COMMENTS

New Proposed ADA Regulations

Definitions

ADA Title II Definitions § 35.104

ADA Title III Definitions § 36.303

Generally, the inclusion of additional technologies is positive, as there are increasingly varied technologies that can be used to ensure effective communication. However, additions and/or clarifications are needed to make this complete.

The term “qualified interpreters” should include “video interpreting services (VIS)” as follows:

“Qualified interpreters on site or via video interpreting services (VIS) . . . .”

The term “computer-aided transcription services” should be changed to “computer aided real-time transcription services” to ensure the provision of simultaneous, not after-the-fact transcription.

The inclusion of “exchange of written notes” as an example of auxiliary aids or services is very troubling. While it codifies a common practice, covered entities frequently rely on this mode of communication inappropriately. Once codified, covered entities will point to its inclusion as an additional reason why they should not have to provide other auxiliary aids and services, such as qualified interpreters and computer aided real-time transcription services. As described in earlier DOJ guidance, written notes are not effective for many interactive situations. The communication limitations inherent in the act of exchanging written notes, including the literacy skills necessary, must be described in detail to ensure that appropriate, effective auxiliary aids and services are provided.

The term “text telephones (TTYs)” should be changed to “voice, text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems, including TTYs, videophones, and captioned telephonest or equally effective telecommunications systems.” This language is consistent with § 35.161. Telecommunications systems that enable communication in multiple modes must be included as auxiliary aids. Technology now exists for individuals to use a variety of communication methods (text, voice or video) either individually or simultaneously to achieve effective communication. The new regulations should make clear that phones that achieve this capability are included.

There is some ambiguity about what is included in video interpreting services. In common usage currently, most people refer to VRS (video relay systems) or VRI (video remote interpreting). Although these two systems use similar technology, typically a screen, camera and high speed internet connection, they are used in different circumstances. VRS is used for phone conversations, while VRI is used in what would otherwise be interpreting situations.

While the provision of VIS may be required by a covered entity-who would have to pay for the interpreters and the service involved- the capability and willingness to communicate through any form of telecommunications relay services (TRS) also needs to be made clear, either here or elsewhere. This would encompass the ability and requirement to communicate though the various types of relay, including VRS, captioned telephone, IP relay (using the Internet or IM), text to speech (using TTYs), voice carryover, hearing carryover, and speech to speech. It is especially important for there to be specific regulatory language because many businesses are not accepting calls made through a relay service.

The term “orally” should be changed to “aurally” to be consistent with the definition of “auxiliary aids and services” in Title III and as originally intended to include more than just information conveyed by human speech.

Auxiliary aids and services includes –

• Qualified interpreters, notetakers , computer-aided transcription services, written materials, exchange of written notes, telephone handset amplifiers, assistive listening devices, assistive listening systems, telephones compatible with hearing aids, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, text telephones (TTYs), videotext displays, video interpreting services (VIS), accessible electronic and information technology, or other effective methods of making orally delivered information available to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
  
• Qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, brailled materials and displays, screen reader software, magnification software, optical readers, secondary auditory programs (SAP), large print materials, accessible electronic and information technology, or other effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to individuals who are blind or have low vision;

The addition of examples and descriptions of the variety of available interpreters is helpful.

Further comment, particularly from providers and professional associations, is needed to ensure appropriate terminology is used in this section. For example, oral and cued speech interpreters may be referred to as transliterators, rather than interpreters. In addition, cued speech uses “ handshapes and placements in combination with the mouth movements of speech to make the phonemes of a spoken language look different from each other,” rather than “a hand code.”

DOJ should also include other examples and descriptions, such as tactile interpreters (to communicate with people who are deaf-blind), certified deaf interpreters (CDIs) (to meet special communication challenges), and speech-to-speech interpreters (to communicate with people with speech disabilities).

The 1991 Standards included a requirement that a qualified interpreter be capable of interpreting effectively, accurately, and impartially "both receptively and expressively". The proposed definition removes the "receptively and expressively" language. This language should be restored to make absolutely certain that interpreters can both understand what a person with a disability says and convey information back from individuals seeking to communicate with that person. These are two very different skill sets, both of which are equally important in achieving effective communication. Otherwise stated, a qualified sign language interpreter must be able to interpret from spoken English to sign language and from sign language to spoken English.

