Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D. C. 20554 

In the Matter of Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 

Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment, and
Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities 

WT Docket No. 96-198

COMMENTS OF THE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mark J. Golden, Senior Vice President, Industry Affairs 

Robert L. Hoggarth Senior Vice President, Paging and Messaging 

Todd B. Lantor Manager, Government Relations 

Personal Communications Industry Association [1] 500 Montgomery Street, Suite
700 Alexandria, VA 223 14- 156 1 (703) 739- 0300 

June 30,1998 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

II. PCIA BELIEVES THAT THE FCC IS AUTHORIZED TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 255
AND
SUPPORTS THE FCC’S CONCLUSION TO FORBID PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION 

III. THE FCC’S SHOULD DEFINE A “MANUFACTURER” AS THE ENTITY WHO IS
THE FINAL
ASSEMBLER OF A PRODUCT 

IV. PURSUANT TO SECTION 251( a)( 2) OF THE ACT, THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK SHOULD FACILITATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ACCESSIBILITY
FEATURES BY END
USERS -- NOT INHIBIT THEM 

V. THE CONCEPT OF READILY ACHIEVABLE” MUST INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF
AN
INTRICATE SET OF FACTORS, INCLUDING FEASIBILITY, COST, AND
PRACTICALITY 

VI. WHILE THE COMMISSION’S PROPOSED “FAST- TRACK” COMPLAINT PROCESS
SEEMS TO
REST ON TWO SIMPLE PRINCIPLES, THERE IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
UNCERTAINTY REGARDING HOW COMPLAINTS WILL BE RESOLVED 

A. Consumers Should Be Required to Contact the Service Provider or
Manufacturer First 

B. The FCC’s Timetable Is Patently Unrealistic

C. The FCC’s Fast- Track Determination Should Be Final

D. There Needs to Be Both Standing
Requirements and Time Limits for Filing 

Section 255 Complaints E. PCIA Supports the Use of ADR to Resolve Section
255 Disputes and the Commission's Laundry List of Guidelines [2]

VII. THE FCC SHOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER SECTION 255
COMPLAINTS,
BUT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO APPLY SECTION 255 RETROACTIVELY 

VIII. CONCLUSION 

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Washington, D. C. 20554 

In the Matter of Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 

Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment, and
Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities 

WT Docket No. 96-198 

COMMENTS OF THE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

The Personal Communications Industry Association (“ PCIA”) ’ hereby submits
its comments in response to the above- captioned Notice qf Proposed
Rulemaking regarding implementation of Section 255.2 PCIA believes that the
Commission should craft flexible rules that allow members of the
telecommunications industry, both service providers and manufacturers, to
work together with consumer groups and individuals with disabilities to
ensure that all Americans, regardless of their disabilities, are able to
access telecommunications equipment and services. At the same time, the
Commission must be sure to carry out the statutory mandate set forth by
Congress in a technologically and economically reasonable manner. 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 

Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates that, if “readily
achievable,” telecommunications equipment, customer premises equipment (“
CPE”), and telecommunications services shall be “accessible to, and usable
by individuals with disabilities.“ [3] As evidenced by the Commission’s
Notice, numerous issues arise in attempting to interpret and implement
Section 255. Some of the most notable issues that will be addressed in these
comments include: (1) how to define “manufacturer” in the context of Section
255; (2) how to define what is “readily achievable” in the context of
Section 255; (3) how to best handle complaints that arise under Section 255;
and (4) how best to ensure that in developing equipment and CPE guidelines,
coordination efforts are made between the telecommunications industry and
representatives of other affected industries and consumer groups. 

It is important to note that the wireless industry currently offers a
variety of products that are particularly helpful to customers with a
variety of disabilities. Voice- activated PCS phones and vibrating text
pagers have become extremely attractive devices for the hearing- impaired.
In contrast, those with visual impairments find phones with data
capabilities (e. g., electronic mail) and voice pagers4 to be particularly
appealing and, as a result, these types of units have begun to penetrate the
marketplace. Because there are approximately 54 million Americans with
disabilities, designing products with the disabled community in mind has
been an economically rewarding decision for many companies.[4]

Against this background, PCIA strongly believes that rules implementing
Section 255 must be flexible enough to allow the telecommunications
industry, including the wireless industry, and their customers with
disabilities to work together to ensure that equipment and services are
available wherever economically and technologically feasible. Specifically,
in defining “readily achievable,[5] the Commission must recognize the
rapidly changing nature of technology. 

