STATE OF CONNECTICUT 
OFFICE OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY FOR 
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 
60B WESTON STREET, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06120-1551 


June 12, 1998


Federal Communications Commission Office of the Secretary 
Room 222 Washington, D. C. 20554 


RE: WT DOCKET NO. 96498, FC 98550 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I am writing in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
announced by the FCC on May 22,1998, in WT Docket No. 96-l 98; FCC 96-55.
Please consider this letter as this agency's public comments on certain provisions
of the proposed rules. This agency is writing pursuant to its federal and state law
authority to educate policy makers on matters which affect the rights of people
with disabilities. 

Section I. 8 -The FCC suggests that a civil action for damage under section 255 is
foreclosed, for the reasons set forth therein. Nevertheless, the FCC is requesting 
comments on this interpretation. A Civil action for damages might arguably be a
correct interpretation, notwithstanding Court v. Ash 422 U. S. 66 (1975), but a
civil action for injunctive or other equitable remedies nevertheless remains an
available remedy. The NPRM suggests that no civil action is permissible. This
may be incorrect and the NPRM should clarify this point. 

Section II. B.( l) The FCC should not limit the definition of "common disabilities"
to those found on the Access Board' s categories. Instead, it should be clear that
the Access Board's list is merely illustrative and not an exclusive list. The NPRM
should be clarified to require that the ADA's definition of disability shall be the
primary definition of disability, with the Access Board's list to be consulted for
illustration purposes only. 

Section II. B. (2) The FCC should conclude, without prevarication that
"accessibility" in the broadest sense of that term, was the correct interpretation for
Section 255. 

Section II. B. (4) The FCC should conclude, without prevarication, that "readily
achievable", as defined by the ADA, constitutes a broad definition of this term, as
set forth within the NPRM. 

Section II. B. (b) (37) The FCC should be clear that expense referred to in this
section of the NPRM should not become a de facto surcharge for providing
access. Through out the ADA, the imposition of any surcharge, to remove
barriers or to accommodate a person with a disability, is per se illegal. The
expenses incurred for telecommunication, access should be amortized with a
larger customer or product base, rather than only the customers with disabilities
and the products specifically designed to remove barriers to access. Further, the
practical application of determining whether the expense is "practical", seems to
ignore the ADA formula set out in Section 35, for determining whether
accessibility is "readily achievable". In other words, the expense of practicality 
should be governed by the ADA's 'readily achievable' provisions. 

Sectlon II. B. (b) (42) For the reasons set forth in the previous paragraph, the
FCC should be clear that cost recovery cannot be a disguised surcharge for the
elimination of a telecommunications barrier or to provide telecommunications
access. 

Sections III. 44 -77 Assuming arquendo that the FCC is correct with its
interpretation of its exclusive jurisdiction over the resolution of complaints, the
entire section entitled implementation process is much too cumbersome and
without any realistic timeliness for enforcement activities. For example, the FCC's
NPRM assumes that the customer and manufacturers/ service providers have not
conferred prior to the consumer filing a complaint with the federal agency. After
being unable to resolve access issues with the manufacturer/ service provider, the
consumer is required to go back to the manufacturer/ service provider ". . who
will have a short period to time to solve the complainant's access problem. . ."
This process would not be required if the consumer provides satisfactory evidence
that efforts to resolve the access issues with the manufacturer/ service providers
were instituted prior to filing the complaint. For those complainants who do no
provide such evidence, the NPRM should define "a short period of time." (e. g.
ten, fifteen or thirty days). These sections should be revised. 

The Fast Track Problem Solving Phase, Section III. 46 is merely a repetition of
Sections Ill, Nos. 44 and 45. The FCC should take an active role as technical
assistance adviser and/ or mediator once the complainant establishes that
individual efforts to resolve access issues with the manufacturer/ service provider
were not successful. Instead, the NPRM forces the complainant back to the
manufacturer/ service provider forum, with the FCC's role limited to providing,
upon request, informal assistance or information. The redundancy in this process
hardly comports with the notion of "fast track" resolution and the procedures
should be revised. 

The lack of any effective time line to resolve complaints at the preliminary stages
before the FCC assumes jurisdiction over a formal complaint is troublesome. For
example, Title IV of the ADA utilizes a 180 day timeline for the resolution of
TRS complaints. 47 U. S. C. $225 (e) (2). A similar time line should be
considered by the FCC for the final resolution of informal and formal complaints. 

The FCC should disseminate widely, in an accessible formal, the availability of its
final rules for the formal and informal dispute or problem solving procedures.
Section III. A. 50 authorizes people with disabilities to submit complaints by
"accessible means," however, there is no corresponding or reciprocal obligation
placed upon the FCC. This should be revised. 

Section Ill. B, (41) 73 The section should be revised to eliminate "good faith'
defenses. Unless a manufacturer or service provider can demonstrate either a lack
of FCC jurisdiction, the product is already accessible or that accessibility is not
readily achievable, the manufacturer or service provider must comply with the
ADA Title IV and Section 255's mandates. The defense of "good faith" appears to
be inconsistent with the access and telecommunications barrier removal
provisions, and this provision should be revised. 

Section Ill. C. 75 The penalties for non compliance are adequate and should be
retained as proposed for Section 255 violations found by the Commission. These 
revisions should be available for informal, as well as the formal dispute resolution
procedures. 

The Commission should order the retrofitting of any products which were
designed or manufactured after the effective date of Section 255, (02/08/96), if
readily achievable. Equipment manufacturers were placed upon notice as of that
date of the accessibility provisions. Since the concept of readily achievable is
defined as something which is easily accomplished and able to be accomplished
without much difficulty or expense, the FCC should order manufacturers to
undertake those reasonable measures. 

Thank you in advance for considering these comments on the FCC's proposed
regulations. 

Sincerely, 


LAWRENCE BERLINER
GENERAL COUNCIL