Before the

# Federal Communications Commission {#federal-communications-commission .Helene .unnumbered}

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | CC Docket No. 92-105         |
|                                  |   |                              |
| The Use of N11 Codes and Other   | ) |                              |
| Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

# SECOND REPORT AND ORDER {#second-report-and-order .unnumbered}

**Adopted: July 21, 2000 Released: August 9, 2000**

By the Commission:

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# TABLE OF CONTENTS {#table-of-contents .unnumbered}

# Paragraph {#paragraph .unnumbered}

I.  Introduction 1

II. Background 5

III. DISCUSSION 11

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  Nationwide 711 Access to TRS 11

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Desirability of Mandating 711 Access to TRS 11

2.  Technical Feasibility of Implementing 711 Access to TRS 15

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  Implementation Requirements 25

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Access to All Relay Services and Compliance with Mandatory Minimum
    Service Quality Standards 25

2.  Implementation Schedule 29

3.  Other Implementation Issues 33

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  Cost Recovery 41

D.  Multivendoring 48

E.  Education and Outreach 56

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
IV. Procedural Matters 65

V.  ORDERING CLAUSES 67

APPENDIX A - FINAL RULES

APPENDIX B - FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY AND PAPERWORK REDUCTION
ANALYSES

APPENDIX C - LIST OF PARTIES

# INTRODUCTION

1.  Over the past decade, a number of initiatives undertaken by both
    Congress and the Commission have enabled individuals with
    disabilities to better take advantage of the broad range of
    telecommunications services available today. For individuals with
    hearing and speech disabilities, these initiatives have meant being
    able to \"stay connected,\" so that they may participate fully in
    the economic and social mainstream of American life, now shaped by
    the communications revolution and information age. In this *N11
    Second Report and Order*, we take another significant step toward
    fulfilling the goals of Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities
    Act of 1990 (ADA)[^1] by requiring the nationwide implementation of
    access to telecommunications relay services (TRS) for persons with
    hearing and speech disabilities via the abbreviated dialing
    code 711. [^2]

2.  The Commission first promulgated rules to implement section 225 in
    1991,[^3] and telecommunications relay services (TRS) became
    available on a uniform, nationwide basis pursuant to those
    requirements in July 1993.[^4] On February 19, 1997, the Commission
    reserved for future implementation an abbreviated dialing code, 711,
    for more convenient and consistent access to TRS.[^5] In February
    2000, we adopted comprehensive changes to our rules in order to
    increase the types and quality of relay service available.[^6] Among
    other requirements, the new rules mandate Speech-To-Speech (STS)
    relay service,[^7] which allows individuals with speech disabilities
    to communicate through CAs specially trained to understand difficult
    speech patterns, establish a minimum typing speed for CAs,[^8] and
    streamline the consumer complaint process.[^9]

3.  In today's action, we adopt rules that will further advance the
    functional equivalency mandate of section 225 by making it easier
    for consumers to access and use the relay services contemplated in
    our *Improved TRS Order*.[^10] Pursuant to the *N11* *Further
    Notice* that initiated this proceeding, we require all
    telecommunications carriers to implement three-digit, 711, dialing
    for access to all relay services.[^11] This new dialing arrangement
    will supplement existing systems in most states that require 7 or
    10-digit numbers in order to initiate relay calls.[^12] TRS users
    will then be able to initiate a call from any telephone, anywhere in
    the United States, without having to remember and dial a 7 or
    10-digit toll free number, and without having to obtain different
    numbers to access local TRS providers when traveling from state to
    state.[^13] Currently, obtaining an appropriate TRS number is a
    problem for TRS users for several reasons. First, directory
    assistance is a voice call, which callers with hearing and speech
    disabilities are not always able to use. Additionally, even TRS
    users who are able to access directory assistance report that
    directory assistance operators are often unfamiliar with relay
    services or have difficulty finding TRS numbers. Similarly, TRS
    users typically can not rely on finding TRS access numbers in phone
    directories. Payphones frequently do not supply directories and even
    if they do, variation in the location of TRS numbers in each state's
    directory makes it difficult for users to locate the local numbers
    in that manner.

