36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191 ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines - Preamble (Discussion of Comments and Changes)

Chapter 7: Communication Elements and Features

Chapter 7 covers communication elements and features, including fire alarm systems (702), signs (703), telephones (704), detectable warnings (705), assistive listening systems (706), automatic teller machines and fare machines (707), and two-way communication systems (708).

702 Fire Alarm Systems

The proposed rule provided detailed specifications for the audible and visual characteristics of fire alarm systems, including the sound level and the color, intensity, flash rate, location, and dispersion of visual appliances. Through coordination with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and ANSI, which were represented on the ADAAG Review Advisory Committee, the proposed criteria were virtually identical to updated requirements in the NFPA 72 (1996) and the ANSI A117.1 standards. However, the Board had proposed a lower maximum sound level for audible alarms (110 decibels instead of 120 decibels) as more appropriate and to guard against tinnitus.

Comment. Comments from the codes community and designers urged the Board to reference the NFPA alarm criteria for purposes of consistency and simplicity, instead of restating very similar requirements in the guidelines.

Response. Since the technical provisions in the proposed rule were substantively identical to the NFPA 72, except for the maximum sound level, the Board has replaced the technical requirements for fire alarm systems with a requirement that such systems comply with NFPA 72, Chapter 4 (702.1). However, the Board has retained the specification that the maximum sound level of audible notification appliances be 110 decibels, as well as an exception for medical care facilities that permits fire alarm systems to be provided in accordance with industry practice. In addition, the Board has clarified that compliant fire alarm systems must be "permanently installed." The Board is not aware of portable systems currently available that meet the referenced NFPA specifications. Information on the referenced NFPA requirements for fire alarm systems is posted on the Board’s website at www.accessboard.gov and in advisory notes.

Comment. Commenters supported limiting the sound level to 110 decibels, as proposed. However, some commenters noted that this did not conform with the maximum of 120 decibels specified in NFPA 72.

Response. The Board has retained the 110 decibel specification as more appropriate, which, as a lower maximum, does not contradict the NFPA 72. In the final rule, the Board has clarified that the maximum sound level applies to the "minimum hearing distance from the audible appliance," which is consistent with the NFPA 72.

Comment. In the proposed rule, the Board sought comment on whether the frequency of audible alarms should be addressed and requested information on the optimal frequency range for people who are hard of hearing along with any available supporting data (Question 26). Most commenters favored a specified frequency range but few provided information, including supporting data, on what the range should be.

Response. The Board has not included in the final rule a specification for the frequency of audible alarms.

703 Signs

Requirements for signs provide specifications for raised characters (703.2), braille characters (703.3), the height and location of signs with tactile characters (703.4), visual characters (703.5), pictograms (703.6), and symbols of accessibility (703.7). This section has been reorganized and simplified in the final rule. Substantive changes include:

• reorganizing and simplifying criteria for signs required to provide both tactile and visual access (703.2)

• revising specifications for raised characters that cover height (703.2.5), stroke thickness (703.2.6), and spacing (703.2.7)

• modifying specifications for braille (703.3 and 703.4.1)

• recognizing elevator car controls in specifications for the height of visual characters (703.5.6)

• revising the location of text descriptors of pictograms (703.6.3)

Scoping requirements for signs in section 216 cover room designations, which are required to be tactile, and directional and informational signs which are not required to be tactile but must meet requirements for visual access. The proposed rule specified that tactile signs, where required, meet specifications for both tactile and visual characteristics. The proposed rule also applied specifications based on whether the requirements were met with one sign or separately through two signs. There were some differences between the requirements for combined tactile-visual signs and those provided separately, which represented slight compromises in the desired level considered necessary for signs providing both tactile and visual access. The proposed rule provided criteria where characters are both tactile and visual (703.2) and criteria for tactile characters (703.3) and visual characters (703.4) that are provided separately.

Scoping requirements for signs in section 216 cover room designations, which are required to be tactile, and directional and informational signs which are not required to be tactile but must meet requirements for visual access. The proposed rule specified that tactile signs, where required, meet specifications for both tactile and visual characteristics. The proposed rule also applied specifications based on whether the requirements were met with one sign or separately through two signs. There were some differences between the requirements for combined tactile-visual signs and those provided separately, which represented slight compromises in the desired level considered necessary for signs providing both tactile and visual access. The proposed rule provided criteria where characters are both tactile and visual (703.2) and criteria for tactile characters (703.3) and visual characters (703.4) that are provided separately.

Comment. Commenters considered the section on signs to be unduly complex and redundant and urged the Board to simplify the signage criteria.

Response. The repetition and complexity of the signage section stemmed from detailing requirements separately for signs where one set of character forms meet the tactile and visual specifications and for signs where such criteria are met separately through two set of character forms. Many of the specifications were the same for both types of signs. In the final rule, the Board has simplified the section and removed repetitive specifications while preserving most of the substance of the requirements as proposed. As reorganized, signs required to provide tactile and visual access must meet criteria for tactile characters (703.2), braille (703.3), mounting height and location (703.4), and visual characters (703.5). However, where access is provided through one set of characters, not all the requirements for visual access must be met. This is clarified in an exception which, consistent with the proposed rule, applies only the specifications for finish and contrast to tactile characters that are also visual (703.5, Exception).

Specifications for raised characters in section 703.2 address the depth, case, style or font type, character proportion and height, stroke thickness, and character and line spacing. The proposed rule, consistent with the original ADAAG, specified a character height between e inch and 2 inches. However, the proposed rule provided a tighter specification (½ to ¾ inch) for raised characters on signs where visual access is provided on a separate sign face because it is believed that smaller characters can be easier to read tactually. Since the specification for combination signs acknowledges that 2 inch characters are readable tactually, setting a different maximum seems unnecessary. The final rule retains the specified range of e to 2 inches, but an exception allows a ½ inch minimum where the same information is provided separately on a visual sign (703.2.5).

