Summary of Section 255 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FCC Proceeding 96-198
Prepared by: Karen Peltz Strauss
Legal Counsel for Telecommunications Policy National Association of the Deaf
I. FCC AUTHORITY
The Commission has determined that it possesses sufficient authority to adopt Section 255 rules. It has
also determined that Section 255 permits complaints against both service providers and manufacturers,
and that damages may be awarded against common carriers. However, there is no private right of action
(i.e., a consumer may not bring a complaint in a court of law). Rather the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction
with respect to Section 255 complaints. (¶¶ 31-34)
II. SCOPE OF SECTION 255'S COVERAGE
A. Telecommunications vs. Enhanced Services
"Telecommunications" services are covered under Section 255. The FCC has said that "information" or
"enhanced" services are not. Enhanced services include: voice mail, electronic mail, facsimile store-and
forward, interactive voice response, protocol processing, gateway, audiotext information services,
electronic store-and-forward, data processing, gateways to online databases, reverse directory service,
and alarm monitoring. (¶¶35-43)
B. Adjunct to Basic Services
There is a newly defined FCC category of service, called "adjunct to basic," which the FCC classifies as
"telecommunications services," and which are therefore covered under Section 255. The FCC describes
these as services "that fall within the literal definition of an "enhanced service" set forth in the
Commission's rules, but are basic in purpose and facilitate the completion of calls through utilization of
basic telephone service facilities" (¶39). Adjunct to basic services include speed dialing, call forwarding,
computer- provided directory assistance, call monitoring, caller ID, call tracing, call blocking, call return,
repeat dialing, call tracking, Operator Services for the Deaf, and certain Centrex features. According to
the FCC, such adjunct to basic services facilitate the "establishment of a transmission path over which a
telephone call may be completed, without altering the fundamental character of the telephone service."
The FCC has also said that an adjunct to basic service "brings maximum benefit to the public through its
incorporation in the network."
The FCC seeks comment on whether Congress intended Section 255 to apply to a broader range of
services (e.g., voice mail, electronic mail), given the "broad objectives Congress sought to accomplish by
its enactment of Section 255." (¶42)
C. Providers of Telecommunications Services
(a) The FCC proposes to define providers of telecommunications services as: "all entities offering (i.e.,
whether by sale or by resale) telecommunications services to the public, in addition to the service
provider who originates the offering." (¶43)
(b) The FCC also proposes to apply its rules to a provider only to the extent that that provider provides
telecommunications services (i.e., if the provider offers both telecommunications and nontelecommunications services) (¶44)
D. Telecommunications Equipment
The FCC has stated that Section 255 requires functional accessibility of all equipment used in the
provision of a telecommunications service, whether that equipment is used by an individual (CPE) or
found elsewhere in a telecommunications system (telecommunications equipment). The FCC seeks
comment on this, as it "recognizes the practical difficulties presented when inaccessibility may be due to
multiple elements of a telecommunications system." (¶¶49, 51).
The FCC proposes that Section 255 apply to multi-use equipment only to the extent the equipment serves
a telecommunications function. The FCC seeks comment on this, and in particular on the obligation of a
manufacturer who produces equipment which was intended for a non-telecommunications application, but
which has use in connection to a telecommunications service. (¶53).
The FCC has determined that CPE may include wireless handsets (fn. 107) and "software integral to"
telecommunications equipment (including upgrades). With respect to software, the FCC notes the
following:
Where a CPE manufacturer markets products that include software, that software is covered.
Thus, if the software reduces the accessibility of the product, the manufacturer would be required
to alter the software to cure the access problem.
Where software is marketed separately from the CPE, or is bundled with other manufacturers'
CPE, it would not be subject to Section 255.
The FCC seeks comment on its proposal that software be included (¶55, and on the above points, ¶56)
E. Manufacturer
The FCC proposes that Section 255 apply to all manufacturers offering equipment for use in the U.S.,
regardless of their national affiliation (¶58).
The FCC also proposes to fix responsibility for product accessibility on the final assembler of the product,
which it says, "would give manufacturers the greatest incentive to specify accessible components from
their suppliers, and to negotiate private arrangements for allocating the costs of compliance." (¶60).
F. Network Features, Functions, or Capabilities
Section 251(a)(2) of the 1996 Act requires that a telecommunications carrier not install network features,
functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and standards of Section 255. The FCC
does not further interpret Section 251(a)(2) in this proceeding, but notes that a telecommunications
transmission must be transparent in terms of its interaction with customer supplied information.