4.  711 dialing will encourage and facilitate communication among
    individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech
    disabilities and voice users. Besides providing easier communication
    for millions of Americans with disabilities,[^14] we expect the new
    rules to spur greater demand for quality relay service by text and
    voice users.[^15] It is our hope that the increase in demand will
    encourage the market entry of new TRS competitors, thereby
    increasing innovation, lowering prices, and enhancing the quality of
    relay services.

# II. BACKGROUND {#ii.-background .unnumbered}

5.  Our decision to mandate 711 dialing for access to TRS nationwide has
    its roots in a rulemaking proceeding that the Commission initiated
    in the *N11 NPRM*, on May 6, 1992, which considered rules requiring
    carriers to support N11 codes and other abbreviated dialing
    arrangements.[^16] N11 codes that are not reserved by the Commission
    may generally be used by states or carriers at their discretion,
    until the Commission reserves them, at which time they must no
    longer be used for inconsistent purposes. Following release of the
    *N11 NPRM*, several parties petitioned the Commission to designate
    such codes for a variety of applications.[^17] One such petition
    (Relay Petition), filed jointly by the National Center for Law &
    Deafness and Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., requested that
    the Commission assign the 711 code for access to TRS.[^18] The
    petition also requested a second unspecified N11 number for access
    to TRS by voice telephone users.[^19] The Bureau invited public
    comment on the petition and received numerous comments and reply
    comments.[^20]

6.  On July 26, 1993, after release of the *N11 NPRM*, GTE Hawaiian
    Telephone became the first local exchange carrier in the nation to
    voluntarily offer abbreviated dialing for TRS by establishing 711
    access to TRS for text users and 511 for voice users in the state of
    Hawaii.[^21] The following year, Canada implemented a similar
    dialing arrangement, establishing a 711 number for text access to
    its relay services and a ten-digit, toll-free number for access by
    voice users.[^22] In addition, several state utility commissions
    opened proceedings on the assignment of N11 codes for various
    purposes, and some reserved the 711 and 511 codes for relay services
    or other public interest purposes pending a final decision by the
    Commission on N11 assignments.[^23]

7.  On February 19, 1997, the Commission issued the *N11 First Report
    and Order and Further Notice* in CC Docket No. 92-105.[^24] Among
    other things, it granted the Relay Petition in part by directing
    Bellcore, the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) administrator at
    that time, to assign 711 for nationwide access to TRS.[^25] The
    Commission concluded that N11 dialing would facilitate improved
    access to TRS in furtherance of section 225 and other provisions of
    the Communications Act.[^26] In the accompanying *Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* (*N11 Further Notice*), the Commission
    solicited comments on whether nationwide 711 implementation was
    technically and economically feasible, whether the 711 number should
    access all types of relay service, and whether implementation could
    occur within three years from the date of the *N11 Further
    Notice*.[^27]

8.  In July 1998, Bell Atlantic, an incumbent local exchange carrier
    (LEC), voluntarily announced plans to become the first telephone
    company in the continental United States to provide 711 access to
    TRS throughout its multi-state service region.[^28] On February 8,
    1999, through the combined efforts of Bell Atlantic and Maryland
    Relay, Maryland became the first state in the Bell Atlantic region
    to offer 711 access to TRS.[^29] Using Advanced Intelligent Network
    (AIN) technology,[^30] Maryland supports all common types of relay
    services via 711 dialing, including voice and text (Baudot and
    ASCII), voice carry over (VCO), hearing carry over (HCO), and speech
    to speech (STS).

9.  On September 8, 1999, the Commission held a public forum (*711
    Forum*) on 711 implementation in order to supplement and update the
    record with input from consumers, state relay administrators, and
    industry representatives.[^31] Discussions at the *711 Forum*
    addressed a host of issues, including technical feasibility,
    projected costs, cost recovery mechanisms, public education, and
    implementation timetables. *711 Forum* participants also discussed
    features of the 711 platform implemented by Bell Atlantic and
    Maryland relay officials.[^32] In the weeks following the *711
    Forum*, the Commission received several *ex parte* filings
    addressing issues raised at the forum.[^33]

10. In this *N11 Second Report and Order*, we complete the work we began
    when we allocated 711 for TRS in 1997, by requiring a nationwide
    roll-out of 711 access to TRS and establishing an implementation
    framework for this abbreviated dialing for access to TRS.

