Before the
U.S. ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Washington, D.C. 20004 In the Matter of
Docket No. 99-1
Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities
and
Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines COMMENTS OF SELF HELP FOR HARD OF HEARING PEOPLE, INC. (SHHH)
Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc. (SHHH) hereby submits comments in response to the Access Board's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the above proceeding.
SHHH is a national consumer organization representing people who are hard of hearing of all ages and degrees of hearing loss. SHHH has a national office, eight state associations and a network of 250 chapters and groups nationwide.
SHHH is aware that the Access Board has led a very long, thorough review of the ADAAG. SHHH participated at the sub-committee level in the review of guidelines covering assistive listening devices and two-way communication systems. Our comments here focus on the areas that are critical to our constituency, the 26 million people who are hard of hearing, who rely on technology to allow them to access public facilities and services. Specifically we will address our comments to the recommendations for assistive listening devices, telephones, captioning, visual alarms and transportation facilities.
203.3 Employee Work Areas The proposed rule would require that employee work areas be equipped with visual alarms where audible alarms are provided. Given that this is a life safety issue we support it.
Question 6. Asks for less costly alternatives to providing visual alarms in all employee work areas that result in a comparable level of life safety. SHHH believes there are less costly alternatives but they do not provide a comparable level of life safety.
Buddy systems are employed in some work places whereby a supervisor or other colleague is responsible for ensuring that the employee with hearing loss is notified in the event of an emergency. This is not foolproof. The employee with hearing loss may work alone after hours, the buddy or back up buddies may not be present during the time of the emergency.
Likewise in some workplaces pagers are distributed for work use. This may be viewed as a viable way to alert the individual in the event of an emergency. However, again there are many reasons why this is not guaranteed to work when a fire breaks out. The individual may not be wearing the pager, the pager battery may be low, the pager may not pick up in certain locations in the building. Neither the buddy system nor paging provides a comparable level of life safety to visual alarms.
Fire alarm systems are effective because they require electrical supervision with a fire alarm control panel and a separate secondary power system. No other alternative is going to be supervised and that is the component of a fire alarm system that makes it reliable. No other method would be recognized and considered legitimate by the National Fire Protection Association.
Employees with disabilities under Title 1 may request reasonable accommodations. They may therefore request a visual alarm to be installed in their work area. This puts the burden for ensuring safety on the employee. In the wake of the recent Supreme Court rulings employers may interpret a person with hearing loss who wears hearing aids, as having "mitigated" their disability, and therefore as not covered under the ADA.
Further, we know from research done at the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Persons who are Hard of Hearing and Late Deafened at the California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, that employees who are hard of hearing tend not to disclose their hearing loss to their employers or coworkers for fear of dismissal, negative stigmatization, being viewed as less capable, and loss of potential career advancement. So if we rely on Title I, the reality is that many employees with hearing loss do not self identify, the premise on which Title I is built, and therefore will not request accommodations. For those that do, the response by the employer/manager is likely to be to deny the request based on recent court rulings and the perception of what people who are hard of hearing need.
Assuming that we place a premium on life safety, then the requirement should be included in the final rule.
Question 7. Asks whether there are means available for deactivating individual visual alarms to accommodate employees who are photosensitive without rendering the entire system ineffective. From what we understand there is no reason to jeopardize the safety of hard of hearing and deaf employees by reducing the quality or quantity of visual alarms. There are sufficient safeguards to benefit persons who are photosensitive. Installation of visual alarms, properly Listed to UL/ANSI Standard 1971 in accordance with the National Fire Alarm Code, would virtually preclude the probability of a photosensitive event caused by a visual alarm.
Removing visual alarms or parts of a properly installed fire alarm system would knock out the very foolproof nature of the system and the life safety protection of the occupants.
217 Telephones SHHH supports the provision for volume control to be on all wheelchair accessible phones for those people with multiple disabilities.
Given that public phones are more often than not in noisy situations we believe the 25% scoping requirement for volume control phones that has remained the same in the revised ADAAG should be increased to100%.