In the proposed rule, specifications for stroke thickness were based on the type of character cross section on signs providing both tactile and visual access (703.2.3.5). For characters with rectangular cross sections, a stroke thickness of 10% to 15% of the character height was specified (based on the uppercase "I"). For those with non-rectangular cross sections, the stroke thickness was specified to be 15% maximum of the character height (measured at the top of the cross section) and 10% to 30% (measured at the base). Where tactile and visual characters are provided on separate signs, the proposed rule specified that the stroke thickness of tactile characters be no greater than 15% of the character height (703.3.2.5).

Comment. Comments, including those from the signage industry, considered the specification based on the type of cross section to be unnecessarily complicated. Some comments pointed out that measurement and tactile reading of characters occur at the face, regardless of the cross section shape. Distinctions based on the cross section may be difficult to distinguish and enforce with respect to characters that are raised 1/32 inch, according to commenters. They advised that a single specification would facilitate compliance while having little effect on access.

Response. The Board has simplified the requirement for stroke thickness by relying solely on the specification that was included in the proposed rule for signs with tactile characters only. This specification requires a stroke thickness that is 15% of the character height (based on an uppercase "I"), regardless of the type of cross section (703.2.6).

As with stroke thickness, the proposed rule specified character spacing based on the type of cross section where signs provide both tactile and visual characters (703.2.4). A space of c inch to d inch was specified for characters with rectangular cross sections. For those with non-rectangular cross sections, this range applied to the top of the cross section and a range of 1/16 inch to d inch was permitted at the base. Where visual characters are provided on a separate sign, the proposed rule required spacing of c inch to ¼ inch between characters (703.3.3).

Comment. Comments advised that this specification was too restrictive and did not take into account increased spacing for larger size characters (the permitted range allows heights up to 2 inches). It was recommended that spacing based on the stroke thickness of characters will provide proper spacing for tactile recognition and facilitate compliance. Some commenters pointed out that good practice may include varying the space between characters for optimum visual legibility. Some comments recommended a spacing range that was at least as wide as the stroke thickness and no more than four times this width.

Response. In the final rule, the Board has revised the specification for character spacing (703.2.7). As recommended by commenters, the specified spacing range has been broadened to allow spacing up to four times the stroke width of raised characters. The Board has retained the minimum spacing requirements of the proposed guidelines and the distinction between characters with rectangular cross sections (c inch minimum) and those without (c minimum measured at the top and 1/16 minimum measured at the base).

Section 703.3 provides specifications for braille, including the dimensions and position.

Comment. Braille is to be located below the corresponding text. Commenters noted that it is common practice to locate braille next to the text on some signs, such as room numbers. These comments urged the Board to revise this specification to allow braille placement adjacent to text, as is permitted on elevator car controls.

Response. The Board believes that a uniform location facilitates the use of braille. No changes have been made to the specified position below corresponding text.

Braille does not include different upper and lower case letters. Instead, a character symbol is used to indicate capitalization. In the final rule, the Board has clarified that indication of uppercase letters is to be used only before the first word of sentences, proper nouns and names, individual letters of the alphabet, initials, and acronyms (703.3.1). A similar clarification has been included in the new ANSI A117.1 standard.

The proposed guidelines specified that braille be separated at least ¼ inch from other tactile characters and at least d inch from raised borders and other decorative elements (703.3.2). In the final rule, the Board has revised the minimum separation between braille and tactile characters from ¼ inch to d inch for consistency with the ANSI A117.1 standard.

Section 703.4 covers the mounting height and location of signs with tactile characters. Such signs are to be mounted so that the tactile elements (raised characters and braille) are between 48 to 60 inches high, measured to the baseline of characters.

Comment. The proposed rule specified a range of height of 48 to 60 inches for raised characters and a range of 40 to 60 inches for braille. Commenters considered the 40 inch specification too low, as research suggests that braille mounted below 48 inches can be difficult to read. Further, comments noted that the minimum 40 inch height did not correlate with the minimum specified for raised characters.

Response. The Board combined the height and location requirements for raised and braille characters into one section (703.4) for clarification and simplicity. As a result, the height of braille and raised characters are held to the same range: 48 to 60 inches above the floor or ground (703.4.1).

Tactile signs are required to be located alongside the latch side of doors so that clear floor space at least 18 by 18 inches, centered on the tactile characters, is provided outside the door swing (703.4.2). At double doors with two active leafs, signs are to be located on the right-hand side or, if no wall space is available, on the nearest adjacent wall. Signs are permitted on the push side of doors with closers and without hold-open devices.

Comment. A commenter advised that the specification should address double doors with only one active leaf.

Response. The Board has added a provision for double doors with one active leaf which requires the location of signs on the inactive leaf (703.4.2)

Section 703.5 provides specifications for visual characters which address finish and contrast, case, style, character proportions and height, height, stroke thickness, and character and line spacing. As part of the reorganization of the signage requirements, the Board has added an exception, consistent with the proposed rule, which applies only the specifications for finish and contrast (703.5.1) where tactile and visual access are provided through the same characters. Where signs provide tactile and visual access separately, visual characters must comply with all applicable specifications in section 703.5.

Visual characters are required to be located at least 40 inches high (703.5.6). For consistency with specifications for elevators in section 407, the Board has added an exception noting that the 40 inch minimum does not apply to visual characters indicating elevator car controls (703.5.6, Exception).

