The Federal Communications Commission has issued a
Notice of Inquiry to gather public comments in the development of
accessibility regulations for the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

----------

                                                       FCC 96-382

                            Before the
                 Federal Communications Commission
                         Washington, D.C.



In the Matter of                      )
                                  )
Implementation of Section 255 of the      )
Telecommunications Act of 1996          )
                                  )           WT Docket No.
96-198
Access to Telecommunications Services,    )
Telecommunications Equipment, and         )
Customer Premises Equipment               )
By Persons with Disabilities            )



                        Notice of Inquiry

   Adopted: September 17, 1996     Released: September 19, 1996


Comment Date:       October 28, 1996
Reply Comment Date: November 27, 1996


By the Commission:  Chairman Hundt issuing a statement.

                         Table of Contents

                                                        Paragraph

I.  INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................1

II. THRESHOLD JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.............................6

III. STATUTORY  REQUIREMENTS....................................8

    A. Coverage ................................................8

       1. Definition of ``Telecommunications Service Provider'' 8
       2. Definition of ``Telecommunications Equipment'' and CPE
          ......................................................9
       3. Manufacturers Subject to Section 255 ................11

    B. Requirements............................................13

       1. Definition of ``Disability''.........................13
       2. Definition of ``Readily Achievable'' ................15
         a. ADA Definition ....................................15
         b. Costs; Financial Resources ........................17
       3. Definition of ``Accessible To'' and ``Usable By'' ...21
       4. Compatibility .......................................24

    C. Network Features, Functions, and Capabilities ..........26

IV.  IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT........................... 28

    A. Resolution of Complaints ...............................29
    B. Developing Equipment and CPE Guidelines in Conjunction
       with the Access Board...................................35
    C. Complaint Procedures ...................................36

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .........................................41

VI. CONCLUSION; ORDERING CLAUSES ..............................43


               I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

     1. In passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996
Act),[1] Congress set forth a dual mandate:  to promote
competition and consumer choice, and to ensure that all Americans
share the benefits of this increased choice.  Section 255 of the
Communications Act, as added by the 1996 Act, furthers this
objective by providing for greater access and availability of
telecommunications to Americans with disabilities.  The statute
makes clear that the 40 million Americans with disabilities are
entitled to share fully in the benefits of the telecommunications
services and equipment that play such a prominent role in our
national life.  Various physical and mental limitations hinder
the ability of persons with disabilities to use
telecommunications equipment and services, ranging from
traditional voice telephony to more recently developed wireless
and data services.  Inability to use such equipment and
services can be life-threatening in emergency situations, can
severely limit educational and employment opportunities for
persons with disabilities, and can otherwise interfere with their
ability to participate fully in business, social, recreational,
and other activities.

     2.  Section 255(b) requires 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 individuals with disabilities,
if readily achievable.  Section 255(c) requires that a provider
of telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if
readily achievable.  If the accessibility requirements of
subsections (b) and (c) of Section 255 are not readily
achievable, Section 255(d) requires compatibility.  Specifically,
the manufacturer or telecommunications provider shall ensure that
the equipment or service is compatible with existing peripheral
devices or specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with
disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable.  These
requirements became effective February 8, 1996.

     3.  Section 255(a) adopts the definitions of the terms
``disability'' and ``readily achievable'' that are contained in
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.[2]  Section 255(d)
further requires that guidelines for the accessibility of
equipment, including CPE, are to be developed within 18 months
after enactment of the 1996 Act by the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (``Access Board'') in
conjunction with this Commission.  The Access Board is to review
and update the guidelines periodically.  Section 255(f) provides
that the Federal Communications Commission shall have exclusive
jurisdiction with respect to any complaint filed under this
Section.

     4.  The Access Board has requested that the Commission
initiate a proceeding in order to facilitate the Access Board's
statutory responsibilities in meeting its statutory deadline.[3]
Therefore, our principal objective in this Notice of Inquiry
(noi) is to develop a record to assist the Access Board in the
development of accessibility guidelines for equipment and CPE.
We also seek comment on how we can best work in conjunction with
the Access Board on equipment issues, and on issues involving
services and equipment aspects that overlap and converge.  In
addition, we seek comment on how we should carry out our
exclusive enforcement authority under Section 255(f).

     5.  In this noi, we consider the following: (1) threshold
jurisdictional issues, involving our authority over
telecommunications services and equipment manufacturers; (2)
statutory
definitions, principally focusing on terms incorporated from the
Americans with Disabilities Act and terms defined by the 1996
Act; and (3) implementation and enforcement issues, including the
relationship between Access Board guidelines and the Commission's
enforcement authority.