The FCC realized the benefits of volume control as far as reaching the widest population of people with hearing loss and also the general public, by requiring that all wireline phones manufactured starting January 1,2000 be equipped with volume control.
The wireless industry recognized that their phones are used in a variety of settings, many of them noisy, and routinely incorporates volume control, even though they are not mandated to do so. As is the case for wireless phones, public phones with volume control are used by and benefit a wide range of people with hearing loss and the general public when making a call in noise. We therefore request that the Access Board increase the scoping for volume control on public phones to 100%. SHHH wholeheartedly supports the provision for an increased range in levels of volume control. It is a critical issue for our constituency. Time and time again people tell us that they cannot use public phones, even those fitted with volume control, as the boost is not strong enough. The proposed requirement will help make the phones more usable for this population.
One suggestion we have is for a revision of the wording of Technical requirement 704.3. As written now there could be some confusion as to whether the 20dB is meant to be a maximum or a minimum level. We recommend wording it to read "Public telephones required to have volume controls shall be equipped with a receive volume control that provides a gain adjustable to a minimum of 20dB."
219 Assistive Listening Systems. SHHH is pleased with the Access Board's decision to increase overall the guidelines related to assistive listening devices. The original ADAAG did not include enough specific guidance on assistive listening devices and as a result people with hearing loss have been disappointed with the quality and usability of assistive devices in public places.
SHHH wholeheartedly supports the requirement that a portion of receivers (25% but no less than 2) be compatible with hearing aids. Feedback from our members, 88% of whom wear hearing aids, has shown that though facilities may have listening systems they are unusable by many hearing aid wearers as the appropriate attachments for use with telecoils are not provided. Designating neck loops as the attachment of choice also makes sense. Neckloops are easy to use, comfortable to wear, hygienic and allow binaural hearing aid use.
Technical Advisory 706 .4 includes one statement that is misleading. It gives the impression that silhouette transducers are not compatible with hearing aids. Though not comfortable for everyone, they are compatible with hearing aids through inductive coupling via the telecoil setting.
We do not recommend a requirement for facilities to provide this type of attachment. People who use and like silhouette transducers will probably own their own. We recommend a rewording of the advisory by taking the silhouette transducer out of the proscribed list.
One suggestion for increasing ease of understanding of the proposed guidelines specific to ALD attachments would be to include pictures of the attachments recommended and to illustrate the technical advisory.
Technical 706.3. Standard mono receiver jacks of 1/8 inch or adapters is a very important provision for those who wish to use direct audio input to their hearing aids or cochlear implants and we support its inclusion.
Removing the fixed seating requirement from the original rule will alleviate a great deal of confusion and will ensure communication access in situations that otherwise would not have been covered by the rule, such as hotel ballrooms, and dinner clubs. SHHH supports the removal of the fixes seating requirement.
We also urge the Access Board to reconsider the requirement that assistive listening systems are only required if and when an audio system is in place. There are facilities such as senior centers, community centers, and libraries that hold events such as classes, meetings and presentations in rooms where audible communication is integral to the space and yet there is no audio system. We believe the audio system requirement should be removed.
SHHH supports specifying the minimum number of receivers according to a sliding scale. This is a more reasonable approach for larger facilities to follow and yet provides adequate access for consumers.
SHHH, on behalf of its constituency, thanks the Access Board for commissioning research on developing standards for assistive listening systems. Quality of assistive listening systems is a serious concern among users because there is such a wide variance in performance. The Lexington Center has developed Speech Transmission Index software that can assess ALS signal quality on-site using a multi-media laptop computer. This user friendly evaluation tool, that will be available free as a download from the Board's website, should greatly enhance the performance of assistive listening devices and enable more people who are hard of hearing to benefit from them. We support inclusion of this standard for assistive listening devices in the rule.