Section 703.6 contains requirements for pictograms. This section applies to those pictograms, where provided, that are used to label permanent interior rooms and spaces. The specifications of 703.6 do not apply to other types of pictograms, including those specified in section 703.7 to label various accessible elements and spaces. Under 703.6.3, text descriptors with raised and braille characters are required below pictograms. The proposed rule allowed alternative placement adjacent to pictograms. The Board has removed this alternative in the final rule to enhance uniformity in the location of tactile text descriptors.

704 Telephones

Section 704 provides technical criteria for telephones, including provisions for wheelchair access (704.2), volume control (704.3), and TTYs (704.4). Most comments addressed specifications for volume controls and TTYs.

All public telephones are required to be equipped with volume control, as discussed above in section 217. This is consistent with other Board guidelines covering access to telecommunications products issued under section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires telecommunications products and services to be accessible. Section 704.3 requires volume controls that provide a gain up to at least 20 decibels and an intermediate gain of 12 decibels, and have an automatic reset.

Comment. Persons who are hard of hearing and disability organizations urged an increase in the sound level of phones equipped with volume control. Some commenters specifically recommended a minimum 25 decibels or greater. The Board sought comment from pay telephone manufacturers and providers on the time frame necessary to produce products that meet the proposed specifications for volume control (Question 27). Few comments from industry addressed this question, though other commenters suggested that meeting the proposed volume control specifications should not be difficult under current telephone technology.

Response. The proposed specification was consistent with accessibility guidelines the Board issued under section 255 of the Telecommunications Act and standards issued under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments. In rulemaking on the Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines, similar comments were received from persons who are hard of hearing who reported having trouble using public pay telephones because of inadequate receiver amplification levels and who supported adjustable amplification ranging from 18‒25 decibels of gain. However, several telephone 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 standard-setting bodies, wherever possible. The ANSI A117.1 standard requires certain public pay telephones to provide 12 decibels of gain minimum and up to 20 decibels maximum and that an automatic reset be provided. In recognition of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, this amplification level was specified in the Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines. The Board has retained the 20 decibel specification in this final rule (704.3) for consistency with the ANSI A117.1 standard, the Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines, and the Board’s section 508 standards.

Comment. Mute features on public pay telephones can increase audibility by temporarily disconnecting the telephone’s microphone while the user listens through the ear piece so that background noise is not amplified through the earpiece. In the proposed rule, the Board requested information on the feasibility and cost of equipping new and existing public pay telephones with a mute button and whether such a requirement should be included in the final rule (Question 28). Few comments addressed this issue. Those that did generally supported such a requirement, although information on feasibility and cost was not received.

Response. While the Board believes that mute buttons could benefit all telephone users in noisy environments, particularly those who are hard of hearing, the Board has opted not to establish such a requirement at this time due to the absence of product information and cost data.

Section 704.4 provides specifications for TTYs. The proposed rule included requirements so that TTYs were accessible to persons who use wheelchairs. This included a requirement that the touch surface of TTY keypads be 30 to 34 inches high (704.4.1).

Comment. Many commenters indicated that TTYs are mounted too low to be used comfortably by people not using wheelchairs. According to these commenters, compliance with wheelchair access provisions greatly compromises their usability by the majority of persons with hearing or speech impairments who do not use wheelchairs. Commenters urged that a higher surface height for TTY keypads be specified. Organizations representing persons who are deaf recommended a keyboard height of 33 to 35 inches where users are expected to stand. A manufacturer of TTY-equipped pay telephones indicated that its products provide TTY keypads at a height of 36 to 40 inches and requested that this range be permitted.

Response. The Board has revised the specified height of TTY keypads from the proposed range of 30 to 34 inches to a minimum of 34 inches (704.4.1). In addition, the Board has removed other specifications concerning wheelchair access, which is consistent with the original ADAAG. These specifications include a requirement that the operable parts of both the TTY and the telephone be accessible according to section 309, which specifies accessible reach ranges, and provide clear floor space for a forward approach to the TTY. However, these changes do not impact the requirements for other types of telephones required to be wheelchair accessible according to section 704.2.

Comment. The proposed rule provided an exception from the height and clearance requirements for TTYs at telephones located in cubicles equipped with fixed seats (704.4.1). As proposed, this exception applied only to assembly occupancies and allowed half of TTYs at telephones with seats not to comply. Comments recommended that this exception apply to other types of facilities since seats at phones may provide a desired convenience for TTY users.

Response. As a result of the changes concerning wheelchair access, the exception applies only to the specified keypad height and allows a height below 34 inches where seats are provided at telephones with TTYs. In the final rule, the Board has broadened this exception to apply to all telephones with seats in any type of facility.

Comment. The requirements for TTYs do not address the height of display screens.

Due to the typical character size displayed, users must be in close proximity to the screen. The Board requested information on TTY screen heights that are appropriate for people who use wheelchairs and for standing persons and whether the requirement for ATM display screens is appropriate for TTYs as well (Question 29). Little information was received in response to this question. Respondents to this question reiterated their concern about wheelchair access resulting in TTYs that are too low for persons who are standing. Other commenters recommended that research be conducted to develop information on the appropriate height of display screens.

Response. The Board has not included any specifications concerning the height of TTY display screens in the final rule.

705 Detectable Warnings

Section 705 provides the technical specifications for detectable warnings, a distinctively textured surface of truncated domes identifiable by cane and underfoot. This surfacing is required along the edge of boarding platforms in transit stations. The original ADAAG included a requirement for detectable warnings on the surface of curb ramps to provide a tactile cue for persons with vision impairments of the boundary between sidewalks and streets where the curb face had been removed. It also required them at locations where pedestrian areas blend with vehicular areas without tactile cues, such as curbs or railings, and at reflecting pools. Certain requirements for detectable warnings were temporarily suspended in the original ADAAG and were not included in the proposed rule, as further discussed in section 406 above. Consequently, the requirements in section 705 are required only at boarding platforms in transportation facilities (810.5.2). Revisions made in the final rule include:

• revising specifications for the diameter and spacing of truncated domes to allow a range (705.1.1 and 705.1.2)

• clarifying the square grid pattern of truncated domes (705.1.2)

• simplifying requirements for contrast between detectable warnings and adjoining walking surfaces (705.1.3)

• removing provisions generally recognizing alternatives to the detectable warnings specified

• clarifying the application of the requirements to the edges of boarding platforms (705.2)

The detectable warning criteria specify a pattern of evenly-spaced truncated domes. The Board has added clarification, consistent with provided figures, that the domes be aligned in a square grid pattern (705.1).

