470.006 dB
Pa/V 

-20.00 -10.00 

0.00 10.00 

20.00 30.00 

Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

RECEIVE 0 feet TIA470B 

4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 -10dBV Top= Eq Off Bottom= ON Sine Wave 

ROLR O 46 +- 5 Noise <= 40 SPL Level @ 1kHz RLR P. 79 

dB SPL( A) dB SPL dB 74.92 

50.50 61.50 

F x 

1: 

Sample "B" Figure 11 - Equalizer On Showing Non- Response to Sine Wave
Signal when Equalizer is Active 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 7/ 4/ 1998 19: 46 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB V/Pa 

-35.00 -25.00 

-15.00 -5.00 

5.00 Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

SEND - 0 feet TIA470B 

4.2.1.2 & 4.2.1.3 FB1 -6dBPa Equalizer = OFF 

TOLR 0k -48+- 6 Noise <= 15 1 kHz Level SLR P. 79 900ohm 

dB dB Cms dBV/ Pa dB -46.60 P 

29.00 F -11.92 

9.76 P 

x 1: 

Sample "B" Figure 12 -Transmit 

SAMPLE C Unamplified Receive and Transmit 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 30/ 3/ 1998 17: 31 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB
Pa/V 

-10.00 0.00 

10.00 20.00 

30.00 40.00 

Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

RECEIVE 0 feet TIA470B 

4.2.2 & 4.2.2.3 R1 FB1 -10dBV Clarity= Off Vol = Min 

Sample "C" 

ROLR O 46 +- 5 Noise <= 40 SPL Level @ 1kHz V Open Circuit 

dB SPL( A) dB SPL dBV 51.95 F  31.00 P 

87.70 -10.00 

P x 

1: 2: 

Figure 13 Receive 

Bruel & Kjaer ETS 5302 Ver. 2.52 7/ 4/ 1998 19: 37 C:...\ TIA470.007 dB V/Pa 

-35.00 -25.00 

-15.00 -5.00 

5.00 Frequency (Hz) 100 200 500 1k 2k 5k 10k 

SEND - 0 feet TIA470B 

4.2.1.2 & 4.2.1.3 FB1 -6dBPa Vol = Min 

TOLR 0k -48+- 6 Noise <= 15 1 kHz Level SLR P. 79 900ohm 

dB dB Cms dBV/ Pa dB -44.06 P 

15.00 F -16.12 

12.50 F 

x 1: 

Sample "C" Figure 14 

Transmit 

- 35  

TEST SETUP: 

The telephones were measured per TIA- 470B, 1997. The drive level was -10
dBV (open circuit) from a 900 ohm source. The receive frequency response was
measured using an IEC- 318 ear coupler and a 1/ 2 inch pressure microphone
(B& K 4192). All test equipment is manufactured and calibrated by Bruel and
Kjaer. 

450 - 24V 

5 H, 60 ohms 140 Telephone 

450 + 24V 

2 uf 2 uf 

140 vac 5 H, 60 ohms 

B& K 4227 Mouth Simulator IEC- 318 4cc Ear Simulator open circuit -10 dBV 

Figure 15 Test Circuit 

ROLR and SPL: 

One source of confusion is the difference between Sound Pressure Level (SPL)
and Receive Objective Loudness Rating (ROLR) in determining how loud a
telephone is. 

ROLR is calculated according to IEEE- 661, from the frequency response data
between 300 to 3300 Hz. The response is the ratio of the sound pressure, in
Pascals, to the voltage measured across a 900 ohm calibration resistor in
place of the telephone. Since the voltage is divided in half the voltage
used in the calculation is 6 dB less than the open circuit voltage. The
actual voltage across the telephone under test will be different depending
on its impedance. 

ROLR is calculated using losses therefore the more positive the ROLR the
quieter it is. For example 40 is louder than 50. 

If the telephone is linear the drive level does not effect the receive
loudness. For example, a drive level of -10 dBV open circuit will produce
the same ROLR as a - 20 or -30 dBV level since a reduction in voltage causes
an equal drop in sound pressure and therefore the ratio of sound pressure to
input voltage remains constant. 

SPL, however, is dependent on the drive level. When driven with a -10 dBV
open circuit voltage, as shown in Figure 15 the nominal sound pressure at 1
kHz is 94 dB SPL measured in the artificial ear. If the drive level is
changed the SPL changes therefore it is meaningless to state a SPL level
without the corresponding drive level. The long term average SPL on local
calls is around 84 dB SPL (I didn't confirm this). A 1 dB louder ROLR will
result in a 1 dB increased SPL unless the shape of the frequency response
curve changes. Figure 5 illustrates a scenario where the frequency response
curve does change. In this case the volume control range is 10 dB using ROLR
(43.5 - 33.5) but is 14.9 dB using SPL as an indicator (111.8 dB - 96.9 dB).
ANNEX A 

Text from: ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE
BOARD,
Telecommunications 

Act Accessibility Guidelines Published in the Federal Register February 3,
1998. 

http:// www. access- board. gov/ rules/ telfinal. htm 

Section 1193.43 Output, display, and control functions [1193.37 in the NPRM] 

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 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. 

The guidelines only apply to telecommunications equipment and customer
premises equipment designed, developed and fabricated after [insert date 30
days after publication]. Therefore, the guideline provision does not
conflict with the FCC order. New telephones will be covered by these
guidelines and existing telephones will have until January 1, 2000, to
comply with the FCC Order. 

ANNEX B 

The following two pages are text from the title page and the section off the
FCC NPR dealing with the volume control. 

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Washington, D. C. 

In the Matter of              )
                         )
Implementation of Section 255 of the    )
Telecommunications Act of 1996          )
                         ) WT Docket No. 96- 198
Access to Telecommunications Services,  )
Telecommunications Equipment, and  )
Customer Premises Equipment        )
by Persons with Disabilities       )

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

Adopted: April 2, 1998 Released: April 20, 1998 

Comment Date: June 30, 1998 Reply Comment Date: August 14, 1998 

By the Commission: Commissioners Furchgott- Roth, Powell and Tristani
issuing separate statements. 

. . . . .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 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. 

Endnotes

1 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 68, GEN
Docket No. 98- 68, FCC 98- 92, May 18, 1998.