Qualified interpreter means an interpreter who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially using any necessary specialized vocabulary. Qualified interpreters include, for example, sign language interpreters, oral interpreters, and cued speech interpreters. Oral interpreter means an interpreter who has special skill and training to mouth a speaker's words silently for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Cued speech interpreter means an interpreter who functions in the same manner as an oral interpreter except that he or she uses a hand code or cue, to represent each speech sound.

The addition of this definition is welcome. People with disabilities often report difficulties obtaining qualified readers, particularly in education settings where sophisticated or specialized vocabulary is used. However, the Department should add to this definition that the reader "will follow the directions of the person for whom he or she is reading."

Qualified reader means a person who is able to read effectively, accurately, and impartially using any necessary vocabulary.

The addition of this definition is welcome. However, the definition of VIS must include the term “qualified” and should be modified as follows:

Video interpreting services (VIS) means video conference technology used to deliver the services of qualified interpreters. VIS generally consists of video cameras and monitors, microphones and speakers, a high speed Internet or other connection, and a qualified interpreter.

DOJ should note that VIS is also commonly called “video remote interpreting (VRI) services.”

DOJ needs to make clear that VIS typically involves communication between two or more people at the same location (not communication between two or more people by phone), and are services that are contractually arranged for a fee, which is paid by the covered entity. VIS must be distinguished from video relay service (VRS), which is a means of achieving functionally equivalent telephone services. With VRS, a caller can place a call at any time, and takes the next available interpreter of the VRS provider through which he or she is placing the call. Unlike VIS, VRS is funded through the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund administered through the Federal Communications Commission. VRS users, including covered entities, are not charged a fee for the use of VRS.

Video interpreting services (VIS) means an interpreting service that uses video conference technology over high speed internet lines. VIS generally consists of a videophone, monitors, cameras, a high speed Internet connection, and an interpreter

Video Interpreting Services

The Department should make clear that VIS is not a complete alternative to on-site interpreting. Even if a public entity has VIS capability, there are certain situations (e.g. multi-person conversations, dynamic situations, or physically difficult situations (a person is lying in a hospital bed) where VIS may not be appropriate or effective. There may also be certain populations for which VIS may not be effective, such as people who are deaf-blind. In these situations an on-site interpreter is necessary.

Currently, VIS may be effective when used as an interim measure in emergency situations until an interpreter arrives on site, or for certain scheduled, non-complex, relatively brief communication events. However, even minor delays in getting a VIS system turned on with a qualified interpreter ready to provide services can make VIS unavailable and, therefore, ineffective for many unscheduled communication events (i.e., doctor’s rounds in hospitals) and an on-site interpreter may be necessary.

Training to nontechnicians so that they may quickly and efficiently set up and operate the VIS.

Title II Telecommunications

This section should be re-written. If text telephones (TTYs) are listed, it must be accompanied by a list of other available types of equipment that are now in far more use than TTYs. For example the following are examples of communications equipment now in use: videophones, captioned telephones, voice carryover and hearing carryover phones, and pagers and other computer devices that send text or IM messages. Mentioning only TTYs has had a detrimental effect. When facilities see only this listed, they fail to utilize other devices that are far more useful, practical, and actually in use by people who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities.

The phrase "text telephones (TTYs) or equally effective telecommunications systems" in subsection (a) should be replaced with language that recognizes that there is now a range of voice, text, and video technologies available to those seeking telecommunications access, as follows:

(a) Where a public entity communicates by telephone with applicants and beneficiaries, voice, text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems, including TTYs, videophones, and captioned telephones or equally effective telecommunications systems, shall be used to communicate with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or have speech impairments.

In addition, language must be added that makes absolutely clear that this section is not intended to preclude equipment that relies on successor technologies. Undoubtedly, new devices will be developed that should be utilized in ADA compliance.

We appreciate the Department s decision to specifically address the need for access to automated attendant systems in subsection (b), though this term either has to be defined, or should be changed to: "interactive voice response, automated attendant, and voice messaging." This change is needed to make this section consistent with the recommendations of TEITAC (the federal advisory committee commissioned by the Access Board that recently completed recommendations on guidelines for Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act). Also, this section suffers from the same fatal flaw as section (a), in referencing only TTYs.