The FCC does note that Section 251(a)(2) does not require carriers to be "guarantors of service
providers" decisions regarding how to assemble services from network capabilities, and it does not
impose requirements regarding accessibility characteristics of the underlying components." (¶65) The
FCC seeks comment on these views, and the relationship between the enforcement procedures under
Section 252 for interconnection agreements and the Commission's enforcement authority under Section
255. Finally, the FCC asks how responsibility for compliance with the access/compatibility guidelines
should be apportioned between (1) the underlying manufacturer or provider of a network element; and (2)
the carrier that incorporates that element into its network to provide a feature, function, or capability. (¶66)
The FCC asks a similar question later in its proposals. Specifically, the FCC queries, "[t]o the extent that
service accessibility is determined by network equipment, including integral software, how should the
Commission distinguish between accessibility obstacles attributable to network equipment, and those
attributable to service providers." (¶80) The Commission offers as an example, a person who is able to
use a screen-reading terminal, but who finds that a telecommunications service is not usable because the
terminal cannot generate a screen display from the data provided through the service. Here the cause of
the inaccessibility might be the service or the equipment or both.
G. Definition of Disability
The FCC proposes to adopt the three tier definition of disability contained in the ADA. In addition, the
Commission proposes to use the Access Board's list of categories of common disabilities in analyzing
equipment and service offerings under Section 255. (¶70)
III. ACCESSIBILITY AND COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
A. Accessible to and Usable By
Unlike the Access Board's distinction between the concepts of "accessibility" and "usability," the FCC
seems to propose combining these concepts under the term "accessibility" (although after making this
point, the FCC does again use the term "accessible to and usable by"). The FCC states its intention to
use the term "accessibility" in the "broad sense to refer to the ability of persons with disabilities to actually
use the equipment or service by virtue of its inherent capabilities and functions."
1. Usability
The FCC proposes to adopt the Access Board's definition of usability, which requires that "individuals with
disabilities have access to the full functionality and documentation for the product, including instructions,
product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, and technical support
functionally equivalent to that provided to individuals without disabilities." (¶¶72, 73)
2. Accessibility
The FCC proposes to adopt the Access Board's definition of accessibility and related appendix materials
as part of the definition of "accessible to and usable by." (¶74) The FCC states that these "will provide an
appropriate basis for evaluating accessibility obligations." (¶75). These include the following requirements
(only those applicable to individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing are noted here; the full list covers
all disabilities):
Input, control, and mechanical functions must be operable without hearing or speech and with low
vision and limited or no hearing;
Output, display, and control functions must make available visual information, must make
available auditory information for people who are hard of hearing, must have auditory cutoff, must
have non-interference with hearing technologies, and must have hearing aid coupling
Provision must be made for the "pass-through of cross-manufacturer, non- proprietary, industrystandard codes, translation protocols, formats or other information necessary to provide
telecommunications in an accessible format."
The FCC also proposes that the evaluation of accessibility should include "support services (such as
consumer information and documentation) akin to what is provided to consumers generally to help them
use equipment." (¶75)
Although the above Access Board guidelines apply to equipment, the FCC is proposing that they be used
to guide an evaluation of telecommunications service accessibility as well. The Commission gives as
examples the following characteristics that may render accessibility difficult:
Do the cuing and control signals (dial tones, busy signals, intercepts) accommodate access
needs?
Does the provider offer essential support services (service ordering, billing, repair service) that
meets access needs? Specifically, does the provider offer direct TTY access to customer service
and help desk lines? Are tutorial videos provided with captioning and video description? Are
explanatory materials which are provided on the Internet available in an accessible format?
The FCC seeks comment on these and other criteria that would constitute service accessibility. (¶76)
3. Physical Aspects of Accessibility
The FCC has determined that Section 255 reaches only those aspects of accessibility over which
equipment manufacturers and service providers subject to FCC authority have direct control. This would
include the design of equipment (e.g., payphones that must be hearing aid compatible or that must
provide a visual display accessible to persons with visual disabilities) or the manner in which a service is
delivered. In contrast, manufacturers of pay phones have no control over the height at which their
instruments are mounted. The FCC seeks comment on these views (¶79).