II. PCIA BELIEVES THAT THE FCC IS AUTHORIZED TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 255
AND
SUPPORTS THE FCC’S DECISION TO FORBID PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION 

PCIA agrees with the Commission’s interpretation that it possesses the
statutory authority to adopt the rules necessary to implement Section 255 of
the Act and to resolve any complaints that arise under this section. [6] The
language of Sections 4( i), 201( b), 303( r) of the Act, along with  the
authority granted through Section 255( f), clearly empowers the Commission
to perform these two ftmctions. [7]

In addition, PCIA strongly supports the Commission’s conclusion that the
exclusive jurisdiction granted to the FCC over the resolution of Section 255
complaints, combined with the explicit preclusion of private rights of
action, eliminates the ability for complainants to successfully pursue
private litigation, pursuant to Section 207 of the Act. [8] Congress’ intent
to preclude private litigation, pursuant to Section 255, could not have been
made more explicit. 

HI. THE FCC’S SHOULD DEFINE A “MANUFACTURER” AS THE ENTITY WHO IS
THE FINAL
ASSEMBLER OF A PRODUCT 

As the Commission mentions in the Notice, telecommunications equipment often
times consists of components that are manufactured by several different
companies. [9] Tracking down which particular component of a specific
product is causing accessibility difficulties for a consumer could be an
extremely complex and time- consuming process. As a result, we support the
Commission’s proposal to place responsibility for product accessibility on
the final assembler of a product. We agree that by adopting the final
assembler approach, manufacturers will have an even greater incentive to
specify accessible components from their suppliers and that they are in the
best position to allocate any increased costs that could result from
compliance. The final assembler approach will also likely make the process
of resolving Section 255 complaints easier because, in many instances, the
number of parties involved in resolving the complaint will be reduced to
just a few (e. g., the carrier, the final assembler, a consumer group, and
the complainant). 

IV. PURSUANT TO SECTION 251( a)( 2) OF THE ACT, THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK SHOULD FACILITATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ACCESSIBILITY
FEATURES BY END
USERS -- NOT INHIBIT THEM 

Section 25 l( a)( 2) of the Act requires that a telecommunications carrier
not [10]... install network features, functions, or capabilities that do not
comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to Section
255...“‘ [11] We support the Commission’s interpretation of Section 25 1
(a)( 2) as governing the “configuration” of the network capabilities of
carriers. We also support the Commission’s general notion that “the
telecommunications network should facilitate -_ not thwart -- the employment
of accessibility features by end users.“” In short, the link between
Sections 251( a)( 2) and 255 of the Act is an important one, primarily
because it requires manufacturers of network elements, and carriers that
incorporate these elements into their network, to coordinate their efforts
in order to ensure that both types of entities are in compliance with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

V. THE CONCEPT OF “READILY ACHIEVABLE” MUST INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF
AN
INTRICATE SET OF FACTORS, INCLUDING FEASIBILITY, COST, AND
PRACTICALITY 

In the Notice, the Commission tentatively concludes that the term “readily
achievable, [12] as defined by the ADA and incorporated by Section 255( a)(
2), simply means “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without
much difficulty or expense.“‘ [13] The Commission adds that, in the
telecommunications context, a useful framework for analyzing whether a
particular telecommunications accessibility feature is “readily achievable”
involves an examination of three distinct areas -- feasibility, expense, and
practicality.‘) The Commission also notes that, in certain circumstances,
determinations as to whether accessibility is “readily achievable” will
simply be driven by case- specific factors. [14]

PCIA agrees with the Commission that, without question, feasibility,
expense, and practicality are all extremely important factors to consider
when determining whether or not a particular accessibility or compatibility
feature is “readily achievable.” PCIA considers feasibility to essentially
be the first prong of the Commission’s “readily achievable” test. After all,
if an accessibility or compatibility feature is simply not capable of being
implemented, then the process of determining whether it is “readily
achievable” immediately ceases. The feasibility factor is also significant
because it reminds the Commission that, despite advances in technology. some
accessibility features are still simply not possible. 

Like the Commission, PCIA also deems cost to be the second prong of the
“readily achievable” test. The necessity for considering economic
feasibility is made clear by the ADA definition of “readily achievable,”
which, as noted earlier, is incorporated by reference into Section 255( a)(
2). Because three of the four factors specified by the ADA in determining
whether an action is “readily achievable” revolve around economic
considerations, the Commission is statutorily obligated to integrate cost
when defining the term “readily achievable. [15] Similarly, Congress
required the Commission to consider economic factors when developing
regulations that promote access to telephone service by the disabled.‘” PCIA
also agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the expense factor should
include the cost of other resources (e. g., costs incurred because of other
required resources, opportunity costs, etc.). 