# III. DISCUSSION {#iii.-discussion .unnumbered}

## Nationwide 711 Access to TRS

### Desirability of Mandating 711 Access to TRS

#### Background

11. Section 225 of the Communications Act directs the Commission to
    ensure that telecommunications relay services (TRS) are available,
    to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to
    individuals with hearing and speech disabilities in the United
    States.[^34] The provision further requires that TRS facilitate the
    ability of individuals with hearing or speech disabilities to
    communicate over the telecommunications network in a manner that is
    "functionally equivalent" to the ability of individuals who do not
    have such disabilities.[^35] A fundamental purpose of section 225 is
    to remove communication barriers within the nation's
    telecommunications network that have deprived individuals with
    hearing and speech disabilities of meaningful opportunities to
    participate in the "economic and social mainstream of American
    life."[^36]

12. As stated above, in the *N11 First Report and Order*, the Commission
    concluded that 711 dialing would facilitate improved access to TRS
    in furtherance of section 225 and other provisions of the Act by
    considerably reducing the number of digits required to place a relay
    call, and by eliminating the need for consumers to remember or
    obtain multiple relay access numbers when traveling from state to
    state.[^37] Although N11 codes are a scarce resource, given the many
    benefits of a nationwide N11 code for TRS access, the Commission
    found that the NANP administrator should assign 711 for such
    use.[^38] The record compiled in this matter is substantial, and
    reflects the views of TRS users, common carriers, relay providers,
    and state relay administrators.[^39] It describes voluntary,
    cooperative efforts by industry and several states to implement 711
    access to TRS after the *N11 Further Notice*.[^40] The record also
    shows the benefits that 711 access has brought to people with
    disabilities and the general public in states where 711 has been
    implemented.[^41]

#### Discussion

13. By eliminating the difficulties that individuals have with finding
    or remembering various relay numbers as they travel from state to
    state, and by reducing the number of digits needed for accessing
    relay services, nationwide implementation of 711 access to TRS will
    make relay access convenient, fast, and uncomplicated. As a result,
    it will improve access to TRS, and encourage use of TRS not only by
    people with hearing and speech disabilities, but also by individuals
    without disabilities. It appears that these and other benefits are
    being realized in other states within Bell Atlantic's service
    region, as well as in Nevada, which implemented 711 dialing in April
    2000.[^42] According to Maryland relay officials, there has been a
    significant increase in the use of relay service by persons with
    hearing or speech disabilities within the state of Maryland
    following 711 implementation.[^43] Maryland also has reported that
    voice-initiated calls to its TRS center were up an average of 20% in
    the seven-month period following 711 activation, and that overall
    volume was up 10% in the same period.[^44] In Massachusetts,
    although the relay provider believes that it is too early to judge
    whether overall call volume has increased since 711 was rolled out,
    consumers with disabilities report that there is a significant
    increase in the number of return calls by hearing persons who find
    711 much easier to remember and use than a 10-digit number. This has
    proven to be a major benefit of 711 access to TRS.[^45]

14. Given the present state of technology and demonstrated success by a
    number of carriers in various states, we conclude that requiring all
    carriers, nationwide, to implement 711 access to TRS will fulfill
    the primary objective of section 225 and our TRS rules: functionally
    equivalent use of the telephone system by people with hearing or
    speech disabilities.[^46] A uniform, nationwide 711 deployment for
    TRS will also facilitate consumer access to all relay services
    mandated under our rules. TRS users traveling from state to state
    will be assured easy access to the particular service they need
    without having to obtain, remember and dial multiple seven-to
    ten-digit numbers. 711 access also will facilitate callbacks from
    voice users who may be unfamiliar with relay services and be
    frustrated when having to place a TRS call.[^47] We conclude,
    therefore, that mandating nationwide implementation of 711 access to
    TRS supports the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act by
    increasing the integration of people with disabilities into society,
    and is in the public interest.[^48]