               II. THRESHOLD JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

     6.   Section 255(f) provides that the Commission has
exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under
Section 255.  Therefore, as a matter of law, Section 255 grants
the Commission authority to enforce the provisions of that
Section.  Section 255(e) provides the Commission authority to
work in conjunction with the Access Board to develop guidelines
for accessibility of telecommunications equipment and CPE.

     7.  The Commission has general authority to select among a
variety of approaches to enforcing Section 255.  For example, we
could rely on case-by-case determinations in the context of
complaints.  We could also issue guidelines, or a policy
statement, or we could promulgate rules, pursuant to existing
provisions in the Communications Act.  First, Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act provides that the Commission may ``perform any
and all acts, make such rules and regulations, . . . , not
inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution
of its functions.''[4]  Second, with respect to common carriers,
Section 201 of the Act authorizes the Commission to ``prescribe
such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public
interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.''[5]  Third,
with respect to radio services, Section 303(b) provides, as a
general power of the Commission, that it shall, as public
convenience, interest, or necessity requires, ``[p]rescribe the
nature of the service to be rendered by each class of licensed
stations and each station within any class;''[6] and Section
303(r) provides that the Commission may ``[m]ake such rules and
regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not
inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act . . . .''[7]  In this noi, we seek comment
on policy reasons for the Commission to exercise various aspects
of our authority in order to best effectuate the requirements of
Section 255.








                    III. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

A. Coverage

  1.  Definition of ``Telecommunications Service Provider''

     8.  Section 255(c) provides that ``[a] provider of
telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if
readily achievable.''[8]  The 1996 Act defines
``telecommunications service'' as the ``offering of
telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such
classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the
public, regardless of the facilities used.''[9]
``Telecommunications'' is defined as ``the transmission, between
or among points specified by the user, of information of the
user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the
information as sent and received.''[10]  We note that the term
``provider of telecommunications services'' is not defined.
However, the term ``telecommunications carrier'' is defined as
``any provider of telecommunications services.''[11]  We seek
comment on whether the term ``provider of telecommunications
service'' requires further clarification or definition in the
context of Section 255.

     2. Definition of ``Telecommunications Equipment'' and CPE

     9.   The 1996 Act defines ``telecommunications equipment''
as that ``equipment, other than CPE, used by a carrier to provide
telecommunications services, and includes software integral to
such equipment.''[12]  The term customer premises equipment in
the Communications Act means ``equipment employed on the premises
of a person (other than a carrier), to originate, route, or
terminate telecommunications,'' and so does not appear limited to
equipment used in conjunction with ``telecommunications
services.''[13]  We seek comment regarding the treatment of
equipment that can be used with telecommunications services and
which also can be used with other services that do not fall
within the statutory definition of telecommunications services.

     10.  Telecommunications equipment and CPE are distinct and
may play different roles in the provision of, and access to,
telecommunications services.  For instance, consumers (including
individuals with disabilities) often have the ability to choose
between various CPE options, while having comparatively
constrained options regarding network or infrastructure hardware.
Should the treatment of these two categories of equipment be
different?  How would the carrier's duty under Section 251(a)(2)
of the Act, not to install on its network ``features, functions,
or capabilities'' that compromise accessibility standards, affect
these options?  We seek comment on these and any other issues
concerning the scope of CPE and other equipment used in
conjunction with telecommunications services, and the
corresponding accessibility obligations of manufacturers of such
equipment.

  3. Manufacturers Subject to Section 255

     11.  Section 255(b) provides that ``[a] manufacturer of
telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment shall
ensure that equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to
be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, if
readily achievable.''[14]  Manufacturers of telecommunications
and customer premises equipment to be used to provide or access
telecommunications services in the United States, regardless of
their national affiliation or location, must comply with Section
255 if they market or sell such equipment in the United States.
We note that all equipment marketed or sold in the United States
must meet all applicable technical and operational
requirements,[15]  but we question whether the same approach
should be adopted for accessibility standards, especially in
light of different accommodations that may be necessary for
specific disabilities.  We also ask commenters to consider the
effect of differing national equipment accessibility standards on
how manufacturers' ability to design, develop, and fabricate
accessible equipment should be weighed when evaluating
complaints.  When considering what accessibility measures are
readily achievable, should the Commission give weight to the
different standards confronted by a manufacturer with markets in
other nations?