Finally, PCIA endorses the Commission’s proposal to factor practicality into
the “readily achievable” equation. As the Commission correctly points out,
the economic, administrative, and physical resources available to a provider
are just some of the factors that should be considered in evaluating
practicality. The Commission’s determination that the potential market for
the product or service, the degree to which costs can be recovered, and
timing, are also all critical factors in determining whether a particular
accessibility or compatibility feature is practical, and ultimately,
“readily achievable. [16] 

VI. WHILE THE COMMISSION’S PROPOSED “FAST- TRACK” COMPLAINT PROCESS
SEEMS TO
REST ON TWO SIMPLE PRINCIPLES, THERE IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
UNCERTAINTY REGARDING HOW COMPLAINTS WILL BE RESOLVED 

In the Notice, the Commission proposes a two- phase program for dealing with
consumer complaints arising under Section 255. In the first phase, the
Commission proposes that consumer inquiries and complaints be referred to
the manufacturer or service provider concerned, who will then have a short
period of time to solve the complainant’s access problem and informally
report to the Commission the results of its efforts. Should the matter
remain unresolved, the dispute would proceed to the second phase -- the
dispute resolution process. While PCIA supports some of the Commission’s
proposals regarding the Section 255 complaint process and addresses many of
the questions posed by the Commission in the Notice, we also believe that,
in general, the Commission does not necessarily have to establish a new set
of complaint procedures specifically tailored for Section 255 complaints.
Just last year, the Commission completely overhauled their procedures for
formal complaints tiled against common carriers. [17] In short, we agree
with the Commission’s statement in that Report and Order that “[ a] uniform
approach will ensure that the Commission places on all formal complaints the
same pro- competitive emphasis underlying the 1996 Act’s complaint
resolution deadlines.[18] 

A. Consumers Should Be Required to Contact the Service Provider or
Manufacturer First 

In general, PCIA agrees with the overall structure of the first phase of the
complaint process. However, PCIA is concerned about the absence of any
procedural requirements that complainants have to meet before lodging a
Section 255 complaint. Although the Commission notes that it will “encourage
potential complainants to contact the manufacturer or service provider to
attempt to resolve the problem before lodging a complaint,” a consumer has
no obligation to actually do [19]

PCIA recommends that the Commission’s first responsibility should be to
provide the information necessary so that a consumer can contact directly
the manufacturer or service provider involved, and further, that the
consumer be required to do so before lodging a complaint. This requirement
will allow the manufacturer or service provider to resolve the problem
before even having to make an informal report, thereby reducing
administrative burdens on both the FCC and the industry. The Commission is
in the best position to decide what type of showing a consumer should have
to make in order to prove that an overture to the manufacturer or service
provider was made. 

PCIA strongly endorses the Commission’s proposal to establish a central
Commission contact for all Section 255 inquiries and complaints. The
Commission could easily pass word around that an FCC contact point exists by
both issuing a Public Notice and incorporating the FCC contact point into
the Commission’s Rules. This contact point should be responsible for
generating and maintaining a list of contacts (e. g., the carrier’s
registered agent) for all manufacturers and service providers subject to
Section 255. Although most PCIA members are likely to provide a single point
of contact for Section 255 inquiries and complaints following implementation
of the Commission’s Section 255 rules, the Commission should provide for
some flexibility and allow manufacturers and service providers to designate
different contacts if desired, and permit companies to delegate the contact
responsibilities to third parties. 

B. The FCC’s Timetable Is Patently Unrealistic 

The Commission goes on to propose that, within five business days of
forwarding a complaint, respondents must submit a report to the Commission
in which, among other things. the respondent identifies possible
accessibility solutions. Once again, the Commission’s zealous timetable is
totally unrealistic. First, the Commission does not propose that a
respondent have five days from receipt of a complaint, rather, the
Commission proposes “... a deadline of five business days from the time [the
Commission] jbrward[ s] the complaint to the respondent.[20] Therefore,
respondents do not even have a full five days to respond to a complaint.
After all, it might take a day or two to simply receive the complaint from
the Commission. Second, within that five day period, the Commission expects
industry to receive the complaint, gather relevant information, contact the
complainant to discuss the complaint, and resolve it. Resolving many of
these complaints will involve coordination among the customer service,
technical, and legal divisions of affected companies and, often times, will
require face- to- face meetings between manufacturers and service providers.
In short, given the enormous impact many of these accessibility decisions
will have on affected companies, the Commission’s proposal to require
manufacturers and/ or service providers to make a report to the Commission
within five business days of the date the particular complaint is forwarded
is both unreasonable and impossible to comply with. 

