[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