     12.  Both from a domestic and international standpoint,
there are a number of levels involved in manufacturing that need
to be considered.  Telecommunications equipment and customer
premises equipment quite often consist of components manufactured
by several different and possibly unrelated companies.  If
several companies are involved in the design
and manufacture of a single piece of equipment, how should
responsibility be apportioned?  To the extent that some
manufacturers design, develop, and fabricate equipment but then
license their equipment design to other manufacturers for
production, how should Section 255 apply to the secondary
manufacturers or resellers?  We seek comment on these questions,
and also invite interested parties to raise and address other
related issues.

B. Requirements

  1. Definition of ``Disability''

     13.  Section 255(a)(1) of the Communications Act, as added
by the 1996 Act, incorporates by reference the definition of
``disability'' under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).[16]  ``Disability'' is defined under the ADA as:[17]

  _ A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
    or more of the major life activities of such individual;

  _ A record of such an impairment; or

  _ Being regarded as having such an impairment.

It also appears that, while adopting the ADA definition, Congress
contemplated that Section 255 would cover certain disabilities.
Specifically, the Senate Report states that the Committee intends
the definition of disability to principally cover individuals
with functional limitations of hearing, vision, movement,
manipulation, speech, or interpretation of information.[18]  The
definitional provision of the Senate Bill was adopted at
conference.[19]  The House Bill did not contain a definition of
disability, but covered individuals with disabilities, including
individuals with functional limitations of hearing, vision,
movement, manipulation, speech, and interpretation of
information.[20]

     14.  We seek comment on the application of this definition
in the context of access to telecommunications services and
equipment.  It is clear that, under the first element of the
definition, many individuals with a physical or mental impairment
are limited in their access to telecommunications equipment and
services.  For example, hearing and vision disabilities may
impede use of traditional voice telephone service, the latter by
obstructing dialing and the use of visually displayed
information.  We seek comment on how the latter two elements of
the ADA definition concerning a record of an impairment or being
regarded as having an impairment should be applied in the Section
255 context.  We seek comment on the possible differences in the
application of disability between the ADA and Section 255.


  2.  Definition of ``Readily Achievable''

    a. ADA Definition

     15.  Section 255(a)(2) also incorporates by reference the
ADA definition of ``readily achievable.'' The ADA defines the
term as follows:[21]

    [E]asily accomplishable and able to be carried out without
    much difficulty or expense.  In determining whether an action
    is readily achievable, factors to be considered include--

      (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under [the
          ADA];

      (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or
          facilities involved in the action; the number of
          persons employed at such facility; the effect on
          expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such
          action upon the operation of the facility;

      (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity;
          the overall size of the business of a covered entity
          with respect to the number of its employees; the
          number, type, and location of its facilities; and

      (D) the type of operation or operations of the covered
          entity, including the composition, structure, and
          functions of the workforce of such entity; the
          geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal
          relationship of the facility or facilities in question
          to the covered entity.

     16.  We seek comment on the factors we should consider in
attempting to apply the components of the ADA definition of
``readily achievable'' to telecommunications equipment and
services.  We also note that the rapid pace of market and
technological developments
means that what is ``readily achievable'' is an ever-changing
dynamic: an accessibility solution which is difficult or
impossible to implement at one point may become an established,
cost-effective technology a short time later.  We seek comment
regarding how to apply the ``readily achievable'' standard in a
way that will take advantage of market and technological
developments, without constraining competitive innovation.  For
example, when a service provider or manufacturer of equipment or
CPE establishes its accessibility with respect to a specific
disability, should that demonstration relieve it of the
obligation to adopt subsequent, improved accessibility measures
for some period or should the service provider's accessibility
obligation be continually adjusted to recognize the most recently
developed technology that is ``readily achievable?''

    b. Costs; Financial Resources

     17.  It is our tentative view that, consistent with the
ADA's definition of ``readily achievable,'' the issue of cost is
an important area of inquiry for our consideration and
establishment of accessibility and compatibility standards for
telecommunications equipment and services.  We ask commenters to
supply pertinent information regarding:

  _ The types and levels of costs that have been incurred to
    achieve or improve accessibility of existing offerings, and
    the extent to which they may serve as a basis for
    anticipating costs associated with accessibility standards to
    be developed.

  _ Cost savings when accessibility is achieved at the design
    stage.