Even the Commission recognizes that, in certain circumstances, five business
days may not be enough to resolve a complaint. In such instances, the
Commission proposes to require respondents to file an informal progress
report that should include a request for additional time to continue
problem- solving efforts. [21] I If the Commission is concerned about the
potential for delay in resolving complaints via the fast- track process,
then PCIA would endorse a 30- day fast- track period which could be extended
upon Commission approval [22] At the end of the fast- track period,
respondent companies should be required to report to both the complainant
and the Commission, via written correspondence, facsimile, electronic mail,
or telephone, whether or not the complainant has been provided the access
sought. If a complaint remains unresolved, the respondent company should be
required to submit an informal report to both the complainant and the
Commission explaining why the accessibility has not been provided. Finally,
if the Commission is inclined to implement a mechanism by which the fast-
track process could be terminated and the traditional dispute resolution
process would be invoked, PCIA recommends that such a mechanism be triggered
only upon the consent of both the complaining and responding parties or upon
an order by the Commission. 

C. The FCC’s Fast- Track Determination Should Be Final 

If the Commission determines that the fast- track determination should be
closed, complainants should not be able to pursue relief via the second-
phase dispute resolution process. The Commission’s determination should be
the final determination. Respondents should not be required to contribute
more time and resources to resolving a Section 255 complaint that the
Commission has already determined to either be satisfactorily solved, to not
involve matters subject to Section 255, or to concern a complaint to which
the Commission responded that accessibility was not readily achievable.
However, if the Commission finds that traditional or alternative dispute
resolution (provided all parties agree that ADR is appropriate) is
necessary, such a decision needs to be made within a reasonable time frame
(i. e., within 6 months of the respondent’s filing of an action report).
[23] Further, if a decision is not made within the allotted time frame, the
Commission will be deemed to have abandoned the complaint. 

D. There Needs to Be Both Standing Requirements and Time Limits for Filing
Section 255 Complaints 

In contrast to the Commission, PCIA believes that a standing requirement is
necessary for filing complaints under Section 255. Although Section 255 does
not specifically impose a standing requirement, two important reasons exist
which necessitate such a requirement. First. by only allowing interested
parties to challenge the presumption of compliance, the Commission lessens
the chance of facing frivolous or vindictive lawsuits Second, without a
standing requirement, the costs incurred in resolving complaints will only
increase. Not only does this mean a drain on Commission resources, but a
drain on the resources of legitimate parties, forced to respond to spurious
claims. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the importance of such
prudential considerations and preserved the “autonomy of those most likely
to be affected” by adjudication. [24]

The Commission states that one of its reasons for proposing no standing
requirement is that the Commission wants to avoid burdening the complaint
process with standing related disputes. But for the reasons stated above,
PCIA believes, as does the Supreme Court, that the complaint process will be
made less burdensome by allowing only parties with standing to challenge
compliance. 

Similarly, PCIA believes that there should be a time limit for filing
complaints under Section 255. As the Commission correctly points out,
Section 415( b) of the Communications Act limits the filing of all
complaints against common carriers for the recovery of damages not based on
overcharges to “within two years from the time the cause of action accrues,
and not after.. . [25] We believe that the two- year window established in
Section 4 15( b) should be carried over and applied to all Section 255
complaints. In other words, complainants would have two years from the date
a product is purchased, or from the date a service is subscribed to, in
which to file a Section 255 complaint. PCIA also agrees with the Commission
that any time limits for resolving complaints under Section 208 of the Act,
namely, the five- month deadline established in Section 208( b)( l) of the
Act, do not apply to Section 255 complaints. [26] 

E. PCIA Supports the Use of ADR to Resolve Section 255 Disputes and the
Commission’s “Laundry List” of Guidelines 

PCIA supports the Commission’s proposal to use ADR, subject to the agreement
of all parties, as a third tool to resolve Section 255 disputes. However, as
noted earlier, any party that seeks ADR must make their request to the
Commission within six months of the respondent’s filing of an action report.
[27] If the Commission ultimately decides to adopt its ADR proposal, the
Commission should also prescribe a method for selecting the individuals
necessary to oversee the ADR process. [28] Further, the Commission should
act as both a facilitator and observer of the ADR process and all ADR
decisions should be fully enforced by the Commission. 