The requirement to communicate through any form of telecommunications relay service (TRS) needs to be made clear that this would encompass various types of relay, including VRS, captioned telephone, IP relay (using the Internet and or IM), text to speech (using TTYs), voice carryover, hearing carryover, and speech to speech.

It would be better to have a very clear sentence that says that no covered entity may reject or block any telephone call made through telecommunications relay services, and that all covered entities must treat calls made over TRS in a manner that is identical to calls made directly. Among other things, this requires covered entities to provide, receive or exchange information via TRS when so requested by a TRS user, even when such information is otherwise subject to confidentiality or privacy restrictions. The preamble should make clear that problems have ensued with security houses, banks and even governmental agencies refusing to give or take information via relay services. It needs to be made absolutely clear to these entities that they cannot treat relay calls any differently than direct calls.

The regulation should further clarify that businesses may not set up a separate mechanism for accepting relay calls, for example establishing a “relay number” and redirecting all relay calls to that number. Some businesses have established such mechanisms in order to screen relay calls while purporting to “accept” the calls.

Finally, it should be clarified that covered entities, subject to the undue burden standard, may have to provide a videophone and broadband Internet access to enable their employees, participants, beneficiaries, etc. to utilize VRS and to make “point-to-point” video calls, which allow individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing to communicate directly with each other over the Internet.

(f) A public entity shall respond to telephone calls from a telecommunications relay service established under title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the same manner that it responds to other telephone calls.

Public Accommodations Telecommunications

ADA Title III Telecommunications Regulations

36.303(d)(1)(i) Same as Title II comments, Section 35.161, regarding automated attendant system.

36.303(d)(1)(ii)This regulation is unclear about what “incident to its operations” means. If a public accommodation allows the public to use the phones then it should allow people with disabilities to use the phones with any required equipment to make them accessible or provide alternative telecommunications equipment that is accessible. Such alternative equipment includes videophones, captioned telephones, voice carryover and hearing carryover phones, and other successor technology and equipment. Fortunately, many of these are combined into one device that is now available.

The standard under Section 508, which should be the standard here is: if others in the public have access, equal access must be provided to people with disabilities.

As noted above, either “automated attendant systems” needs to be defined, or the reference should be to “automated attendant, interactive voice response, and messaging systems.” Also, this section must make clear that when these systems are used, they must provide effective communication for any individual with a disability – not just individuals who use TTYs or TRS. In fact, these systems can pose major problems for people with cognitive disabilities. For this reason, TEITAC (Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) of the Access Board) proposed the following guidelines for these systems (and which are relevant for the ADA):

1. All functions that are accessible to voice users must also be directly accessible to users of real time text;

2. Provide full player controls that allow users to pause, rewind, slow down and repeat all messages and prompts;

This part does not require a public accommodation to use a TTY for receiving or making telephone calls incident to its, operations.

Addition of “Companions”

Title II Regulations – Communications

Section 35.160(a)(1) is a continuation of the existing regulation, with the addition of companions, and is an appropriate expression of the standard. There are many situations, health care being among the most common, when it is appropriate and necessary to communicate with a companion who has a disability.

However, the Department should be clear that public entities should not communicate with companions instead of the primary person with a disability when communication with the primary person is more appropriate. Although language below makes clear that this section refers to companions with disabilities, this language could be confusing to public entities who could interpret it as allowing them to communicate with companions in lieu of the primary person. This is a frequent problem encountered by people with disabilities, in that people who are unaccustomed to communicating with them may choose to communicate with a companion who does not have a disability because it is perceived to be easier or more convenient. The Department should be clear in this regulation that this is not appropriate.

Further, as written, the proposed change suggests that the term “companions” is limited to companions of individuals with disabilities, which we believe was not intended. Companions with disabilities may be companions of individuals with or without disabilities.

As such, the placement of the term “companions thereof” in section (a)(1) should be changed as follows:

“(a)(1) A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, companions, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.”

Further, section (a)(2) should be changed as follows to provide clarity:

(a)(2) For purposes of this section, companion with a disability means a family member, friend, or associate of a program applicant or participant with or without a disability, who, along with the applicant or participant, is an appropriate person with whom the public entity would otherwise communicate.

§35.160(a)(1) A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, member of the public with disabilities, and companions thereof are as effective as communications with others.

(a)(2) For purposes of this section, companion means a family member, friend, or associate of a program participant who, along with the participant, is an appropriate person with whom the public entity should communicate.