We ask that commenters separately address the estimation and
determination of costs incurred to comply with a specific
technical or performance standard, as well as the different types
of costs and estimation processes that may be considered to
determine compliance with more process-oriented standards.

     18. Assessing the financial resources of telecommunications
service and equipment providers is also an important aspect of
our application of the Section 255 requirements.  How can or
should the financial resources of firms of widely varying
characteristics be considered in a way that does not distort
competitive incentives, but at the same time ensures
accessibility?

     19.  We also seek comment regarding whether the references
in the definition to ``overall financial resources of the
facility or facilities involved in the action'' and the ``overall
financial resources of the covered entity'' in paragraph 15
require that the entire
operations and resources of a parent corporation and its
subsidiaries must be taken into consideration.[22]

     20.   In addition, some firms may design and develop
services or equipment for both foreign and domestic markets, and
regulatory requirements may differ between these markets.  We
seek comment regarding how our application of Section 255 should
recognize both the resources and regulatory requirements involved
for specific ``covered entities'' and in determining what is
readily achievable in light of their circumstances.

  3. Definition of ``Accessible To'' and ``Usable By''

     21. The terms ``accessible to'' and ``usable by'' are taken
from the ADA statute, where the latter term refers to the ability
of persons with disabilities to utilize the covered services or
programs once they gain physical access to them.  This usage
presents interpretive difficulties in the context of Section 255.
We recognize that physical access to telecommunications equipment
and services is a bona fide issue.  Section 255, by its terms, is
not limited to physical access, but requires that equipment
manufacturers and service providers make their offerings
accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.  We
believe that Section 255 only reaches those aspects of
accessibility to telecommunications that equipment manufacturers
and service providers subject to the Commission's authority have
direct control over, such as the design of equipment or the
manner in which a telecommunications service is delivered to
users.  Thus, in the equipment context, manufacturers of pay
telephones have no control over the height at which these
instruments are mounted, and this physical aspect of
accessibility is properly subject to regulations adopted by the
Department of Justice to implement the ADA.  We seek comment on
these issues.

     22.  We seek comment on whether a manufacturer or service
provider must ensure that each of its telecommunications
equipment, CPE, or service offerings is accessible to persons
with various types of disabilities.  As one alternative, could a
manufacturer or equipment provider, or service provider, show
that some of its equipment or service offerings are accessible to
persons with specific disabilities, while other offerings are
accessible to persons with different disabilities?  For example,
would it meet the statutory mandate for a
manufacturer to develop some products that are accessible to
persons with visual impairments, and different products (or
variation of a modular product) that are accessible to persons
with hearing disabilities?  How should such alternative or
modular-design approaches be regarded under the ``readily
achievable'' standard if, for example, design changes to
accommodate one disability make accommodation of other
disabilities by the same offering more difficult, or if changes
to accommodate multiple disabilities would make the offering
technically or economically impracticable?  We also seek comment
generally on whether these issues present different
considerations for telecommunications service providers and for
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and CPE.

     23.  We request commenters to provide an assessment of the
extent to which accessible telecommunications services,
telecommunications equipment, and CPE are currently available.
Specifically, we request commenters to address the kinds of
services and equipment that are currently on the market, and in
the design and development stages and the trial or testing phase
as well.

  4. Compatibility

     24.  Section 255(d) of the Communications Act provides that
``[w]henever the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) are not
readily achievable, [the] manufacturer or provider shall ensure
that the equipment or service is compatible with existing
peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment
commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access,
if readily achievable.''[23]  Section 255(d) establishes
compatibility as the alternative to accessibility for both
equipment and services, but only in cases in which accessibility
is not readily achievable.

     25.  We ask commenters to address the issue of defining
``existing peripheral devices'' and ``specialized CPE,''
including specific examples of devices and equipment that could
be considered to fall within the scope of the definition.
Section 255(d) also specifies that the prescribed devices and CPE
consist of those that are ``commonly used'' by
individuals with disabilities in order to achieve access.[24]  We
request comment with regard to when such devices and CPE are
considered to be ``commonly used,'' as described in the statute.

C. Network Features, Functions, and Capabilities

     26. We ask commenters to address the relationship of Section
251(a)(2) of the Communications Act, as added by the 1996 Act, to
Section 255.  Section 251(a)(2) imposes a requirement that
telecommunications carriers are ``not to install network
features, functions or capabilities that do not comply with the
guidelines and standards established pursuant to Section 255 or
256.''[25]

     27. We seek comment on the nature and extent of this
requirement imposed on telecommunications carriers, and how it
relates to obligations under Section 255.  Commenters are invited
to identify and address the relation between the carrier's duty
under Section 251(a)(2), and an equipment manufacturer or service
provider's duty under Section 255(c).


                IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

     28.  We seek comment on several different approaches to the
implementation and enforcement of the requirements of Section
255.  In the Jurisdiction section, supra, we asserted, as a
matter of law, that the Commission has the authority to implement
and enforce Section 255.  Specifically, we stated that, on its
face, Section 255 provides the Commission with exclusive
jurisdiction with respect to any complaint filed under Section
255 and the authority to work in conjunction with the Access
Board to develop guidelines for accessibility of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment.  We
also asserted that Sections 4(i), 201, 303(b), and 303(r) of the
Communications Act provide the Commission with general authority
to issue guidelines, rules and regulations to implement and
enforce the provisions of the Act.  Here we seek comment on how,
as a matter of policy, we should implement and enforce the
provisions of Section 255.

A. Resolution of Complaints

     29.  First, we seek comment on how the Commission should
carry out its duty to resolve complaints filed under Section 255.
One approach would be for the Commission to enforce Section 255
on a complaint-by-complaint basis, without promulgating any rules
or other guidance, beyond the guidelines issued by the Access
Board.  Is such an approach preferable as a policy matter, in
light of the fact that Congress did not specify that we should
promulgate guidelines or rules to implement or enforce Section
255, and the statute as adopted omitted language contained in the
Senate bill requiring the Commission to develop regulations?[26]
What are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach?
Would it be problematic for the Commission to resolve service
complaints if there were equipment guidelines in place but no
service guidelines? Should the Access Board, working in
conjunction with the Commission, issue guidelines concerning the
allocation of responsibility in instances when equipment and
services overlap or converge?

     30.  A second approach would be for the Commission to issue
voluntary guidelines or a policy statement to help service
providers understand what their obligations are under Section
255.  Such guidelines could clarify the meaning of statutory
terms and address issues of particular interest to service
providers, such as what services and what providers are covered
under the statute.  These guidelines might also discuss how terms
adopted from the ADA, such as "disability" and "readily
achievable," should be applied in the context of accessibility to
telecommunications services.  The guidelines might also suggest
what "accessible to and usable by" and "compatible" mean with
regard to services.

     31.  The guidelines or policy statement could also provide
guidance on the relationship between the obligations of service
providers and equipment manufacturers under Section 255.  We
could, for example, suggest how responsibilities should be
allocated between service providers and equipment manufacturers
when the accessibility of the service is inextricably linked to
the accessibility of the equipment (and vice-versa).

     32.  We could also provide guidance as to what showings
defendants could make which the Commission would view favorably
in the complaint process.  Should we specify certain processes
that service providers could undertake?  For example, should we
state that we would view favorably consultation with the
disability community in the design and development stage?  Should
we state that we would view favorably documentation showing that
the service provider assessed whether making its services
accessible or compatible was readily achievable?  We seek comment
on how a service provider might assess whether making its
services accessible or compatible is readily achievable. We also
seek comment on
the advantages and disadvantages of the general approach of
issuing guidelines or a policy statement.

     33.  A third approach would be to promulgate rules to assist
in resolving complaints brought under Section 255.  Should we
adopt as rules any requirements -- such as outreach procedures or
accessibility assessments?  Should such rules allow for trade
associations to undertake these procedures or assessments on
behalf of individual service providers? Should these rules exempt
small businesses or any other entities?

     34.  We could also promulgate rules to resolve complaints by
setting forth certain accessibility requirements on a
service-by-service basis.  Should we, for example, specify that
service providers need to make a part of their mainstream product
offerings accessible to persons with one type of disability, and
a part accessible to persons with another type of disability?
We seek comment on whether it is practical for the Commission to
establish service-specific rules, given the rapid pace of
technological change.


B. Developing Equipment and CPE Guidelines in Conjunction With
the Access  Board

     35.  Next, we seek comment on how the Commission should work
in conjunction with the Access Board to develop equipment and CPE
guidelines.  Should we simply provide the Access Board with a
record from this proceeding and comment on the guidelines it
proposes?  Should we adopt the Board's guidelines, either as
adopted by the Board or with revisions, as Commission rules after
the appropriate Commission proceedings?   If we adopt separate
guidelines, policy statements or rules with regard to complaints,
should they apply to equipment manufacturers as well as service
providers?  Should we adopt such guidance or rules before, after,
or in conjunction with the Access Board's guidelines?  What is
the most appropriate way to provide guidance regarding
overlapping and inter-related service and equipment issues?