PCIA endorses the Commission’s “laundry list of guidelines that
manufacturers and service providers can consider in order to determine
whether or not their products and/ or services comply with Section 255 of
the Act. Such a list can be extremely beneficial to both the industry and
consumers. However, in order for such a list to be effective, it must be
explicit and clearly explain what each description on the list means in
terms of actual functionality. Finally, like the Commission, PCIA also
supports the notion that it is reasonable for an informed productdevelopment
decision to take into account the accessibility features of other
functionally similar products that the provider offers. 

VII. THE FCC SHOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER SECTION 255
COMPLAINTS,
BUT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO APPLY SECTION 255 RETROACTIVELY 

Section 255( f) mandates that “[ t] he Commission shall have exclusive
jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section.” Section
255(f) also states that “[ nlothing in this section shall be construed to
authorize any private right of action to enforce any requirement of this
section or any regulation thereunder.” As a result, PCIA believes that
Section 255 clearly disallows a complainant to bring suit, pursuant to
Section 207 of the Act, for the recovery of damages. 

In addition, PCIA does not believe that Section 255 should be applied
retroactively. In other words, the Commission should not be able to order
the retrofitting of accessibility features into products that were
originally developed without such features, even if the Commission
subsequently determines that including such features into the original
design of a product and/ or service was readily achievable. Earlier this
week the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “retroactivity is generally
disfavored in the law.“ [29] In reaching its decision, the court stated
generally that when legislation singles out certain employers to bear a
substantial burden, based on conduct far in the past, and unrelated to any
commitment they made or injury they caused, it is unconstitutional. [30] By
analogy, should the Commission impose the retrofitting of existing
telecommunications equipment or services, the Commission would be imposing a
substantial burden on certain elements of the industry for past conduct that
is unrelated to any injury they caused or commitment they made. This is the
very type of action the Supreme Court recently struck down as
unconstitutional. 

VIII. CONCLUSION 

There is no question that one of the fundamental objectives of the 1996
Communications Act was to ensure that all Americans have the ability to
access and benefit from advances in telecommunications services and
equipment. [31] However, while carrying out this extremely important
objective, the Commission must also remember to abide by its stated
intentions to do so “in a practical, common sense manner [32] and to provide
“industry [with] incentives to consider disability issues at the beginning
of the development and design process -- and on an ongoing basis.“ [33]

Finally, in interpreting the intricacies of Section 255, the Commission must
manufacturers and service providers are treated consistently. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Mark J. Golden Senior Vice President, Industry Affairs 

Rob L. Hoggarth Senior Vice President, Paging and Messaging 

Todd B. Lantor Manager, Government Relations 

Personal Communications Industry Association 500 Montgomery Street, Suite
700 Alexandria, VA 22314- 1561 (703) 739- 0300 

June 30.1998 20 

Endnotes

1 PCIA is the international trade association created to represent the
interests of both the commercial and private mobile radio service
communications industries. PCIA’s Federation of Councils includes: the
Paging and Messaging Alliance, the Broadband PCS Alliance, the Site Owners
and Managers Association, the Association of Wireless Communications
Engineers and Technicians, the Private Systems Users Alliance, and the
Mobile Wireless Communications Alliance. In addition, as the FCC- appointed
frequency coordinator for the 450- 5 I2 MHZ bands in the Business Radio
Service, the 800 and 900 MHZ Business Pools, the 800 MHZ General Category
frequencies for Business Eligibles and conventional SMR systems, and the 929
MHz paging frequencies, PCIA represents and serves the interests of tens of
thousands of licensees.

2 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 255 of the Telecommunications
Act o 1996; Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications
Equipment, and Customer Premises Equipment to Persons with Disabilities, 63
Fed. Reg. 28456, WT Docket No. 96 198, FCC 98- 55, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Apr. 2. 1998) (“ Notice”). 

3 See 47 U. S. C. $4 255( b) and (c).

4 Voice pagers emit a tone alert when a message is received. Someone trying
to reach a voice pager calls the voice pager number and leaves a recorded
voice message. The voice pager will then emit a tone or vibration alert and
the customer will hear the recording of the message that the caller has
left, in the caller’s own  voice.