It should also be noted that an auxiliary aid or service may need to be provided for a companion even when the participant is not physically present with the companion (such as in the case of a deaf parent attending parent-teacher conferences, when the hearing child is not present at the conference.).

We strongly oppose the deletion of section 35.160(b)(2). Section (b)(2) of the current regulation, quoted below, is critical to ensuring effective communication:

(b)(2) In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary considerationto the requests of the individual with disabilities .

In our experience, this section often makes the difference between effective communication and ineffective communication. There is considerable misunderstanding on the part of public entities regarding how to ensure that communication is effective. Reference to the person with a disability’s preference ensures that the appropriate auxiliary aid or service is used. This is because the person with a disability will be well versed in what works for him or her in a given situation. For example, in Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001), while the court provided certain accommodations, these accommodations were not effective for the plaintiff. As a result, he was denied effective participation in his trial. This case is a classic example of what can happen when appropriate accommodations – which are typically those requested by the person with a disability – are not provided.

There is often lack of understanding of what an individual needs, especially in the case of people who are deaf or hard of hearing because of the diversity of challenges presented by a wide range of communication abilities, circumstances and environments. Further, the array of accessibility options, including many options involving new technologies, has proliferated since the passage of the ADA, making deference to the user’s preference all the more important.

To correct this, the proposed regulation should include language that the aid provided should be the one requested, absent undue burden or fundamental alteration.

In addition, we recommend including a mandate to ensure that information provided in alternate format materials is provided in a timely manner, and that the information provided is accurate. People with hearing, vision and speech disabilities commonly experience that, when alternative format materials are provided, they may be delayed or incomplete. Thus the Department must stress that such materials must be timely to be effective.

Recently, Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) of the Access Board proposed that information provided in alternate formats, or otherwise via accessible means be “as timely, accurate, complete and efficient” as information made available to individuals who do not have disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the covered entity. The same standard should apply here.

Also, we agree with the Department's conclusions that the method of communication will vary, depending on the circumstances presented. However, notwithstanding the reference to a new subsection (b)(2), there is no such section contained in the actual rule proposals.

§35.160(b) A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities and their companions, who are individuals with disabilities, an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity.

§35.160(b)(2) [Deleted]

Section 35.160(c)(1) is a good clarification of existing law.

§35.160(c)(1) A public entity shall not require an individual with a disability to bring another individual to interpret for him or her.

Section 35.160(c)(2) implicates some of the most difficult situations related to these requirements. It also appears to merge three distinct issues that might be better dealt with in separate regulations. These are (1) discrete emergency situations (e.g. arrests, car accidents), (2) large scale emergency or public safety threats (e.g. earthquakes, wild fires, terrorist threats), and (3) situations when a person might prefer to use a companion to interpret.

As to the first category, discrete emergencies, in our experience public entities, and particularly law enforcement and medical personnel, would likely interpret this section too expansively, potentially excusing them from seeking auxiliary aids and services altogether. It should be clarified that in all situations (including emergency situations) the obligation to provide auxiliary aids and services continues, such that after the emergency subsides a public entity may have to obtain auxiliary aids or services. For example, after an arrest scene is stabilized and secured, a law enforcement agency must then attempt to obtain interpreters or other such aids even if that was impossible to do when the situation was not yet controlled.

In addition, it should be added that even in an emergency, the provision of an interpreter may be both possible and not constitute an undue burden (and would therefore be required) if the entity has made the necessary pre-arrangements. For example, now many hospitals have contractual arrangements with interpreter agencies that ensure the provision of interpreters on very short notice. For example, in pending childbirth situations, an interpreter is assigned to a mom-to-be and remains “on call” with a pager, allowing the interpreter to arrive at a hospital in minutes. Indeed, in a sense, every birth can be an emergency situation. It is important that hospitals, and similar entities, do not give up such contractual arrangements by arguing that they are no longer required to make efforts to provide interpreters in these situations.

The second category above presents a situation when provision of effective communication is essential. We recommend a separate regulation dealing with a public entity’s obligation to provide timely and effective communication in public emergencies. In the context of this regulation, as above, public entities should be reminded of their continuing obligations to provide auxiliary aids and services, including qualified interpreters and computer aided real-time transcription services. Again, pre-arrangements, for example with CART – computer-aided real-time transcription services – may help in this regard (if computers are available, this may be an effective means of providing communication in an emergency for people who are hard of hearing and temporarily for people who are deaf and use sign language).