### Technical Feasibility of Implementing 711 Access to TRS 

#### Background

15. In the *N11 Further Notice* and at the *711 Forum*, we requested
    comment on the technical details of implementing 711 access to TRS,
    and whether such implementation could be accomplished in three years
    or less.[^49] In particular, we asked commenters to provide
    additional information about two types of network architecture that
    could be used to implement this three-digit dialing arrangement: AIN
    and switch-based technology. Commenters raised three types of
    technical concerns: first, whether carriers could implement 711
    access using either of the two possible network architectures;
    second, whether the deployed technology would permit 711 callers to
    access all types of relay service; and third, whether the deployed
    technology would permit competition in the provision of relay
    services.

16. Although some parties had expressed skepticism about the technical
    feasibility of 711 access in comments responding to the *N11 Further
    Notice*[^50] those concerns were no longer as apparent two years
    later at the *711 Forum*.[^51] On the contrary, based on
    representations at the *711 Forum*, there is now broad consensus
    among industry representatives, telecommunications carriers, relay
    providers, and state relay administrators that 711 access is both
    technically and economically feasible.[^52]

#### Discussion

17. We conclude that it is technically feasible to provide 711 access to
    TRS using either AIN or switch-based technology. We are satisfied
    that both switch-based and AIN technologies will deliver 711 access
    to TRS at acceptable quality levels and comport with mandatory
    minimum service quality requirements under the Act and our rules.
    Therefore, as discussed below, we require that carriers implement
    711 access to TRS within the time frame specified herein, but do not
    mandate any particular technology for its deployment.

18. [Deployment of 711 Using Switch-Based Technology]{.underline}.
    Switch-based networks process telephone calls by using deterministic
    switching, which routes the call along a pre-determined or set
    path.[^53] Under the switch-based arrangement, a subscriber would
    dial 711, which would trigger a database query in the local switch.
    The query response would cause the originating switch to re-dial a
    toll-free number, and the call would be delivered to the TRS center
    as if it were any other toll-free call recipient. Switch-based N11
    deployment means that the N11 dialing information is stored in the
    switch so that the end office translates the dialing of 711 to a
    toll-free number and the call is routed to the TRS center.
    Switch-based deployment would simply direct all 711 calls from every
    switch in the state to a single TRS provider (presumably the
    state-selected provider). In such a configuration, when a TRS user
    dials the 711 code, the telecommunications carrier's end-office
    switch would automatically route the call to the state-selected
    relay center.

19. We find strong evidence of the technical feasibility of switch-based
    711 implementation in the experience of GTE in Hawaii. This state
    was the first to implement 711 access to TRS, in 1993, using a
    switch-based architecture.[^54] GTE states that standard switching
    protocols easily convert the 711 code into a toll free call to the
    relay center.[^55] The company estimates that about 1.5 hours of
    work is needed to update each local switch.[^56] We expect that many
    small LECs without AIN technology will use a switch-based approach
    to achieve compliance with the requirements of this Order, and will
    reasonably be able to do so within the implementation period set
    forth *infra*.[^57]

20. [Deployment of 711 Using AIN Technology]{.underline}. "AIN" is a
    term promulgated by Bellcore and adopted by the Bell Operating
    Companies denoting network architecture that allows voice switches
    to contact external databases for call processing information.[^58]
    It involves an additional layer of intelligence that rides on top of
    the network and allows carriers to make changes to services very
    economically and efficiently.[^59] AIN technologies deployed by
    carriers have two consistent characteristics. First, the network can
    alter the routing of calls from moment to moment based on criteria
    other than the traditional method of simply finding a path through
    the network for the call.[^60] Second, the originator or ultimate
    receiver of the call can inject intelligence into the network that
    affects the flow of the call (either outbound or inbound).[^61] An
    AIN network possesses the ability to route calls on an individual or
    call by call basis and find the most efficient path to route and
    complete the call instead of the pre-programmed route associated
    with switch-based network architectures. An AIN implementation of
    711 access to TRS would intelligently route 711 calls to the
    appropriate relay center from any calling point on the network.

