NEWSReport No. DC 96-89 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE September 19, 1996 FCC TAKES FIRST STEP TO PROVIDE GREATER ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TO AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES (WT Docket No. 96-198) Today, the FCC took an important first step to provide access to telecommunications services and equipment to those with disabilities. It released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides that telecommunications service providers and telecommunications equipment manufacturers must make their services and equipment accessible to those with disabilities, if 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 play such a prominent role in our national life," said Reed Hundt, FCC Chairman. "The 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 impair one's ability to participate fully in business, political, social, recreational and other activities." The Commission is working with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ("Access Board"), who under the statute, must promulgate accessibility guidelines for equipment by August 1997. In addition to developing a record to assist the Access Board, the Commission is seeking comment on how statutory definitions incorporated from the Americans with Disabilities Act should be applied in the telecommunications context. The Commission is also seeking comment on the best way for it to work with the Access Board and on how to implement and enforce the Act. This item is one of the very first of the Commission's that will be available in alternative formats. It can be ordered in large print, audio cassette or on disk, through the FCC's copy contractor, ITS at (202) 857-3800. It will also be available on the FCC's Internet home page at http://www.fcc.gov. Action by the Commission September 17, 1996 by Notice of Inquiry (FCC 96-382). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Ness and Chong with Chairman Hundt issuing a separate statement. - FCC - News Media contact: Kara Palamaras at (202) 418-0654 or kpalamar@fcc.gov Wireless Bureau contact: Elizabeth Lyle at (202) 418-0600 or elyle@fcc.gov Public Service contact: Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202) 418-2555 or mcontee@fcc.gov September 17, 1996 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: þ 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? þ 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? þ 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? þ 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? þ 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? þ 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? þ 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.