B. Compatibility
1. Peripheral Devices and Specialized CPE
Section 255 requires that where accessibility is not readily achievable, telecommunications offerings must
be compatible with peripheral devices or specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with disabilities
to achieve access, if readily achievable. In its NPRM, the FCC concludes that it is not necessary to
distinguish between these two terms, but the FCC does seek comment on the Access Board's definitions
of each. (¶¶83, 84) The Commission also concludes that the reference in the Act to equipment and
services "commonly used... to achieve access" identifies products with a specific telecommunications
functionality. As examples, the FCC states that equipment used in direct conjunction with CPE, such s
amplifiers or screen readers, would be considered either peripheral devices or specialized CPE. In
contrast, hearing aids, which have a broad application outside the telecommunications context, would not
be considered either peripheral devices or specialized CPE.
The FCC proposes that devices and CPE should be considered "commonly used" by people with
disabilities when they are affordable and widely available (¶90) The FCC seeks comment on this
proposal, and whether it should establish a rebuttable presumption that a device is commonly used when
it is distributed in a state equipment distribution program. Finally, the Commission asks whether and how
a list of "commonly used" components should be maintained (to apprise individuals of available
technologies).
2. Criteria for Determining Compatibility
The FCC proposes to adopt the Access Board's list of 5 criteria for determining compatibility, although the
Commission recognizes that these criteria may need to be broadened in the future to take into account
technological advances (¶91):
External access to all information and control mechanisms;
Connection point for external audio processing devices;
Compatibility of controls with prosthetics;
TTY connectability; and TTY signal compatibility.
IV. READILY ACHIEVABLE DETERMINATIONS
Readily achievable means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or
expense." (¶97) The FCC has created a new framework for determining whether a telecommunications
accessibility feature is readily achievable, as follows:
A. Feasibility (¶101)
The FCC states that "feasibility" is equivalent to achievability, and suggests that the following offer
reasons why a particular feature may not be feasible:
It might be physically impossible (e.g., to fit large keypad buttons into a small wireless handset);
The technology might not be available to provide solutions;
There might be legal impediments to including certain features; or
Adding features to improve access for one disability might limit access for another.
B. Expense (¶¶103-105)
A covered entity may consider the expense of making an feature available. It may look at a "net" figure
which includes both the cost of the feature and the additional income the feature will provide. It may
consider not only absolute dollars, but the cost of other resources, such as engineering staff to develop
solutions to technological barriers and fabrication facilities to produce the accessible product. Additionally,
opportunity costs may be considered. For example, adding an access feature for one disability might
decrease access with respect to another disability, or otherwise reduce product or service performance in
another way.
The FCC seeks comment on the above, and asks parties to provide information on:
The types and levels of expenses that have been incurred to achieve access;
Processes that the FCC could establish to determine access/compatibility expenses in situations
where such expenses are disputed; and
Ssavings when access is achieved at the design stage
C. Practicality
The FCC defines this as determining "whether [a feature] is practical, given the expenses involved."
Under this heading, the FCC states that a readily achievable determination may take into account:
1. Resources, including financial, staff, facilities, and others, available to the provider to meet the
expenses associated with accessibility. (¶109, 110)
The FCC proposes to establish a presumption that the resources reasonably available to achieve access
are those of the entity legally responsible for the equipment or service which is subject to Section 255.
This presumption may be rebutted in two ways:
The assets/revenues of another entity (parent or affiliate) which is not legally responsible may still
be treated as available if those resources are generally available to the entity which is legally
responsible. The goal is to forestall sham organizational arrangements created to avoid Section
255 compliance, and to embody the Access Board's ruling that a readily achievable determination
should consider the resources of a parent company "only to the extent those resources are
available to the subsidiary."
The sub-unit (e.g., corporate division) actually responsible for the product/service may show that
it does not have access to the full resources of the corporation of which it is a part.
The Commission has concluded that it will determine what resources are available on a case by case
basis, and seeks comment on these various proposals.
2. Market Considerations, including the potential market for the more accessible product, and the
extent to which the more accessible product could compete with other offerings in terms of price
and features. (¶113)
On a related matter, the Access Board had issued a guideline stating that no change in a product shall be
undertaken that has the effect of decreasing the accessibility, usability, or compatibility of
telecommunications equipment or CPE. The FCC seeks comment on its view that this principle "should
not operate in such a way as to prevent legitimate feature trade-offs as products evolve, nor should it
stand in the way of technological advances." (¶114)
3. Cost Recovery, defined as the extent to which an equipment manufacturer or service provider is
likely to recover the costs of increased accessibility. (¶¶115-117)
The FCC states that consideration of this factor is not intended to imply that the manufacturer or provider
must be able to fully recover the incremental cost of the access feature. However, the FCC permits the
following considerations under this factor:
How could the provider expect to recover the incremental cost of the accessibility feature?
