[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 188 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50465-50467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24690]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[WT Docket No. 96-198; FCC 96-382]


Wireless Services; Access to Telecommunications Equipment, 
Customer Premise Equipment, and Telecommunications Services by People 
With Disabilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission adopts a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in this 
proceeding as a first step toward implementing provisions of Section 
255 of the Communications Act and related sections of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 regarding the accessibility of 
telecommunications equipment and services. In seeking comment from a 
broad spectrum of affected parties, the Commission hopes to ensure that 
persons with disabilities, as well as all other Americans, are given 
the opportunity to participate fully in, and to enjoy and utilize the 
benefits of the telecommunications infrastructure that has come to play 
such a prominent role in the Nation's cultural, educational, social, 
political, and economic life. The Commission believes that the record 
that will be established in this proceeding in response to the issues 
raised in this NOI will aid the Architectural and Transportation 
Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) in implementing decisions.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 28, 1996, and reply 
comments are due on or before November 27, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stan Wiggins, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
(202) 418-1310, or David Siehl, Policy Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1310.


[[Page 50466]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Inquiry in WT Docket No. 96-198, FCC 96-382, adopted 
September 17, 1996, and released September 19, 1996. The complete text 
of this NOI is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, 
NW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 
2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037. An unofficial copy 
of the full text of this NOI may be found on the Internet at 
www.fcc.gov/wtb/winhome.html.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making/NOI

    1. The Commission adopts a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the first step 
towards implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act and related 
sections of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), regarding 
the accessibility of telecommunications equipment and services to 
persons with disabilities.
    2. The Commission describes the requirements of Section 255(b), 
that a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer 
premises equipment (CPE) ensure that the equipment is designed, 
developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by persons 
with disabilities, if readily achievable. Section 255(c) requires that 
a provider of telecommunications service shall ensure that the service 
is are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, if 
readily achievable. If accessibility is not readily achievable either 
with respect to equipment or services, Section 255(d) requires as an 
alternative that the equipment or service be compatible with existing 
peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with 
disabilities to achieve access, to the extent compatibility is readily 
achievable. Section 255(a) adopts the definitions of ``disability'' and 
``readily achievable'' contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act 
of 1990 (ADA).
    3. The statutory requirements, which became effective upon 
enactment February 8, 1996, include the requirement in Section 255(d) 
that guidelines for accessibility of equipment, including CPE, be 
developed within 18 months of enactment by the Access Board, in 
conjunction with the Commission. Section 255(f) provides that the 
Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any 
complaint filed under this provision.
    4. The Commission examines threshold jurisdictional issues and 
states that Section 255 grants the Commission authority to enforce the 
provisions of that Section and provides the Commission authority to 
work in conjunction with the Access Board to develop guidelines for the 
accessibility of telecommunications equipment and CPE. The NOI 
describes other provisions of the Communications Act, which give the 
Commission options for enforcing Section 255, including Sections 4(i) 
(general grant of authority to perform any and all acts ``as may be 
necessary in the execution of its functions.''); 201 (prescription of 
rules and regulations for common carriers); and 303 (prescription of 
services to be rendered by classes of licensed radio stations, and 
regulations necessary to carry out provisions of the Act). The NOI 
seeks comment on policy reasons for the Commission to exercise various 
aspects of its authority in order to best effectuate the requirements 
of Section 255.
    5. The Commission seeks comment on whether several definitions in 
the 1996 Act require further clarification or definition--the terms 
``provider of telecommunications service,'' and ``telecommunications 
equipment,'' and ``customer premises equipment''--and the possible need 
for clarification of the term ``manufacturer.'' The Commission also 
seeks comment on definitions incorporated in Section 255 from the 
Americans with Disabilities Act--``disability'' and ``readily 
achievable''--and on broader issues raised by the application of ADA 
terms in the telecommunications sector. For example, the meaning of 
``readily achievable'' is continually changing as technology evolves, 
and the Commission seeks to recognize market and technical developments 
without constraining innovation.
    6. The Commission also seeks comment on cost issues raised by 
application of the term ``readily achievable,'' including the types and 
levels of costs incurred to achieve or improve accessibility of 
existing offerings, the extent to which this experience may serve as a 
basis for anticipating costs associated with accessibility standards, 
and the relationship of costs to different types of accessibility 
standards--technical or performance standards, as well as more process-
oriented standards. The NOI recognizes that the financial resources of 
telecommunications entities, the elements of ``readily achievable'' 
under the ADA, and differing regulatory requirements for foreign and 
domestic services or equipment also bear on cost issues.
    7. The Commission notes that the statutory phrase ``accessible to 
and usable by'' is itself taken from the ADA statute, and suggests some 
interpretive difficulties that arise in the context of Section 255. It 
recognizes that physical access to telecommunications equipment and 
services is a genuine issue, but believes that Section 255 reaches only 
those aspects of accessibility to telecommunications that entities 
subject to the Commission's authority have direct control over. It 
seeks comment on whether each equipment or service offering must be 
accessible to persons with varied disabilities, or whether an equipment 
manufacturer or service provider might satisfy the statute by 
accommodating persons with disabilities through selected items in its 
offerings, and how alternative or modular-design approaches should be 
regarded under the ``readily achievable'' standard.
    8. As to the alternative, compatibility requirement, the Commission 
asks commenters to consider the definition and examples of ``existing 
peripheral devices'' and ``specialized CPE'' referenced in the statute, 
and how to determine when such equipment is ``commonly used.'' The 
Commission also asks commenters to address the relationship of Section 
251(a)(2) of the Communications Act, which requires telecommunications 
carriers ``not to install network features, functions or capabilities 
that do not comply with the guidelines and standards established 
pursuant to Section 255 or 256[,]'' to the accessibility requirement 
imposed on equipment manufacturers by Section 255.
    9. The NOI seeks comment on several different approaches to the 
implementation and enforcement of Section 255 requirements. It first 
requests comment on how the Commission should carry out its duty to 
resolve complaints filed under Section 255, and notes that the 
Commission could: (1) resolve complaints on a case-by-case basis, (2) 
issue voluntary guidelines as a policy statement to help service 
providers understand their obligations under Section 255, or (3) 
promulgate rules to assist in resolving complaints. Under each approach 
to complaints, the Commission seeks comment on the possible exemption 
of small businesses or other entities, and the relationship between 
obligations of service providers and equipment manufacturers, including 
the possibility of complaints when equipment guidelines are in place 
but no service guidelines have been adopted.