5 Notice, at n. 3 (citing Americans with Disabilities: 1994- 95, Current
Population Reports, Series P70- 6 1, U. S. Bureau of the Census (Aug.
1997)). 

6 Notice, at 7[ 26. 

7 See 47 U. S. C. $6 154( i), 201( b), and 303( r), Section 4( i) of the Act
explicitly permits the Commission to “... perform any and all acts, make
such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with
[the] Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions”; Section
20 1 (b) of the Act provides that “[ t] he Commissioner may prescribe such
rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry
out the provisions of this Act”; Section 303( r) of the Act provides that
the Commission may “[ mlake 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...; See also 47 U. S. C. $ 255( f).
Section 255( f) states that “[ t] he Commission shall have exclusive
jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under this section. 

8 See 47 U. S. C. $4 207,255( f). 

9 Notice, at 160. 7 

10 See 47 U. S. C. 5 251( a)( 2). II Notice, at 763.

11 FCC Red 8249, 8274-76 (1996) (considering the costs and benefits of rules
implementing 47 U. S. C. $610). 

12 Notice, at 7 97. 

13 Notice, at 1 100. 

14 Notice, at 1 99. 

15 The factors to be considered in determining whether an action is readily
achievable include: ( I ) the nature and cost of the action needed; (2) the
overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the
action; (3) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; and (4)
the type of operation or operations of the covered entity. See 42 U. S. C. Q
12 18 1( 9)( A)-( D). 

16 See 47 U. S. C. $ 610( e) (“[ T] he Commission shall specifically
consider the costs and benefits to all telephone users, including persons
with and without hearing impairments’); Access to Telecommunications
Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities, [rest of text missing]

17 See In the Matter of Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of
1996; Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal
Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, 12 FCC Red 22497, CC Docket
No. 96- 238, FCC 97- 396, Report and Order (Nov. 25, 1997). 

18 Id. at 73. 11 

19 Notice, at 1 127. 

20 Notice, at 7136.

21 Given the administrative and judicial penalties facing manufacturers and
service providers to resolve these complaints, PCIA believes that such a
requirement is unnecessary, will result in more work for the subject
business and the Commission, and will further delay the process of resolving
complaints. 

22 A 30- day limit on the length of the fast- track period is consistent
with Section 1.724( a) of the Commission’s Rules which requires common
carriers to answer complaints within 30 days of service of the pleading to
which the answer is made unless otherwise directed by the Commission. SW 47
U. S. C. 4 1.724( a).

23 Requiring the Commission to decide whether or not to proceed with dispute
resolution processes within six months of the respondent’s filing of an
action report is consistent with Section 1.7 18 of the Commission’s Rules
which limits the tiling of formal complaints, subsequent to the filing of an
informal complaint, to six months from the date of a common carrier’s report
answering the informal complaint. See 47 U. S. C. $ I ,718. 

24 See Lujan v. National Wild& e Federation, 497 U. S. 87 1 (1990); see also
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans Unitedfor Separation qf Church
and State, 454 U. S. 464 (1982). 

25 47 U. S. C. 4 415( b).

26 47 U. S. C. 6 208( b). 

27 As noted earlier, requiring the Commission to decide whether or not to
proceed with dispute resolution processes within six months of the
respondent’s filing of an action report is consistent with Section 1.7 18 of
the Commission’s Rules which limits the filing of formal complaints,
subsequent to the filing of an informal complaint, to six months from the
date of a common carrier’s report answering the informal complaint. See 47
U. S. C. 4 1.718. 

28 Although PClA supports the concept of ADR for Section 255 disputes, PCIA
also realizes that there are currently no “experts” in the field of
telecommunications accessibility. The ability to assess whether it is
readily achievable to incorporate a given accessibility function into a
particular service or piece of equipment is an extremely complex task, and
thus, ADR may not be an appropriate option for at least two years.

29 See Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 1998 WL 332966, at 22.

30 Id. at 23 

31 See e. g., Q 225 (which governs Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS)
for hearing- impaired and speech- impaired individuals); 5 2.5 1 (a)( 2)
(prohibiting a telecommunications carrier from installing network features,
functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and
standards established pursuant to Section 255 of the Act); 4 710 (mandating
hearing aid compatibility (HAC) for wireline telephones); and 5 7 13
(requiring accessibility of video programming (closed captioning)). 

32 Similarly, in its report, TAAC also recognized that “it may not be
readily achievable to make every type of product accessible for every type
of disability using present technology.” See TAAC Report, 5 6.3, at 27. 

33 Notice, at 13.