C. Complaint Procedures

     36.  Section 255(f) provides that ``[t]he Commission shall
have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under
this section.''[27]  Because Section 255(f), in granting the
Commission exclusive jurisdiction over complaints, refers to
complaints filed ``under this section[,]''[28] we believe that
Congress has established in Section 255 the right of aggrieved
parties to file complaints against any person who has allegedly
violated Section 255.  We also view this right as independent of,
and in addition to, the right of aggrieved parties to file
complaints against common carriers under Section 208.  In support
of this view, we note that the Conference Report indicates that
Sections 207 and 208 are available to enforce compliance with the
provisions of Section 255 without, however, appearing to limit
the scope of the Commission's enforcement authority to Sections
207 and 208.[29]  Thus, in the case of a complaint against a
common carrier that alleges that the common carrier has violated
the requirements of Section 255, the complainant may elect to
file the complaint under Section 208 or under Section 255.
Moreover, if we subscribed to the view that violations of Section
255 are subject only to complaints brought under Section 208, we
would be forced to conclude that no complaints could be brought
against equipment manufacturers for alleged violations of Section
255(b), because Section 208 only authorizes complaints against
common carriers.  We seek comment on this view.  In light of the
prohibition of private rights of action in Section 255(f), we
also seek comment on the Congressional intent evidenced by the
Conference Report reference to Section 207, which grants
individuals the right to file suit in Federal court.

     37.  We seek comment on whether the Commission should
establish procedural rules for Section 255 complaints.  With
respect to both services and equipment, we seek comment on
whether we should adopt the existing Section 208 informal and
formal complaint provisions of Subpart E of Part 1 of the
Commission's Rules,[30] or whether we should establish special
rules.[31]  We seek comment on whether the Commission should
adopt any new mechanisms, and, if so, what they should be.

     38.  We also seek comment on whether to adopt interim
procedural rules for the filing of complaints under Section 255,
while the Access Board is developing equipment guidelines, and we
are reviewing comments in this proceeding.  If so, should we
simply use our existing
rules in the interim?  If interim procedural rules are advisable,
we ask commenters to suggest interim rules.  We also seek comment
on whether it would be advisable for the Commission to provide
additional interim guidance regarding complaint proceedings under
Section 255.

     39.  We seek comment on whether subjecting both service
providers and equipment manufacturers jointly to enforcement
actions under Section 255, in cases in which the specific
circumstances warrant such joint responsibility, will encourage a
substantial, shared commitment to making telecommunications
services and equipment accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities.  Commenters should specifically address how
the responsibility for satisfying the statutory criteria should
be apportioned between underlying manufacturers of network
equipment or CPE, and service providers using the equipment.
Commenters should also consider how joint action may affect
determinations of what is readily achievable, compared to
separate review of the effect of the entities' conduct.  We seek
comment upon such matters as the apportionment of responsibility
or liability, and how specific determinations of accountability
should be made when both a service provider and equipment or CPE
manufacturer are found to be contributing to the inaccessibility.
In particular, we seek comment regarding whether, to what extent,
and in what manner service providers and equipment manufacturers
may both be held responsible for implementing remedial steps to
make services or equipment accessible or compatible, and for
fines, damages, or other penalties.

     40.  We also seek comment on the related issue of whether,
and in what circumstances, a defense to a complaint against a
provider of telecommunications services is that accessibility
could be, or could have been, achieved through the design of
equipment.  Similarly, we seek comment whether, and in what
circumstances, an equipment manufacturer could offer the
corresponding defense respecting potential accommodation by a
service provider.

                       V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

     41.  Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Section
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules,[32] 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 and four copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting 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 the 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 Reference Center
of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street,
N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C.  20054. Additionally, to
facilitate posting comments in this proceeding on the
Commission's Internet site, parties are requested, but not
required, also to submit comments in diskette form.  Diskettes
should be addressed to Ms. Rita McDonald, Policy Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

     42.  This Notice can be ordered in large print, audio
cassette or on disk, through the FCC's copy contractor, ITS at
(202) 857-3800.  An unofficial version of the item is available
on the FCC's Internet home page at http://www.fcc.gov.

     43.  There are no ex parte or disclosure requirements
applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 C.F.R.
1.1204(a)(4).