To what extent would absorbing all or part of the cost provide a disincentive to offering the
product at all?
How would passing the cost on to consumers of that particular product affect likely demand for
the product?
How should service providers and manufacturers consider affordability of accessibility when
making cost recovery assessments?
4. Timing, as it relates to a product's life cycle and the extent to which those cycles should be
taken into account in making a readily achievable determination (¶¶118-120)
With respect to timing, the FCC notes the following:
Technological features available at the beginning of a product development cycle can be
incorporated more easily than those available at the end of a cycle. Thus, incorporation of an
access feature should consider the periods of time needed to incorporate new access solutions in
products under development.
The FCC tentatively concludes that once a product is introduced in the market without
accessibility features that were not readily achievable at the time, Section 255 does not require
that the product be modified to incorporate subsequent, readily achievable access features. (If the
FCC concludes otherwise, it asks how the projected roll-out of an accessible replacement product
should affect a determination of whether modification of a product already in the marketplace is
readily achievable.)
Finally, the FCC seeks comment on its tentative view that there not be any additional grace period for
compliance with Section 255. (¶121)
D. Other Considerations
With respect to readily achievable determinations, the FCC also makes the following points:
Case by Case Determinations: Whether a product offering is accessible will be decided based on the
particular circumstances of a case. (¶122) Social Utility Factor: Because the utility of providing access to
society at large cannot be "quantified with sufficient objectivity," the FCC rejects this as a separate factor
in readily achievable determinations. (¶123)
Application to Compatibility Determinations: The FCC seeks comment on the extent to which the
same factors that are used to determine whether accessibility is readily achievable can also be used to
determine whether compatibility is readily achievable. (¶98)
V. COMPLAINT PROCESS
The FCC states that the goals of its complaint processes are to assist in the identification and application
of access solutions with minimal governmental intervention, and to streamline the process as much as
possible, removing burdensome requirements for consumers and industry alike. (¶124).
The FCC proposes not to require filing fees for complaints (informal or formal) directed at equipment
manufacturers and service providers who are not common carriers. The FCC is required to impose a filing
fee for formal complaints directed at common carriers under the Communications Act, unless waiving the
fee would be in the public interest. (The NPRM asks a few additional questions about the imposition of
filing fees in ¶155).
The FCC proposes the following processes for the resolution of complaints:
A. Fast Track Problem-Solving Phase (¶126)
A consumer submits a complaint to the FCC. The FCC encourages the consumer to contact the
manufacturer or provider directly, and provides the contact information. FCC offers its assistance
in resolving complaints informally. (¶128)
Persons with disabilities may submit complaints by any possible means, including letter, Braille,
fax, Email, Internet, TTY, audio cassette, or telephone call. (¶129)
A central FCC contact point for all Section 255 inquiries and complaints will be established. The FCC
seeks comment on distributing information to people with disabilities so they are aware of the opportunity
to submit inquiries and complaints to this central point. (¶130)
The FCC proposes that it make available a Section 255 complaint form, but that the use of such form not
be required. At a minimum, a consumer must submit the following information: name, mailing address,
preferred contact method, identification of offering that is the subject of the complaint, name of
manufacturer/provider, and a description of how the offering is inaccessible. The FCC seeks comment on
need for other information in a complaint. (¶131)
The FCC forwards the complaint to the manufacturer or provider and sets a deadline for a report
of action to resolve the complaint.
The FCC states it will endeavor to forward the complaint within one business day of its receipt. The FCC
asks whether it should forward complaints as submitted regardless of their format. (¶135)
The FCC will need a list of contact points for each manufacturer/provider and asks how it can efficiently
generate such a list, and whether multiple contact points for different offerings within one company should
be permitted. The FCC also asks whether and how firms should provide accessibility contact information
to consumers. (¶132)
The FCC proposes that manufacturers and providers be required to establish multiple contact methods,
accessible to as many disabilities as possible. (¶133)
The FCC seeks comment on whether its process should include notification to the complainant that the
complaint has been referred, and what information the notification should include. (¶133)
The FCC asks whether it should make public the contact list it develops, and what related data it should
collect to make the list a valuable source of accessibility information. Finally, it asks whether the
submission of such data should be optional or mandatory. (¶134)
The manufacturer or provider attempts to resolve the problem during time allotted (or during the
extension period granted for good cause). The FCC staff is available for assistance to the parties.