Comment. The proposed rule specified that the truncated domes have a diameter of 0.9 inch, measured at the base. A commenter cited research conducted in Japan which indicated that a surface very similar to that specified by section 705 ranked high in detectability. It was recommended, based on this research, that a diameter of 0.4 inch to 0.9 inch be specified for domes, measured at the top. In addition, this commenter recommended that the spacing between domes be revised from an absolute of 2.35 inches to a range of 1.6 to 2.35 inches.

Response. In the final rule, the Board has revised the specification for the diameter and spacing of truncated domes to permit a range of dimensions (705.1.1). A range of 0.9 inch to 1.4 inches is specified for the base diameter. The top diameter range is specified to be 50% to 65% of the base diameter, which approximates the recommended 0.4 inch to 0.9 inch range. The center-to-center spacing of domes has been changed from 2.35 inches absolute, to a range of 1.6 inches minimum to 2.4 inches maximum, with a minimum separation measured at the base of 0.65 inch (705.1.2). The revised base diameter and spacing dimensions will accommodate existing detectable warning products that were previously deemed to provide an equivalent level of accessibility. ADAAG permits departures that provide equal or greater access as an "equivalent facilitation." The Department of Transportation (DOT), which enforces the ADA’s design requirements as they apply to various transportation facilities, reviews requested departures based on equivalent facilitation in consultation with the Board. Over the years, DOT has approved various detectable warning products that differ slightly from the ADAAG specifications. The specifications in the final rule derive from a review of these products and will encompass the variations among products previously approved by DOT under the equivalent facilitation clause.

Detectable warnings are required to contrast visually from adjacent walking surfaces, either light-on dark or dark-on-light. The proposed rule required the material used to provide contrast be an integral part of the truncated dome surface (705.2.2). This specification was intended to preclude the painting of detectable warning surfaces to meet the contrast requirements since painted surfaces would not be adequately slip resistant. However, requirements for ground and floor surfaces in section 302, which require slip resistance, apply to those surfaces with detectable warnings as well. The Board believes that the requirement for slip resistance in section 302 effectively prevents the painting of detectable warning surfaces. Consequently, it has removed the specification that the material used to provide contrast be an integral part of the detectable warning surface.

Comment. The proposed rule specified that detectable warnings in interior locations differ from adjoining walking surfaces in resiliency or sound-on-cane contact (705.2.3). Commenters considered this provision to be of questionable usefulness and difficult to meet absent a recognized method of measuring resiliency or sound-on-cane contact.

Response. The requirement for contrast in resiliency or sound-on-cane contact between detectable warnings and adjoining walking surfaces in interior locations has been removed in the final rule.

Comment. The proposed rule included provisions that generally recognized alternative tactile surfaces equally detectable underfoot or other designs or technologies that provide equal or superior drop-off warning at boarding platforms (705.3 and 705.4). Commenters opposed these provisions without further guidance or specificity on the type of alternatives that would be acceptable. Some commenters recommended that these provisions were unnecessary in view of the general provision for equivalent facilitation in section 103 permitting departures from this or any other requirement in the guidelines where equal or greater access is provided.

Response. The Board has removed the provisions concerning equivalent products and technologies as an alternative to the detectable warnings specified by section 705. This change is consistent with the effort the Board made in the proposed rule to remove specific provisions concerning equivalent facilitation. The general provision for equivalent facilitation remains the basis upon which alternatives to the specified detectable warnings may be pursued. DOT’s ADA regulations provide a process for the review of requested departures as an equivalent facilitation in relation to public transportation facilities.²⁴

Section 705.2 specifies that detectable warnings along boarding platform edges be 24 inches wide. In the final rule, the Board has added clarification that the detectable warning is to extend the full length of the public use areas of platforms.

706 Assistive Listening Systems

Section 706 provides specifications for assistive listening systems. Assistive listening systems pick up sound at or close to its source and deliver it to the listener’s ear. This more direct transmission improves sound quality by reducing the effects of background noise and reverberation and, as needed, increasing the volume. These devices serve people who are hard of hearing, including those who use hearing aids. Assistive listening systems are generally categorized by their mode of transmission. Acceptable types of assistive listening systems include induction loops, infrared systems, FM radio frequency systems, hard-wired earphones, and other equivalent devices. A definition for "assistive listening systems" has been included in the final rule (section 106). Provisions address receiver jacks (706.2), compatibility with hearing aids (706.3), and system quality and capability (706.4 through 706.6).

Comment. Receivers are required to have a c inch standard mono jack so that users can use their own cabling as necessary. The proposed rule allowed other types of jacks where compliant adapters were provided (706.3). Comments strongly supported the requirement for the c inch mono jack. Some commenters noted that this type of jack should be provided in all cases and that alternative types should not be allowed to avoid issues such as who is responsible for the provision of adapters.

Response. In the final rule, the Board has specified that receivers include a c inch (3.5 mm) standard mono jack and has removed language concerning other jack types and adapters (706.2).

Section 706.3 specifies that receivers required to be compatible with hearing aids (25%) must be neck loops since this type interfaces with hearing aid T-coils. Many comments supported this provision and no changes to it have been made in the final rule.