Question 36. Captioning. One area of access that is sorely lacking for people who are hard of hearing and deaf is communication access to movies. Today, people with hearing loss who are unable to use assistive listening devices, have no way to attend a movie at their local cinema. A few theaters have installed Rear Window technology, and a few theaters in a few cities have been holding open captioned showings. But for most people who are hard of hearing and deaf going to the movies is not a part of their lives. When the original ADA guidelines were adopted in 1992 no position was mandated on technical access to movies. Included in the original ADAAG was a recommendation that open captioned showings of movies be held from time to time. Some studios have produced a few films with open captions and theater owners have been quite responsive in scheduling them whenever they are available. But not enough open captioned films are available and there is a delay in their release time.
In addition there are several closed captioning technologies such as Rear Window that have been developed over the past few years due to the leadership of the Center for Accessible Media. A very limited number of theaters have gone ahead and installed these.
Under the ADA the responsibility for providing communication access under Title III has rested with the theater owners. It would seem that the theater owners are the equivalent of the landlords. They are technically responsible for access to their facility and program through physical access provisions for wheelchair users and auxiliary aids and services for communication access. We believe responsibility for accessible movies should also rest with the studios that produce the movies. Up to now they have managed to escape any responsibility under the ADA. Its time to revisit what responsibility the studios have in assuring access to the movies they produce and distribute and for not discriminating against hard of hearing and deaf patrons.
Both open and closed captioning of movies has advantages and disadvantages. SHHH is not taking a position for one over the other. However, SHHH urges the Access Board to establish a requirement to have equivalent communication access for hard of hearing and deaf people to movies through captioning.
Captioning technology will no doubt continue to evolve and progress. The studios should be a part of the progress in finding a solution to make movies accessible to hard of hearing and deaf people. The studios should be encouraged to underwrite research to develop ways to caption movies that provide access most cost effectively.
224 Transient Lodging Guest Rooms SHHH is very pleased with the Access Board's new proposed rules for visual alarms. The number of guest rooms to be equipped with accessible communication features has been significantly revised and for good reason. This is a guideline concerned with life safety. The new requirement for 50% of the total number of guest rooms to be communications accessible, including permanently installed visual fire alarms, will improve safety for all people with disabilities as they will no longer have to compete for the same accessible rooms. It will also reduce the problem of limited access when group meetings are held at hotels, and it will also allow people with hearing loss to have more choice of room types.
The proposed rule also tightens the use of auxiliary alarms by requiring that visual alarms be permanently installed and connected to the main fire alarm system. This requirement is vital and SHHH wholeheartedly supports it.
The existing ADAAG regarding auxiliary visual alarms is not enforced. Auxiliary alarms are allowed only if they can be activated by the building alarm system, not the building electrical system. From what SHHH understands there is no way to do that today. The alarm would have to be custom built. Because the existing ADAAG is so hard to comply with and because the rule is not enforced, hotels use ineffective portable alarms and get away with it.
People with hearing loss, when staying in a hotel room alone, are very nervous about the eventuality of a fire or other need for emergency evacuation. They know that they will not hear the audible fire alarms and the announcements of what to do and where to go. And yet today there are no safeguards in place for them that are truly effective. If anything is provided at all it is likely to be a portable visual alarm that is handed out along with the shake-awake clock, and the door knock alert. The portable unit is then plugged into the electrical outlet that is vulnerable to blackouts. The hotel is not in compliance with the existing ADAAG, and the hotel guest with hearing loss has this false sense of security that they are protected in the event of an emergency.
Portable smoke alarms are triggered when smoke enters the room, by which time it is already too late and by no stretch of the imagination can be considered an effective safety provision. Also, they may be triggered by sounds, such as might be coming from the hallway. So the individual with hearing loss is awakened by the strobe light and is searching for the fire in the middle of the night when in fact the portable system was reacting to sound, not smoke. Such portable products are sound activated and can therefore be activated by a number of different sounds in addition to the function of an audible smoke detector. Thus they are not able to be UL listed.
There are hotels that don't even have portable systems available. In these cases, if the individual is assertive he/she might request to be alerted by a staff member keying into the room. Based on anecdotal evidence this is also a false sense of security. More often than not it just doesn't happen. Communication is not carried through between shifts and the human failing of just forgetting can easily happen and does. It may not be possible for staff to get to the room to key-in depending on where the fire has to be contained.