The action report deadline should provide sufficient time for respondents to study the complaint, gather
relevant information, identify access solutions, and work with the complaint on the access problem. (¶136)
The FCC proposes that the above be accomplished within 5 business days from the time it forwards the
complaint to the respondent. (¶136)
If providers need additional time, they should provide an informal progress report and request additional
time to continue problem-solving efforts. The FCC asks how to balance these requests, and whether
there should be an outside limit on the length of the fast- track period. (¶137)
FCC also asks how to provide a mechanism for either party to terminate the fast-track phase and proceed
to dispute resolution processes. (¶137)
The Respondent informally reports the results to the FCC.
The report should include whether the respondent has provided access, and if not, why not. The
respondent may also report generally on procedures for ensuring access. (¶138)
The FCC proposes that respondents provide copies of their reports to complainants, and seeks comment
on how to accomplish this in the case of oral or telephonic reports. (¶139)
The FCC evaluates the report. The matter is closed if the access problem is resolved or there is
no underlying compliance problem. If the problem remains unresolved or there is an underlying
compliance problem, the matter proceeds to the second phase of dispute resolution processes so
that the FCC can determine the "nature and magnitude of problem, and take appropriate action."
(¶140)
Evidence of an underlying problem may be that the problem was resolved with another entity's products,
or that the complaint reflects a pattern of not addressing access issues until complaints are filed. (¶140)
The FCC's evaluation of the resolution report may also include information outside the report, such as
discussions with consumer or industry access experts and the Access Board, and the review of other
complaints involving the respondent. (¶141)
The FCC communicates its determination to both the complainant and respondent in writing.
If the complaint was outside scope of Section 255, information to assist consumers in using other
avenues of redress will be included. (¶142) If the case is to proceed to dispute resolution proceedings,
information about these would be included. (¶142).
If the FCC believes the matter should be closed, the information will inform the complainant of the right to
pursue second phase dispute resolution. Consumers may communicate desire to proceed using any
communication method they choose. (¶143)
B. Informal Dispute Resolution Processes
Informal/Formal Procedures: Complaints not resolved under the fast track will be resolved under
informal, investigative procedures. However, for special circumstances, the FCC will also establish formal
adjudicatory procedures for use only where the complainant requests those procedures, and where the
Commission permits the complainant to invoke those procedures. Finally, the FCC proposes to allow the
use of alternative dispute resolution procedures where all parties and the FCC agree these are
appropriate. (¶147)
No Standing Requirement: The FCC proposes not to impose a standing requirement for filing
complaints. (¶148)
No Time Limit: The FCC proposes not to establish any time limit for filing complaints, although some
existing provisions in the Communications Act do limit claims against common carriers for damages to
within 2 years. The FCC seeks comment on the need for regulatory parity in this regard. (¶149)
30 Day Response Period: The FCC proposes to allow 30 days for a respondent to answer a complaint,
but retains discretion to shorten or lengthen response date based on nature of the complaint. The FCC
proposes to require that the respondent serve a copy of the answer on the complainant. (¶150)
15 Day Reply Period: The FCC proposes that consumers reply within 15 days.
No Format Required: The FCC proposes not to require any particular format for the submission of
informal complaints, except that such submissions must be in a permanent format (not telephonic or oral).
Proprietary Data: Because FCC consideration of Section 255 complaints may involve the evaluation of
proprietary business data, the FCC seeks comment on its existing rules on confidentiality. (¶153)
C. Formal Dispute Resolution Process (¶154)
The FCC proposes to model Section 255 adjudicatory process rules after the common carrier
formal complaint procedures set out in Sections 1.720 through 1.736. The FCC asks what
showing should be required to support a request for formal resolution, and raises concerns about
the possibility of multiple complaints about the same equipment or service.
The FCC proposes that Section 255 complaints need only be submitted once, with no
requirement for re-filing at the end of the informal process as a condition for moving to formal
dispute resolution.
The FCC seeks comment on whether it should establish a deadline to make a request for a
formal or alternative dispute resolution.
The FCC proposes that complaints be required to contain full statements of relevant, material
facts with supporting documentation (as is the case for all other complaints against common
carriers).
The FCC sets up requirements to allow for the joinder of respondents, since there may be
situations where a complaint will be brought against both a service provider and a manufacturer
for the same violation.