21. We find that the deployment of 711 access in several states served
    by Bell Atlantic based on AIN technology and its plans to deploy
    such access throughout its 13-state region provides strong evidence
    of the technical feasibility for implementing 711 access through AIN
    technology.[^62] In July 1998, Bell Atlantic began work to implement
    711 dialing in Maryland,[^63] and succeeded in doing so by February
    1999.[^64] According to Bell Atlantic, this was accomplished through
    typical system upgrade procedures, and the costs were well within
    the range of other routine network upgrades and changes.[^65] Bell
    Atlantic has since worked cooperatively with TRS providers and state
    relay administrators in several more states, and anticipates 711
    access in nearly its entire service region by the end of this
    year.[^66] We commend GTE and Bell Atlantic for their pioneering
    efforts to provide access to TRS centers through the abbreviated
    dialing code, 711. We are persuaded by the experiences of these
    carriers and others that there are no significant issues of
    technical feasibility related to 711 deployment.[^67] Voluntary
    efforts by carriers in states around the country demonstrate that
    implementation is economically viable and technologically feasible.
    Carriers in Nevada, for example, have been providing 711 access to
    TRS since April 2000, after relay officials requested their
    voluntary cooperation only four months earlier.[^68]

22. Permitting carriers to select the most economical and efficient
    means of implementing 711 access, based on their network
    architecture, will allow maximum flexibility for carriers and state
    relay administrators in developing 711 platforms, and will promote
    innovative system designs. Accordingly, in this Order we do not
    require any particular technology for implementing 711 access to
    TRS. Moreover, we do not mandate the steps that carriers and relay
    providers must take to prepare their networks for 711 access. They
    are free to choose solutions that avoid or minimize any operational
    concerns. The voluntary, cooperative efforts between Bell Atlantic
    and relay administrators to implement 711 access within its region
    attest to the soundness of this policy. The goal of nationwide
    access to TRS can be met with minimal regulation or Commission
    intervention.

23. We note that wireless carriers, like wireline and payphone
    providers, will implement 711 access to TRS using either
    switch-based or AIN technology. Wireless carriers also deploy
    switches that can be modified to translate 711 to any seven or
    ten-digit number.[^69] While wireless carriers may face unique
    problems with routing 711 calls as discussed *infra*,[^70] these
    issues do not affect the ability of wireless carriers to meet the
    711 obligations set out in this Order.

24. Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that implementation
    of uniform, nationwide 711 access to TRS using either AIN or
    switch-based technology is technically feasible and serves the
    public interest. Accordingly, we require all carriers to provide 711
    access to TRS within the implementation period established herein.
    We emphasize, however, that whatever network designs are ultimately
    deployed, 711 dialing must be implemented in a way that ensures
    compliance with our mandatory minimum service quality standards for
    TRS.

## Implementation Requirements 

### 1. Access to All Relay Services and Compliance with Mandatory Minimum Service Quality Standards {#access-to-all-relay-services-and-compliance-with-mandatory-minimum-service-quality-standards .unnumbered}

#### Background

25. In the *N11 Further Notice*, we requested comment on several issues
    regarding the implementation of 711 access to TRS, including whether
    users should be able to access all relay services, whether the
    implementation of 711 access to TRS would affect compliance with our
    mandatory minimum service quality standards, and the time frame
    necessary for carriers to implement 711 access to TRS.[^71] In
    general, relay centers answer a single access number used for
    multiple services in one of two ways: 1) a live operator checks for
    voice and then text, or 2) an automated menu prompts for voice and
    then tests for a TTY or ASCII connection. At some relay centers,
    "caller profiles" store the relay type and other user preferences,
    which are automatically activated when the system recognizes the
    user's phone number via automatic number identification (ANI).