The existence of an emergency should not be an excuse not to provide auxiliary aids or services. This is the time when these aids and services may be most needed. For example, a number of public entities have begun using text alerts to reach a larger proportion of the population in times of emergency. Text alerts is merely an example of how public entities can plan in advance for emergencies.

As to the third category, we recommend that this section be clarified to include that in non-emergency situations, an accompanying individual may not interpret for the person with a disability until the person with a disability has been informed that he or she has a right to request and receive auxiliary aids and services. It is important that people be informed of these rights precisely because, as the Department notes, the information conveyed can be personal and confidential. Particularly in law enforcement and health care settings, use of friends or family members to interpret can lead to difficult and dangerous situations if information is not conveyed accurately or impartially. A person with a disability may be unaware of their right to request auxiliary aids and services, and thus may accept a companion interpreter.

It also must be absolutely clear that children are not to be used for interpreting purposes. It is not uncommon for public entities to use children as interpreters, including in entirely inappropriate settings, such as domestic violence investigations. This should be included in the regulation itself. This can be incredibly damaging for the child, who may not feel able to refuse a request from a parent, family member, or others in these situations, and who may be asked to convey personal and sensitive information about family members.

“Companions”

ADA Title III Regulations – Auxiliary Aids and Services

See Comments on Title II Section 35.160(a) and (b) about “companions”

§36.303(c)Effective Communication.

• For purposes of this section, companion means a family member, friend, or associate of a program participant who, along with the participant, is an appropriate person with whom the public accommodation should communicate

Section 36.303(c)(1)(iii) will be incredibly problematic for persons with disabilities and runs counter to the intent of the ADA. Public accommodations will read this section to provide them with ultimate decision-making authority regarding provision of auxiliary aids and services. However, public accommodations typically have the least information and understanding regarding how to ensure effective communication and the range of auxiliary aids and services available.

This section also conflicts with, or at a minimum sends mixed messages regarding the undue burden / fundamental alterations analysis of the renumbered section (h). In light of section (h) the last sentence of (c)(1)(ii) is not required.

Further, in our experience, public accommodations, when they see the first phrase (“the ultimate decision . . .”), they completely overlook the last phrase (“provided that the method chosen results in effective communication”). This provision, if made explicit, puts the person with a disability in the unenviable and untenable position of “fail first.” The individual must first try the proffered accommodation and that accommodation must fail first before the covered entity will provide the accommodation that the individual believes will result in effective communication. In many instances, there is no “second chance” to get the information and communication that is needed. Including this provision, as it is written, makes it possible for covered entities to provide any accommodation, regardless of the likelihood of effective communication, and comply with the law. This was never the intent of the ADA.

Re sections (2) and (3), see Title II comments, Section 35.160(a).

We recommend including a mandate to ensure that information that information provided in alternate format materials is provided in a timely manner, and that the information provided is accurate. We receive many complaints that when alternate format materials are provided, they may be delayed or incomplete. Thus, it is important to ensure that public accommodations understand that such materials must be timely in order to be effective.

Recently, TEITAC proposed that information provided in alternate formats, or otherwise via accessible means be “as timely, accurate, complete and efficient” as information made available to individuals who do not have disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the covered entity. The same standard should apply here.

(3) A public accommodation shall not rely on an individual accompanying an individual with a disability to interpret or facilitate communication, except in an emergency involving a threat to public safety or welfare, or unless the individual with a disability specifically requests it, the accompanying individual agrees to provide the assistance, and reliance on that individual for this assistance is appropriate under the circumstances.

Sports Stadiums Captioning

Captioning Regulations

Captioning at sports stadiums should be provided for all auditory information provided on scoreboards and video monitors. See answers to questions 49-52.

Comments To Specific ADAAG Requirements

Proposed Revision

The new ADAAGs need to contain requirements that respond to the wide variety of communication methods (text, voice or video) used by individuals with hearing and speech disabilities to achieve effective communication, by requiring the provision of devices using newer technologies that are now available. This might include videophones, captioned telephones, voice carryover and hearing carryover phones, and other successor technology and equipment. Either individual devices that provide multiple capabilities or individual devices that provide communication for each of these populations should be mandated. Moreover, the guidelines should acknowledge that current technologies may change, and that devices that use successor technologies may be needed in the future to provide effective communication.