The performance of assistive listening systems is a concern among users. The quality and capability of systems largely determine the quality of sound transmission. Sound quality, internal noise, signal-to-noise ratio, signal strength, and boost vary among products. As a result, some systems do not adequately meet the needs of people who are hard of hearing. For example, the boost of some products may amplify sound adequately for people with mild hearing loss but not for those with profound hearing loss.

In the belief that standards should be developed to provide guidance in selecting products of sufficient quality and capability, the Board funded a study on assistive listening systems that was completed in 1999. Conducted by the Lexington Center, this project included collecting information on assistive listening systems, a review of the state-of-the-art with respect to assistive listening systems, and a survey of consumers, service providers, dispensers and manufacturers to determine how effective assistive listening systems are at present and what the major problems, limitations, and complaints are regarding existing systems. With this information, the researchers developed objective means for specifying the overall characteristics of any assistive listening system, from sound source to listener’sear, to be able to predict how well the system will work in practice and to determine objective criteria for establishing guidelines or recommendations for the use of assistive listening systems in public places.

The criteria recommended by this research include:

• a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 18 decibels measured at the earphones

• the capability of receivers to deliver a signal with a sound pressure level of at least 110 decibels and no more than 118 decibels with a dynamic range on the volume control of 50 decibels

• peak clipping levels at or below 18 decibels down from the peak level of the signal

Comment. The Board sought comment on whether the criteria developed through the Lexington Center research should be included in the final rule (Question 30). Commenters overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of specifications for the performance and sound quality of assistive listening systems.

Response. The Board has included performance criteria for assistive listening systems based on the Lexington Center research that address the sound pressure level (706.4), signal-to-noise ratio (706.5), and peak clipping level (706.6).

A report from the Lexington Center on this research, "Large Area Assistive Listening Systems: Review and Recommendations," is available from the Board and its website at www.access-board.gov. Additional resources stemming from the project, including a series of technical bulletins on assistive listening systems, are also available.

Section 706 provides specifications for assistive listening systems. Assistive listening systems pick up sound at or close to its source and deliver it to the listener’s ear. This more direct transmission improves sound quality by reducing the effects of background noise and reverberation and, as needed, increasing the volume. These devices serve people who are hard of hearing, including those who use hearing aids. Assistive listening systems are generally categorized by their mode of transmission. Acceptable types of assistive listening systems include induction loops, infrared systems, FM radio frequency systems, hard-wired earphones, and other equivalent devices. A definition for "assistive listening systems" has been included in the final rule (section 106). Provisions address receiver jacks (706.2), compatibility with hearing aids (706.3), and system quality and capability (706.4 through 706.6).

Comment. Receivers are required to have a c inch standard mono jack so that users can use their own cabling as necessary. The proposed rule allowed other types of jacks where compliant adapters were provided (706.3). Comments strongly supported the requirement for the c inch mono jack. Some commenters noted that this type of jack should be provided in all cases and that alternative types should not be allowed to avoid issues such as who is responsible for the provision of adapters.

Response. In the final rule, the Board has specified that receivers include a c inch (3.5 mm) standard mono jack and has removed language concerning other jack types and adapters (706.2).

707 Automatic Teller Machines and Fare Machines

Section 707 provides specifications for Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs) and fare machines.

Requirements address clear floor or ground space (707.2), operable parts (707.3), privacy (707.4), speech output (707.5), input (707.6), display screens (707.7), and braille instructions (707.8). In the final rule, this section has been significantly reorganized and criteria for output and input substantially revised due to comments submitted by persons with disabilities, various disability groups, ATM manufacturers, banking institutions and trade associations, and others.

Comment. Comments from the banking industry opposed the specific criteria proposed for ATMs in favor of a more flexible performance standard. Conversely, many comments from persons with vision impairments supported the proposed specifications or urged the Board to make them more stringent.

Response. The original ADAAG relied on a performance criterion in specifying access to ATMs for people with vision impairments: "instructions and all information for use shall be made accessible to and independently usable by persons with vision impairments" (4.34.5). Based on the level of access provided at ATMs under the original ADAAG, it is the Board’s belief, consistent with the ADAAG Review Advisory Committee’s recommendations, that a descriptive set of technical criteria is essential to ensure that ATMs are adequately accessible to, and usable by, persons with vision impairments. The Board has taken into consideration concerns raised by industry concerning various specifications, as well as information on improved technological solutions, in finalizing these criteria. A number of revisions have been made to the ATM requirements which are detailed below.

Comment. Section 707 specifically covers ATMs and fare machines. In the proposed rule, the Board sought comment on whether this section should be extended to cover other types of interactive transaction machines (ITMs), such as point-of-sale machines and information kiosks, among others (Question 31). Information was requested on any possible design conflicts between the requirements of this section and any specific types of interactive transaction machines. Comments from disability groups and individuals with disabilities generally supported coverage of ITMs and point-of-sale machines. Most industry commenters opposed such an expansion since, in their opinion, such devices differ in structure and use from ATMs. Comments noted that computers used in point-of-sale machines rarely have the capacity for added functions, especially for speech. Commenters were particularly concerned that manufacturers, installers, and property owners would be held responsible for the content of web-based dynamic information. Several suggested that unlike ATMs, which are considered primarily single-purpose devices, information kiosks are multi-purpose devices that cannot produce audio files anticipating the content of the video display.

Response. The Board has elected not to broaden the scope of the rule to address all types of interactive transaction machines at this time. However, the Board has issued standards covering various types of electronic and information technology purchased by the Federal government under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These standards encompass various types of interactive transaction machines that are procured by the Federal government. The Board intends to monitor the application of the performance-based section 508 standards to ITMs in the Federal sector for its consideration in future updates of these guidelines.

