OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION SERVICES 
Comments Regarding Federal Communications Commission 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Section 255 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
(96-198) 


The Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) expresses general support for the 
proposed rules published by the Federal Communications Commission to implement Section 255 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

Specifically, the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services expresses comments on the 
following FCC proposed provisions: 

-- Scope of Rulemaking Authority and Enforcement Authority (para. 24-34): The Oklahoma 
Department of Rehabilitation Services concurs with the analysis of section 255 which gives the 
FCC "expansive, rather than limited" rulemaking authority. The statute and proposed rules 
adequately recognize the relationship between the FCC and The Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB or the Access Board), providing 
appropriate delineation of similar responsibilities and authority. 

DRS concurs that section 255 applies to telecommunications equipment and CPE manufactures, 
as well as common carriers. DRS also concurs that section 207 and section 208 contain adequate 
language authorize damages as a remedy for violations of section 255 by common carriers. 

DRS agrees with Commission interpretation that section 255 prohibits a private right of action. 

-- Statutory Definitions (paras. 35-123): DRS concurs with the analysis of statutory definitions in 
the act as referenced in the NPRM. The proposed regulations provide adequate analysis of 
"telecommunications equipment and services". 

DRS supports an expansive definition of "information" and "adjunct-to-basic" services to 
include such services as voice mail and electronic mail. The expansive, rather than limited, 
nature of the language of section 255 supports a broad-based range of initiatives to make 
telecommunications services accessible to persons with disabilities. 

DRS concurs with the definition of "provider of telecommunications equipment" to include 
all entities offering telecommunications services to the public and further concurs that 
foreign and domestic manufacturers should not be exempted from the regulations. DRS 
agrees with the definition of "manufacturer" based upon the Access Board's guidelines. 

DRS supports the use of the ADA definitions of "disability" and of "accessible to and usable 
by" without modification or enhancement. 
. 
The definition of "readily achievable" is adequately analyzed in para. l94. However, DRS 
recognizes that the term is the weakest link in the Section's efforts to accomplish 
accessibility of telecommunications equipment and services. Although DRS recognizes the 
term is addressed in the language of the act by reference to the ADA, we encourage the 
strictest interpretation possible, recognizing that this maybe the potential loophole for many 
manufacturers and service providers wishing to avoid full compliance with provisions of the 
Section. 


Implementation Process (para. 124-177): In regard to overall implementation objectives, DRS
supports the prevailing concepts of "responsiveness to consumers" and "efficient allocation 
of resources". In addition, DRS supports the proposed fast track, informal and formal 
complaint resolution provisions of the proposed rules. Additionally, DRS supports the 
proposed alternative dispute resolution procedures as proposed in the NPRM. The 
Commission should order compliance with ADR determinations in the same manner they 
would require compliance with determinations made through the formal complaint resolution 
process. 

DRS suggests that the FCC use all available remedies to enforce compliance or to assess 
penalties for non-compliance, including, but not limited to forfeitures, corrective measures, 
license revocations, cease and desist orders, fines, awards of damages, and required 
retrofitting of equipment manufactured out of compliance. 

-- Interim Treatment of Complaints (para. 175 - 177): DRS concurs with the NPRM that the 
current complaint resolution process is adequate until these final rules are implemented and 
that no additional interim rules are necessary.