Section 217.4.5 regarding Rest Stops, Emergency Roadside Stops should include call boxes in addition to public pay phones. Call boxes are, by definition, for emergencies. Thus, when people use them it is especially important that they be able to communicate effectively with the person at the call center. Many people who are deaf or hard of hearing who have stopped at call boxes without TTYs report waiting for hours, unsure if anyone on the other end heard or understood their need. Especially with the installation of new call boxes, there is no reason not to include TTYs or some other method of ensuring effective communication.

217 Telephones

217.1 General. Where coin-operated public pay telephones, coinless public pay telephones, public closed-circuit telephones, public courtesy phones, or other types of public telephones are provided, public telephones shall be provided in accordance with 217 for each type of public telephone provided. For purposes of this section, a bank of telephones shall be considered to be two or more adjacent telephones.

217.2 Wheelchair Accessible Telephones. Where public telephones are provided, wheelchair accessible telephones complying with 704.2 shall be provided in accordance with Table 217.2.

EXCEPTION: Drive-up only public telephones shall not be required to comply with 217.2.
 

217.3 Volume Controls . All public telephones shall have volume controls complying with 704.3.

217.4 TTYs. TTYs complying with 704.4 shall be provided in accordance with 217.4.

217.4.1 Bank Requirement. Where four or more public pay telephones are provided at a bank of telephones, at least one public TTY complying with 704.4 shall be provided at that bank.

EXCEPTION: TTYs shall not be required at banks of telephones located within 200 feet (61 m) of, and on the same floor as, a bank containing a public TTY.

217.4.2 Floor Requirement. TTYs in public buildings shall be provided in accordance with 217.4.2.1. TTYs in private buildings shall be provided in accordance with 217.4.2.2.

217.4.2.1 Public Buildings. Where at least one public pay telephone is provided on a floor of a public building, at least one public TTY shall be provided on that floor.

217.4.2.2 Private Buildings. Where four or more public pay telephones are provided on a floor of a private building, at least one public TTY shall be provided on that floor.

217.4.3 Building Requirement . TTYs in public buildings shall be provided in accordance with 217.4.3.1. TTYs in private buildings shall be provided in accordance with 217.4.3.2.

217.4.3.1 Public Buildings . Where at least one public pay telephone is provided in a public building, at least one public TTY shall be provided in the building. Where at least one public pay telephone is provided in a public use area of a public building, at least one public TTY shall be provided in the public building in a public use area.

217.4.3.2 Private Buildings. Where four or more public pay telephones are provided in a private building, at least one public TTY shall be provided in the building.

217.4.4 Exterior Site Requirement . Where four or more public pay telephones are provided on an exterior site, at least one public TTY shall be provided on the site.

217.4.5 Rest Stops, Emergency Roadside Stops, and Service Plazas. Where at least one public pay telephone is provided at a public rest stop, emergency roadside stop, or service plaza, at least one public TTY shall be provided.

217.4.6 Hospitals. Where at least one public pay telephone is provided serving a hospital emergency room, hospital recovery room, or hospital waiting room, at least one public TTY shall be provided at each location.

217.4.7 Transportation Facilities . In transportation facilities, in addition to the requirements of 217.4.1 through 217.4.4, where at least one public pay telephone serves a particular entrance to a bus or rail facility, at least one public TTY shall be provided to serve that entrance. In airports, in addition to the requirements of 217.4.1 through 217.4.4, where four or more public pay telephones are located in a terminal outside the security areas, a concourse within the security areas, or a baggage claim area in a terminal, at least one public TTY shall be provided in each location.

217.4.8 Detention and Correctional Facilities . In detention and correctional facilities, where at least one pay telephone is provided in a secured area used only by detainees or inmates and security personnel, at least one TTY shall be provided in at least one secured area.

217.5 Shelves for Portable TTYs . Where a bank of telephones in the interior of a building consists of three or more public pay telephones, at least one public pay telephone at the bank shall be provided with a shelf and an electrical outlet in accordance with 704.5.

EXCEPTIONS: 1. Secured areas of detention and correctional facilities where shelves and outlets are prohibited for purposes of security or safety shall not be required to comply with 217.5.

2. The shelf and electrical outlet shall not be required at a bank of telephones with a TTY.