Revisions made to this section include:

• revising exceptions for drive-up ATMs to also cover drive-up fare machines (707.2, 707.3, and 707.7)

• modifying specifications for operable parts (707.3)

• limiting privacy requirements to ATMs (707.4)

• revamping and clarifying speech output capabilities and specifications (707.5)

• modifying specifications for input controls (707.6)

• adding a requirement for braille instructions (707.8)

Sections 707.2 and 707.3 address clear floor or ground space requirements and operable parts, respectively. These provisions include exceptions for drive-up only ATMs. In the final rule, the Board revised these exceptions to cover fare machines as well.

Comment. The proposed rule specified that operable parts be able to be differentiated by sound or touch without activation (707.3). Comments from industry noted that it would be difficult to achieve this requirement in the design of controls activated by touch. Some commenters advised that compliance would be more feasible if the provision recognized an allowable level of force that could be applied without the control being activated. Since many ATMs and fare machines allow users to cancel operations, including when a control is inadvertently activated, commenters questioned the need for this provision.

Response. The Board agrees that keys which enable users to readily clear or correct input errors obviate the need for controls that can be differentiated by sound or touch without activation. In the final rule, the Board has revised the requirement to apply only at ATMs and fare machines that are not equipped with "clear" or "correct" keys. Section 707.4 ensures an equivalent level of privacy in the use of ATMs for all individuals, including those who use a machine’s accessible features. In the final rule, this requirement has been made specific to ATMs, since privacy is generally of less concern in the use of fare machines.

Section 707.5 provides requirements for speech output of ATMs and fare machines.

Comment. ATM manufacturers and the banking industry opposed the specific criteria for audible output in the proposed rule (707.5) and urged the Board to replace them with more flexible performance requirements that would focus on the desired outcome instead of detailing how and to what extent access was to be achieved. Comments from disability groups strongly supported the approach taken in the proposed rule. Some of these comments requested that the specifications cover the full range of machines used and types of output. For example, some pointed out that certain types of information, such as error messages, are often overlooked in the provision of audible output.

Response. The Board has revised the requirements for audible output to emphasize the minimum performance capabilities necessary for access. This will allow room for technological innovations and improvements in providing access solutions, particularly with respect to audible output. On the other hand, the Board has also retained or added specific criterion so that a minimum level of accessibility is clearly established to avoid confusion or misinterpretation. The final rule clearly requires machines to be speech enabled, as opposed to the proposed rule’s call for "audible instructions." As revised, it requires that "all displayed information for full use shall be accessible to and independently usable by individuals with vision impairments." The specification lists particular types of output, such as operating instructions and orientation, visible transaction prompts, user input verification, and error messages. However, the over-arching performance criterion governs, as the list of particulars is not exhaustive. Consistent with the proposed rule, the speech output must be delivered through devices readily available to all users, such as a telephone handset or an industry standard connector (e.g., an audio mini jack to accommodate a user’s audio receiver).

Comment. The Board sought information on the availability of ATMs that meet the audible output requirements of the proposed rule and any impact, including costs and technological difficulties, in developing new products that would comply (Question 35). Information was also requested on the practice of redeploying ATM equipment and the impact of the output requirements on this practice. Industry commenters expressed strong concerns about the cost and feasibility of providing speech output for new and refurbished machines. Industry commenters claimed that voice output would be burdensome by necessitating both hardware and significant software investments, including on-going maintenance to support changes in the services offered by the institution. Analysis of industry comments reveals an underlying concern that manufacturers, property owners, installers, and networks must coordinate to provide anything more than limited voice output. According to these comments, such coordination is not customary in the U.S. The banking industry expressed particular concern about the application of the guidelines to ATMs that are refurbished and redeployed. According to the industry, there is a large market for used ATMs, which have an average life of 10 years, though some can last up to 20 years; as new machines are installed in existing locations, those replaced are commonly redeployed elsewhere. Since the specifications apply not only to new ATMs, but to altered machines as well, commenters expressed concern about the cost and feasibility of retrofitting existing machines as part of their relocation. On the other hand, comments from disability groups indicated that satisfactory voice output is not only feasible but is actually being accomplished by various banking institutions, including through the retrofit of existing machines.

Response. Many of the comments submitted by industry concerning the cost and impact of the requirements for audible output appeared based on the provision of recorded human speech. However, the Board intended other alternatives, which are considerably less expensive, such as digitized human speech and synthesized speech. Clarification of these permitted types of output are included in the final rule (707.5). New technologies for text-to-speech synthesis are becoming available that offer less expensive solutions in equipping machines with speech output. Such technologies, which can be installed through software or hardware enhancements, can generate all of the information required to be accessible in audible output. In the past year, the Board has become aware of various banks in different areas of the country that have provided new talking ATMs that take advantage of improved speech output technologies. With respect to refurbished machines, the requirements of these guidelines as they apply to altered elements permit departures where compliance is not technically feasible; in such cases, compliance is required to the maximum extent feasible (202.3, Exception 2). Some industry commenters expressed concern about the proposed requirements and existing machines, including those that are not altered. However, the scope of these guidelines, consistent with the Board’s mandate, extends only to new construction and planned alterations and additions. The Board does not generally have jurisdiction over requirements for existing facilities that are otherwise not being altered. Under the ADA, regulations issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) effectively govern requirements that apply to existing places of public accommodation. How, and to what extent, the Board’s guidelines are used for purposes of retrofit, including removal of barriers and provision of program access, is wholly within the purview of DOJ. It is the Board’s understanding that DOJ is aware of the concern as raised by various commenters generally and that DOJ plans to address these concerns in its rulemaking to revise its ADA standards pursuant to the Board’s final rule.