An example of how this fails happened at the SHHH convention in 1998 in Boston. Markers had been placed ahead of time on the doors of rooms where individuals had to be notified by staff in the event of an emergency. When people checked in they were assigned different rooms and so the stickers landed up on the doors of hearing guests and the individuals with hearing loss were in rooms without any notification in place. There was chaos as there were three fire alarms during the three-day convention and most of the attendees with hearing loss slept through all of them.
There are many stories of people with hearing loss sleeping through fire alarms and hearing about it from other guests the next day. Fortunately they have been there to hear the tale.
SHHH strongly supports the revision to Section 702.3.6 that now requires permanent installation of visual alarms. Anyone who understands fire protection knows that for a visual fire alarm to be effective it has to be connected to the building fire alarm system that will be supervised, checked and maintained regularly.
Section 702.3.1. Sets a requirement reducing the maximum flash rate from 3 Hertz (Hz) to 2 Hz. We believe that this requirement allows for the protection of people with hearing loss while minimizing the effect on persons with photosensitive epilepsy. We believe that the optimum flash rate was thoroughly researched by a coalition representing people with hearing loss, people with epilepsy, the fire alarm industry, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. In addition the requirements reflect those in the ANSI A117.1 standards. We therefore support the proposed rule reducing the flash rate to 2 Hz.
702 Fire Alarm Systems. We wish to advocate even more stringent safeguards in our proposed revision of Section 702.3.4.1 and Table 702.3.4.2, as provided below. These proposed changes mirror the 1999 edition of the National Fire Alarm Code.
Advisory 702.3.1.3. Flash rates that exceed five flashes per second may be disturbing to persons with photosensitivity, particularly those with certain forms of epilepsy. Multiple, unsynchronized visual signals within a single space may produce a composite flash rate that could trigger a photosensitive response or other unfavorable responses with some people. Therefore, new installation guidelines are provided.
702.3.4.1 General. The signal provided by the appliance or appliances shall be visible by direct viewing or by reflection from all parts of the covered area. The appliance or appliances shall be installed in accordance with Tables 702.3.4.2 or 702.3.4.3, using one of the following: a single appliance; two appliances located on opposite walls; more than two appliances in any field of view, spaced 55 feet (17m) from each other in rooms 80 feet by 80 feet (24m) or greater; or more than two appliances in the same room or adjacent space within the field of view that flash in synchronization. This requirement shall not preclude the synchronization of appliances that are not within the same field of view.
Table 702.3.4.2 Spacing Allocation for Wall-Installed Visual Alarm Appliances
Reference: UL/ANSI Standard 1971, Rev. April 26, 1999; Effective Nov 1, 2000
The committees comprising code writers of the National Fire Alarm Code, 1999; the UL/ANSI Standard 1971 (Rev. 4/99), Signaling Devices for the Hearing Impaired; the ANSI A117 Standard Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, 1998 have each adopted flash rates of 1Hz to 2 Hz and other safe guards. The National Fire Alarm Code further introduced synchronization as an additional safeguard. No documented, confirmed or verifiable evidence of an unfavorable medical, neurological or other event having occurred as a direct result of a properly Listed visual alarm that was installed in accordance with the National Fire Alarm Code, has ever been presented to and accepted by any of the above committees. With the introduction of synchronization as an additional feature, we believe there is no justification to reduce or limit the quality or quantity of visual alarm life safety protection.
702.3.6.2 The proposed rule requires that "where a suite contains more than one sleeping room, an appliance shall be provided in each sleeping room." This would work well for suites with two or more sleeping rooms. But a great many, probably most, suites consist of two rooms, only one of which is a sleeping room. In such suites, the appliance could be in the non-sleeping room, as long as it was within 16' of the head of the bed in the next room. SHHH recommends that the phrase, "where a suite contains more than one sleeping room" be deleted and replaced with, "an appliance shall be provided in each sleeping room."