[[Page 50467]]

    10. The NOI asks commenters to consider several aspects of the 
Commission's relationship with the Access Board. Should the Commission 
refer the record from this proceeding, and comment on the Board's 
guidelines, or adopt the Board's guidelines as Commission rules after 
appropriate proceedings? And, if the Commission adopts separate 
guidelines, policy statements, or rules with regard to complaints, 
should they apply to equipment manufacturers as well as service 
providers? Generally, the Commission seeks comment on the most 
appropriate way to provide guidance on the inter-related service and 
equipment issues.
    11. The NOI considers procedural aspects of the complaint process. 
It asks for general comment on the implications of the Commission's 
view that Section 255 creates a substantive legal right to file 
complaints before the Commission, independent of the Section 208 
complaint process and other enforcement provisions of the statute. 
Because Section 255(f) prohibits private rights of action, the 
Commission seeks comment on the Congressional intent evidenced by 
reference in the Conference Report to Section 207, which affords 
individuals the right to file suit in Federal court. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether it should establish specific procedural 
rules for Section 255 complaints, either as to services or equipment, 
or whether it should adopt the existing complaint process in subpart E 
of part 1 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.711 through .735. 
Should those rules be applied on an interim basis, while the Access 
Board develops equipment guidelines, or should specific interim rules 
be applied? The Commission requests proposals for interim rules, if 
commenters consider them advisable, and seeks comment whether the 
Commission should provide additional interim guidance regarding 
complaints.
    12. Finally, the NOI seeks comment on how statutory responsibility 
should be apportioned between equipment manufacturers and service 
providers, and how joint enforcement action may affect determination of 
what is readily achievable compared to separate review of each entity's 
conduct. The Commission also asks how specific determinations of 
accountability should be made when both service and equipment providers 
are contributing to an accessibility problem, and whether and how such 
entities may both be held responsible for implementing remedial steps 
as well as fines or other penalties. Similarly, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether, and in what circumstances, a defense to an 
accessibility complaint directed at a service provider might be that 
accessibility could be, or could have been, achieved through equipment 
design, as well as the converse situation, in which an equipment 
provider might defend against a complaint by contending that 
accommodation could be, or could have been, accomplished by the service 
provider.

Procedural Matters

    13. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments on or before October 28, 1996, and 
reply comments on or before November 27, 1996. To file formally in this 
proceeding, you must file an original plus four copies of all comments 
and reply comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal 
copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. You 
should send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and 
reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Ordering Clauses

    14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201-
205. 251(a)(2), 255, 303, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 205, 215, 251(a)(2), 255, 303, and 403, a Notice 
of Inquiry IS HEREBY ADOPTED.
    15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the 
inquiry described above, and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on the questions 
raised in the inquiry.

Federal Communications Commission.
Shirley S. Suggs,
Chief, Publications Branch.
[FR Doc. 96-24690 Filed 9-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P