Comment. In the proposed rule, the Board requested comment on whether ATM manufacturers or banks intend to provide audio output receivers for customers who need them to access audible output and whether customers needing such output could reasonably be expected to provide their own receivers (Question 34). Few comments addressed this question. Several individuals with vision impairments indicated that they carry headphones for talking book players and other audio devices.

Response. The Board has not included any requirements concerning the provision of audio output receivers.

Comment. The proposed rule included an advisory note indicating that audible tones can be used instead of speech for personal input that is not displayed visually for security purposes, such as personal identification numbers (707.5.3). Comments from industry supported this clarification but noted that it would be more appropriately located within the text.

Response. The Board agrees that the advisory note actually functioned as an exception to the requirement for speech output and has added it to the text in the final rule (707.5, Exception 1).

Comment. Comments from persons with disabilities requested that all visually displayed information, including advertisements, should be covered by the requirement for speech output.

Response. The Board disagrees with coverage of extraneous information not needed in the conduct of all available transactions. In the final rule, an exception has been added which notes that advertisements and similar information are not required to be audible unless they convey information that can be used in the transaction being conducted (707.5, Exception 2). This exception helps further clarify the scope of the general performance requirement of 707.5 by describing the type of information that is not covered.

Comment. Comments from industry pointed out that compliance will be difficult and extremely costly, if not impossible, for certain types of machines that cannot support speech synthesis. Some machines cannot "read" or "pronounce" dynamic alphabetic text. Dynamic alphabetic text includes words that cannot be known in advance by the machine or its host. Audible dynamic text requires either prerecorded files or a text-to-speech synthesizer to convert electronic text into speech using preprogrammed pronunciation rules.

Response. Because it would be impossible to pre-record files to anticipate all the possible dynamic alphabetic combinations in the English language, speech synthesis is the only practicable solution for producing dynamic alphabetic audible output. The Board has added an exception for machines that cannot support speech synthesis. Under this exception, dynamic alphabetic output is not required to be audible (707.5, Exception 3).

Comment. Persons with vision impairments and disability groups indicated that "repeat" and "interrupt" functions greatly facilitate use of speech output. Such commenters also stated that volume control is an important feature in accommodating the full range of users. Industry commenters pointed out that interruption of speech output is critical because such output, even when not accessed through a handset or earphones, is continuously running and will otherwise lengthen the time of all operations and transactions.

Response. The Board has added a provision that machines allow users to repeat or interrupt speech output (707.5.1). An exception allows speech output for any single function to be automatically interrupted once a transaction is selected. This specification replaces a requirement in the proposed rule that users be able to expedite transactions (707.5.4.2). In addition, the Board has included a requirement for a volume control.

Comment. The proposed rule contained a requirement that ATMs dispense paper currency in descending order with the lowest denomination on top (707.5.7). Comments from the banking industry noted that while this requirement is feasible, the denominations of currency dispensed varies depending on which bills are still available in a machine before it is re-supplied.

Response. The Board has removed the requirement for bills to be dispensed in descending order since the order of dispensation will not ensure that users will be able to identify each bill’s denomination.

Comment. The proposed rule required that machines have the capability to provide information on receipts in an audible format as well (707.5.8). Some comments from individuals with vision impairments urged the Board to revise this requirement to clearly apply to all data contained on a receipt. Industry representatives, however, advised that the requirement should apply only to essential information concerning a transaction. These comments noted that some information that may not be of interest or use to customers is nevertheless required to appear on printed receipts under Federal mandates. In addition, the banking industry indicated that some ATMs have the capability to provide copies of records, such as bank statements, which should not be subject to the speech output requirements.

Response. The Board has revised the requirement for receipt information to more clearly distinguish the type of information required to be provided through speech output and the type that is not. The final rule requires that speech output devices provide all information on printed receipts, where provided, necessary to complete or verify a transaction, including balance inquiry information and error messages (707.5.2). Extraneous information that may be provided on receipts, such as the machine location and identifier, the date and time, and account numbers is not required to be provided through speech output (Exception 1). In addition, the Board has also exempted receipt information that duplicates audible information on-screen (Exception 2) and printed materials that are not actual receipts, such as copies of bank statements and checks (Exception 3).

Section 707.6 covers input controls, including numeric and function keys.

Comment. The proposed rule required all keys used to operate a machine to be tactually discernable [sic] (707.4.2). It included specifications for key surfaces to be raised 1/25 inch minimum and that outer edges have a radius of 1/50 inch maximum (707.4.2). It also required a minimum separation between keys of c inch and specified a distance between function and numeric keys based on the distance between numeric keys (707.4.3). Comments from industry pointed to these provisions as unduly restrictive and raised questions about supporting data for the specified dimensions. These commenters urged a performance-based requirement as more appropriate.

Response. The Board has revised the final rule to require at least one input control for each function (as opposed to "all keys") to be tactually discernible (707.6.1). Key surfaces are required to be raised from surrounding surfaces, but the proposed 1/25 inch minimum has been removed. In addition, the Board has also added a requirement specific to membrane keys. Such keys must also be tactually discernible from surrounding surfaces and other keys where they are the only method of input provided.

Comment. Comments from persons with disabilities called attention to the importance of access to touch screens at fare machines and ATM machines. The proposed rule provided an exception for the touch screens of video display screens (707.4.2, Exception). This exception was meant to apply only to that method of input, since the Board intended that alternative method of input that is tactually discernible would be provided in addition to the touch screen. Commenters misread this exception as completely exempting touch screens from providing tactually discernible controls.

Response. The Board has removed the exception for touch screens in the proposed rule to avoid misinterpretation of its intent. Instead, the Board has revised the requirement for tactually discernible input controls as applying to those key surfaces that are not on active areas of display screens (707.6.1). All machines with touch screens must have tactually discernible input controls as an additional alternative to those activated by touching the screen.