                 VI. CONCLUSION; ORDERING CLAUSES

     44.  We believe that our action today constitutes a
significant first step toward implementing the provisions of
Section 255 and related sections of the 1996 Act regarding the
accessibility of telecommunications equipment and services to
persons with disabilities. In seeking comment from a broad
spectrum of affected parties, we hope 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.  We believe
that the record that will be established in this proceeding in
response to the issues initially raised today will aid the Access
Board and the Commission in implementation decisions.

     45.  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.

     46.  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



                    William F. Caton
                    Acting Secretary


          STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN REED E. HUNDT

     Today, the Commission takes an important first step in
fulfilling our congressional mandate to ensure that persons with
disabilities enjoy the full benefits of the telecommunications
revolution.   This Notice of Inquiry begins our implementation,
in conjunction with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board ("Access Board"), of  Section 255 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.

      In adopting Section 255, Congress expressed its clear
intent that telecommunications  services and equipment be made
accessible to all persons with disabilities to the extent such
access is readily achievable.   The statute makes clear that the
40 million Americans with disabilities are entitled to share
fully in the benefits of the telecommunications services and
equipment that are becoming such an essential element of our
educational, social, political and economic future.   I
enthusiastically applaud Congress for its leadership in adopting
this landmark provision.

     Through this Notice of Inquiry we seek to develop a
comprehensive record that will help us, working with the Access
Board , to achieve Congress' mandate to adopt accessibility
guidelines for telecommunications equipment no later than August
1997.  The Commission is also accorded exclusive jurisdiction
over complaints arising under  Section 255.  And in this regard,
we have responsibility for ensuring that telecommunications
services as well as equipment are fully accessible to persons
with disabilities.  Given the convergence between
telecommunications services and equipment (and the fact that
technical capabilities increasingly may be implemented either in
the context of service offerings or included in equipment and CPE
functions), I believe that a coordinated approach to service and
equipment accessibility will benefit both the Access Board and
the Commission and will facilitate an integrated and
comprehensive framework for implementation of Section 255.

     Among other issues, we seek comment in this Notice of
Inquiry on whether the Commission should limit its implementation
of  Section 255 to case-by-case consideration of complaints.   I
strongly believe that in order to effectively implement this
landmark disability access section, the Commission together with
the Access Board, must take a more active role in developing an
implementation framework for accessible telecommunications
equipment and
services in the Information Age.  Such a framework should provide
telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers
with clear guidelines for Section 255 compliance.  We should seek
to establish appropriate incentives to encourage service
providers and equipment manufacturers to integrate accessibility
considerations in the early design and development stages of new
service and equipment offerings.  The framework we implement
should stimulate consultation, cooperation and voluntary,
proactive efforts among the industry and consumers with
disabilities to develop "readily achievable" solutions that will
bring the benefits of telecommunications technologies to the
broadest base of persons with disabilities.  Without such a
framework, I am concerned that we risk providing the
telecommunications industry with a vague and cumbersome mandate
that will result in costly and complex complaint proceedings
rather than cooperative and innovative solutions.  I do not
believe Congress intended such a result.

     Many threshold issues must be addressed, however, before we
can determine the most   effective and efficient compliance
mechanisms to ensure the development of readily achievable
solutions, while continuing to foster competition and technical
innovation..  For example:

     _  How should the Section 255 accessibility requirements
applicable to services and equipment interrelate?  In addition to
assisting the Access Board in developing accessibility guidelines
for equipment and CPE, should the Commission also develop
compliance guidelines to facilitate accessibility of
telecommunications services?

     _   How should we adapt and interpret the terms "accessible"
and "readily achievable" contained in the ADA, and incorporated
by Congress in Section 255, so that these terms are meaningful in
the context of telecommunications services and equipment?

     _   How should accessibility and compatibility standards be
applied in the context of  Section 255 to service providers and
equipment manufacturers with product lines featuring different
types of equipment and  services?  Does Section 255 require that
manufacturers and service providers ensure that each of their
equipment and service offerings be made accessible to persons
with all types of disabilities?  Alternatively, should compliance
with Section 255 be evaluated by examining the offerings of a
particular manufacturer, all manufactures of a particular type of
equipment or of the relevant industry as a whole?

     _   Given the convergence of services and equipment and the
segmentation of  development, design, manufacturing and assembly
functions, which entities should bear responsibility for ensuring
compliance with Section 255?