This situation was experienced recently by one of our members staying in a suite in a four-star Washington, D.C hotel. The suite was equipped with a full range of assistive devices - strobes and horns for doorbell, phone ring, a TTY, a FAX, an amplified phone, two captioned TVs, a bed shaker attached to the alarm clock, plus a permanently installed fire alarm strobe/horn connected to the building alarm system. All appropriate access required under both present and proposed ADAAG. The individual was impressed and rated it the most hearing-loss-accessible hotel room he had ever experienced. However, if there had been a fire he would not have been alerted. The fire alarm strobe was mounted on the living room wall. With the sleeping room door closed, it would not be seen.
The strobe was within the specified distance from the head of the bed (he measured it) so the location was in accord with the proposed new ADAAG which requires alarms in each sleeping room of suites with two or more sleeping rooms. Since this particular suite had only one sleeping room it was not a violation to mount the alarm in the living room. SHHH urges a change in the proposed language to, "an appliance shall be provided in each sleeping room."
Audible Alarms. ANSI S3.41 requires a three-pulsed temporal pattern to alert people to an emergency evacuation situation. A pulsed signal is easier than a constant tone for many people with hearing loss to notice, especially individuals who experience tinnitus. SHHH recommends that ADAAG adopt the ANSI S3.41 standard requiring audible alarms to have a three- pulsed temporal pattern.
SHHH supports the reduction in the maximum sound level for audible alarms from 120 to 110 decibels as more appropriate and less likely to cause tinnitus.
SHHH believes that there should be an upper limit placed on the frequency of audible alarms. ADAAG and ANSI both have an upper limit on the frequency for elevator signals. Surely it is not more important to hear an elevator signal than a fire alarm. Most people with hearing loss have the type of hearing loss called sensorineural. This includes presbycussis, hearing loss in aging. Sensorineural hearing loss is characterized by a loss of the ability to hear high frequency sounds. SHHH recommends that the same limit used in ADAAG and ANSI for elevator signal frequency be used for audible alarm frequency - that is 1500 Hz upper limit.
Chapter 10 Transportation Facilities. Communications Public address systems need to provide the same or equivalent information to people with hearing loss. Today, very few transportation facilities provide this information, in any shape or form, to travelers who are hard of hearing or deaf.
Because of the nature of transportation facilities - big, crowded, noisy, bustling spaces with personnel on tight schedules, it is critical to adopt a system that is reliable, provides information in visual format, has realtime capability for timely information, reaches the greatest number of people and is the least labor intensive.
In January 2000 the Department of Transportation held hearings on access for hard of hearing and deaf travelers and the preference expressed by different consumer groups representing both hard of hearing and deaf people was for information provided in a visual format with realtime capability. This would apply to all transportation facilities as similar types of information are relayed whether in airports, train or bus stations.
SHHH did an email survey of people who are hard of hearing in which we requested that they list their top five priorities for access in airline terminals. The number one priority was being provided with information given out over the public address system. 92 out of 124 respondents said that they wanted to be able to read the information on a video screen right at the gate area as they wait for their flight. They wanted the information to be timely and cover such things as flight delays, cancellations, gate changes, boarding time and order, bumping, standby calls, paging messages. In short, they wanted to receive the same information given out over the public address system, as it was being given, in realtime.
This request from consumers is not new. It has been made consistently over the past decade. The time has come to specify that the information should be provided visually. In the past the concept was ahead of the technological feasibility. However, there is software available today that makes it possible and manufacturers who are interested in providing it. There are already systems that incorporate and display preprogrammed information. Examples of these systems were presented at the DOT hearing. The manufacturers, after sharing information with consumer groups at the hearing, understood better the communication needs of hard of hearing and deaf travelers and are now interested in taking the concept further to ensure a realtime component. More than likely speech to text will bring this to the next level and should be pursued aggressively.
SHHH appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on this very important proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
John Jaco,
Executive Director, SHHH
7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1200
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
301-657-2248 www.shhh.org