The FCC proposes to allow joint complaints, and complaints involving different accessibility
aspects of the same products.
D. Alternative Dispute Resolution Process (¶157)
The FCC proposes to make available alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for Section 255 complaints.
ADR procedures can include arbitration, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, settlement negotiation, and
other consensual methods of dispute resolution not resolved in the fast-track process. The FCC seeks
comment on a number of issues related to ADR, including:
The need for a deadline for requesting ADR
Whether to permit parties to move from one complaint process to another
The need for a particular method to select neutral parties to oversee an ADR process
The need for special measures to ensure that ADR processes are accessible to consumers with
disabilities, including the need for interpreters and alternative format materials
The role that the Commission should take during a Section 255 ADR process The FCC also
seeks comment on the role that groups such as the Association of Accessibility Engineering
Specialists could serve to help speed resolution of complaints (¶160), and generally seeks
comment on the use of outside experts to resolve accessibility questions (¶161).
E. Interim Treatment of Complaints
Until the FCC adopts its final rules, Section 255 complaints may be brought under Section 1.41 of the
FCC's rules. The FCC has declined to establish any other interim rules. (¶¶175,196)
VI. DEFENSES TO COMPLAINTS
The FCC has stated that a respondent using the readily achievable defense must establish the facts to
support that defense. (¶163) In addition to the factors used to determine whether an access feature is
readily achievable, it is appropriate to give weight to evidence that the respondent made good faith efforts
to comply with Section 255 by taking certain actions to increase the accessibility of its offerings. These
measures are generally set out in the Access Board guidelines, and are listed in full in ¶165 of the NPRM.
The NPRM states that all of the items contained in the Access Board's "laundry list" are not intended to
apply to all firms. (¶166). The FCC also asks whether the measures listed should apply to service
providers, as well as manufacturers. (¶167) In part, this list of measures includes:
A self assessment of whether access is readily achievable;
External outreach efforts to individuals with disabilities and disability- related organizations, and in
particular the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in product testing, pilot demonstrations,
product trials, and market research;
Internal management processes to ensure early and continuing access considerations, including
assignment of access responsibilities, employee training, use of checklists, and self-analysis; and
The provision of accessible user information and support, including descriptions of product
access and compatibility features in accessible modes and formats, accessible end-user product
documentation, and the provision of contact methods for obtaining access information.
In a separate paragraph, the FCC then asks specifically whether covered entities should be required to
provide information on how consumers can contact them regarding accessibility, and whether such notice
should include information on how to contact the FCC for access problems. (¶167)
Product vs. Product Line
The FCC states that Section 255 requires manufacturers and providers to consider providing accessibility
features in each product developed and offered. The starting point of a readily achievable defense, then
is a showing of how access features were considered during product development. (¶169). However, the
FCC states it is reasonable to take into account the accessibility features of other functionally similar
products the provider offers, so long as "such a ‘product line' analysis increases the overall accessibility of
the provider's offerings. (¶170)
VII. PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE (¶172)
The FCC makes clear that the full range of penalties available under the Communications Act apply to the
enforcement of Section 255. These include Section 503(b): forfeitures for willful or repeated failure to
comply Section 312: revocation of a station license or construction permit; cease and desist order.
Sections 207 and 208: damages for violations by common carriers, and possibly others. Among other
things, the Commission asks whether it should modify existing common carrier complaint rules with
respect to Section 255 complaints. (¶173)
The FCC seeks comment on whether there is a basis for ordering the retrofit of accessibility features into
products that had been developed without such features, where their inclusion would have been readily
achievable.
The FCC also seeks comment on other vehicles to enforce Section 255, including information collection,
equipment authorization processes (Part 2, Subpart J), equipment import documentation requirements
(Part 2, Subpart K), licensing proceedings (Section 307) for radio services used by entities subject to
Section 255, and common carrier filing processes. (¶173)
Finally, the FCC suggests the following additional measures to foster increased telecommunications
accessibility:
Establishment of a clearinghouse for product accessibility information and solutions;
Publication of information on manufacturer and service provider accessibility performance;
Additional information on the Internet at the FCC's Disabilities Issues Task Force Web site;
Establishment, by consumer and industry groups, of informational and educational programs,
product and service certification, and standards setting. In particular, the FCC asks whether it
should encourage or sanction use of a seal to signify that equipment or a service complies with
Section 255; and
Development of peer review processes.