Comment. The proposed rule specified the arrangement of numeric keys according to the standard 12- key telephone keypad layout, which provides numbers in ascending order (707.4.4). The ATM and banking industries indicated that numbers may be arranged in descending order, similar to the arrangement of numeric keys on standard computer keyboards as required by other national standards, such as those issued in Canada. Since ATM manufacturers operate internationally, consistency with other national standards is a key industry concern.

Response. The final rule requires numeric keys to be arranged in an ascending or descending telephone keypad layout (707.6.2). The number five key is required to be tactually distinct from the other keys (a raised dot is commonly used).

Comment. The proposed rule required function keys to be arranged in a specific order and specified particular tactile symbols and colors for standard keys (707.4.5). Comments from industry opposed the mandate for a particular key arrangement which it considered impractical due to various factors that influence the design and layout of function keys. Further, these commenters questioned the need for such a requirement in view of provisions concerning the tactile labels of keys and audible operating instructions and orientation. In addition, comments noted that the tactile symbol assigned to "clear" or "correct" keys (vertical line or bar) was inconsistent with the symbol specified by Canadian standards (raised left arrow). Response. The Board has removed the requirement for function keys to be arranged in a particular horizontal or vertical order, which it considers unnecessary since such keys are to be labeled by standardized tactile symbols. This revision permits manufacturers flexibility in the design of function key layouts. In addition, the Board has changed the required symbol for "clear" or "correct" keys to a raised left arrow for consistency with Canadian standards (707.6.3.2).

Comment. The Board specified colors for standard function keys in the proposed rule and sought comment on the appropriateness of this specification, particularly for people who are color blind (Question 32). Few comments addressed this question. Instead most commenters pointed out that the specified colors did not correlate with standards used in Canada.

Response. Since many ATM manufacturers operate internationally, the Board has elected to withdraw its color specification for function keys to avoid conflict with other existing national standards.

Comment. ATMs often reject input when maximum time intervals are exceeded. Users are at risk of having the ATM card withheld and may encounter additional transaction charges due to repeated attempts to access the machine. The Board sought comment on whether it should include a specific requirement that would allow users to extend the maximum time intervals between transactions beyond the amount of time typically allotted (Question 33). Commenters from the banking industry and ATM manufacturers noted that ATMs include standard features that ask if users want more time to conduct transactions. The requirements for speech output will ensure that such questions are accessible to users with vision impairments.

Response. The Board has not included a requirement for extending transaction time intervals in view of industry practice.

Section 707.7 addresses visual display screens and provides specifications for the screen height and the legibility of visual characters. An exception is provided for drive-up ATMs, which the Board modified in the final rule to also cover drive-up fare machines (707.7, Exception). Few comments addressed these provisions and no further substantive changes have been made.

708 Two-Way Communication Systems

This section provides criteria for two-way communication systems where they are provided to gain admittance to a facility or to restricted areas within a facility. These systems must provide audible and visual signals so that they are accessible to people with vision or hearing impairments. As part of the integration of requirements for residential dwelling units from a separate chapter, provisions specific to communication systems in such facilities have been relocated to this section (708.4). No further changes have been made to section 708.

One of the technical provisions requires that handsets, where provided, have cords long enough (at least 29 inches) to accommodate people using wheelchairs (708.3). The proposed guidelines included an exception from this requirement for communication systems located at inaccessible entrances. The Board has removed this exception in the final rule, consistent with the new ANSI A117.1 standard. This action was taken in view of situations where an entrance may be inaccessible, but a two-way communication serving it is on an accessible route. In such cases, the availability of a two-way communication system may be of particular benefit to people unable to access an entrance.

Captioning

ADAAG and the Department of Justice’s ADA regulations do not require captioning of movies for persons who are deaf. However, various technologies have been developed to provide open or closed captioning for movie theaters. One closed caption method for making movies accessible is a system that synchronizes captions and action by projecting reverse text images onto a wall behind an audience. The reverse text is then reflected by transparent screens at individual seats where movie goers can read the script on the screen and view the movie through the screen simultaneously. This type of auxiliary aid and others may require built-in features to make them usable.

Comment. In the proposed rule, the Board requested information on other types of captioning as it relates to the built environment and preferences among users (Question 36). Specifically, the Board sought information regarding the technical provisions that would be necessary to include in ADAAG to facilitate or augment the use of auxiliary aids such as captioning and video text displays. Most comments from people with disabilities and disability organizations supported a requirement for captioning. However, most of these commenters stated a strong preference for open captioning over closed captioning because it provides easier viewing and seating flexibility. Some commenters expressed concerns about the reliability or convenience of particular closed captioning systems. Comments from the movie theater industry pointed out that the Department of Justice’s ADA regulations issued under title III state that movie theaters are not required to present open captioned films, but are encouraged to voluntarily provide closed captioning.²⁵

Convenience Food Restaurants

Convenience food restaurants, otherwise known as fast food restaurants, often provide people with the opportunity to order food from a drive-through facility. These facilities usually require voice intercommunication. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has required restaurants to accept orders at pick-up windows when the communications system is not accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Comment. The Board requested comment on whether accessible communication should be required at drive-through facilities (Question 37). Few comments addressed this question. Disability groups representing people who are deaf supported a requirement to ensure an equivalent level of access. Comments from the restaurant industry opposed such a requirement in favor of the approach taken by DOJ. Industry comments expressed concern about a mandated design solution’s potential cost and the impact on drive-through communication devices.

Response. The Board believes that further information needs to be developed on the technologies available to provide access for persons who are deaf to communication devices at drive-through facilities before specifying a requirement in these guidelines. A requirement for such access has not been included in the final rule.