     _   How should costs be considered in connection with
determinations regarding what steps are "readily achievable'' for
purposes of complying with Section 255?   How should the varying
financial resources of different firms be weighed  so that
accessibility can be ensured without distorting competitive
incentives?

     _  How should we implement the "readily achievable''
standard in a way that takes advantage of market and
technological developments, but does not interfere with
competitive innovation?  In this regard, if  neither
accessibility or compatibility is readily achievable, what
ongoing efforts should be undertaken to achieve accessibility or
compatibility?

    _   How can we most effectively facilitate anticipatory
compliance at the design, development, and fabrication stages of
an offering in order to avoid costly and cumbersome complaint
proceedings?

  Issuance of this Notice of Inquiry should expedite Access Board
consideration of equipment accessibility guidelines, and provide
a framework for Commission consideration of service accessibility
guidelines.   The record responding to this Notice of Inquiry
will provide the Commission and the Access Board valuable
guidance in addressing the many complex issues necessary to
develop a framework to implement Section 255 to ensure that the
millions of Americans with disabilities will reap the benefits of
this provision of the Act.






1.  Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
(1996)(1996 Act).

2. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
12102(2)(A) and 12181(9).

3. Joint letter from Lawrence Roffee, Executive Director, Access
Board, and Roberta Breden, Chair, Telecommunications Access
Advisory Committee, to individual Commissioners, Aug. 30, 1996.

4. 47 U.S.C.   154.

5. 47 U.S.C.   201.

6. 47 U.S.C.    303, 303(b).

7. 47 U.S.C.   303(r).

8. 47 U.S.C.   255(c).

9. 47 U.S.C.   153(46).

10. 47 U.S.C.   153(43).

11. 47 U.S.C.   153(44).

12. 47 U.S.C.   153(45).

13. 47 U.S.C.   153(14). CPE may also include wireless sets.  See
Declaratory Ruling, DA 93-122 , 8 FCC Rcd 6171, 6174 (Com. Car.
Bur. 1993) (TOCSIA Declaratory Ruling),  recon. pending (finding
that definition of ``premises'' includes ``locations'' such as
airplanes, trains and rental cars, despite the fact that they are
mobile).

14. 47 U.S.C.   255(b).

15. See Part 2 of the Commission's Rules, Subpart K-Importation
of Devices Capable of Causing Harmful Interference, Sections
2.1201-.1207. 47 C.F.R.    2.1201-.1207.

16. 42 U.S.C.   12102(a)(2).

17. Id.

18.  S.Rep. No. 23, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 52 (1995).

19.  H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 458, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. 135 (1996).

20.  H.Rep. No. 204, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 14 (1995).

21. 42 U.S.C.   12181(9).

22. See generally 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A (DOJ Commentary to
Title III).

23. 47 U.S.C.   255(d).

24. 47 U.S.C.   255(d).

25. 47 U.S.C.   251(a)(2).  The relationship between Section
251(a)(2) and Section 255 was recently raised in the
interconnection proceedings. See  Implementation of the Local
Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC
Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, FCC 96-325, released
Aug. 8, 1996, at para. 998 (finding that it would be premature to
attempt to delineate specific requirements or definitions of
terms to implement Section 251(a)(2), because the Commission and
Access Board had not developed standards or guidelines under
Section 255).  We believe, however, that it is advisable to
address the issue in the context of this proceeding as well.

26.  Compare S. 652, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.  262(g).

27. 47 U.S.C.   255(f).

28. 47 U.S.C.   255(f) (emphasis added).

29.  The Conference Report states that ``[t]he remedies available
under the Communications Act, including the provisions of
sections 207 and 208, are available to enforce compliance with
the provisions of section 255.'' Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Conference Report, Report 104-230, 104th Congress, 2d Session,
Feb. 1, 1996, at 135.

30. 47 C.F.R.    1.701-1.825. The rules pertinent to complaint
proceedings are found at Section 1.711 through Section 1.735 of
the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.    1.711-1.735.  The Commission
will shortly initiate a separate rulemaking proceeding concerning
the process for formal complaints, to consider the effect of the
1996 Act on this process, and as part of that proceeding will
consider general measures intended to expedite determination of
complaints. We do not anticipate that the rulemaking generally
considering the formal complaint process will examine the
suitability of that process in the accessibility context.

31.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.   64.604(c)(5) for distinct complaint
procedures specifically adopted by this Commission for the
enforcement of the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) program
under Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

32.  47 C.F.R.    1.415, 1.419.