#### Discussion

26. We conclude that carriers are able to implement 711 dialing in a way
    that gives users access to all mandated relay services, and believe
    it is imperative for all carriers to do so. We are mindful of the
    concerns raised by some industry representatives about the
    practicality of providing 711 access to all required relay services.
    For example, one concern is that, because many states currently rely
    on unique call-in numbers for each relay service, a 711 system for
    all services would increase call-processing time, making it
    difficult to meet the speed-of-answer requirement.[^72] We are not,
    however, persuaded by arguments that the potential for an increase
    in the answer time requires the Commission to limit the types of
    relay services that can be accessed via 711. Instead, the rules we
    adopt in this *Second N11 Report and Order* are designed to give
    state relay administrators and carriers wide latitude in configuring
    their 711 platforms. For instance, we do not see the need to require
    an automated, interactive menu of available relay services, or any
    particular processing order. Bell Atlantic's experience in
    implementing 711 access to TRS demonstrates that carriers can
    provide access to all forms of TRS without compromising their
    ability to answer calls within the required period of time.[^73]

27. We emphasize that our decision requiring the implementation of 711
    access to TRS does not alter the mandatory minimum service quality
    standards for TRS. These standards, including the speed of answer
    time, are still required under our rules. Even without caller
    profiling, Maryland relay has reported that implementation of 711
    access has not negatively affected speed of answer because this is
    calculated by the length of time it takes a live operator initially
    to answer a TRS call.[^74] We conclude that speed of answer is not a
    problem for 711 access, and that carriers and relay providers should
    be able to provide such access while still meeting all mandatory
    minimum service quality standards for TRS.

28. We encourage the continuation of alternate, direct access numbers to
    reach particular types of relay services. This will enable frequent
    users of specific services, such as text-based TRS, voice carryover,
    and speech-to-speech relay to maximize call-processing efficiency.
    We also encourage relay providers to use caller profiling with 711
    access. Caller profiling allows users to designate their preferred
    type of relay service. This, in turn, speeds call processing by
    enabling TRS centers to answer calls using the appropriate mode of
    communication. Although we do not mandate use of either caller
    profiles or alternate, direct access numbers to particular relay
    services, these features may provide a means of handling relay calls
    in a manner that is consistent with our mandatory minimum standards.

### Implementation Schedule

#### Background

29. After determining that nationwide 711 access to TRS is in the public
    interest and technically feasible to accomplish, we now determine an
    appropriate timeframe for the implementation of 711 access. In 1997,
    responses to our *N11 Further Notice* brought differing responses
    from industry and consumer advocates regarding the amount of time
    that would be required to implement such access, with estimates
    ranging from one year or less to three years or more.[^75] For
    example, certain parties had expressed concern with a one-year
    implementation deadline by arguing that there may be significant
    technological problems and costs associated with switch-based
    connections to multiple TRS providers through a single N11 access
    code.[^76] Other commenters argued that a 711 platform using
    AIN-based technology would add significant costs and network
    modifications that would consume resources and ultimately delay 711
    implementation beyond the proposed three-year period.[^77] However,
    most participants at the *711 Forum* held in September 1999 no
    longer contended that there were significant technical, economic or
    operational impediments to deploying 711 dialing using either AIN or
    switched-based technologies[^78][^79] Information recently submitted
    to the Commission also reveals that the amount of time required to
    implement 711 access to TRS is significantly shorter than previously
    envisioned.[^80] Bell Atlantic estimates that 711 access could
    generally be implemented within six months using either switch-based
    or AIN technologies.[^81]

#### Discussion

30. We conclude that the experience of carriers that have already
    implemented 711 TRS access provides us with a reasonable and
    persuasive basis for requiring implementation within a one-year
    period. We find that, based on the record in this proceeding, it is
    feasible for all telecommunications carriers, including wireline,
    wireless, and payphone providers, to implement 711 access to TRS in
    accordance with Commission standards within one year, regardless of
    whether the carrier deploys switch-based or AIN-based technology.
    Based upon actual implementation schedules, we are persuaded that
    carriers can implement 711 access to TRS in a rapid and equitable
    manner that balances the needs of carriers, relay providers, states,
    and consumers.[^82]

31. Bell Atlantic's efforts to implement 711 access throughout its
    operating region provides compelling evidence that carriers
    utilizing an AIN platform are able to implement 711 access within
    one year[^83][^84] Given Bell Atlantic's extensive experience in
    deploying 711 access in several states, and its plans to implement
    711 access throughout its operating region, we accord significant
    weight to its representation that once the initial design and
    laboratory testing of the platform and required software are
    completed for 711 access in any jurisdiction, the administrative and
    translation work associated with providing such access requires
    approximately two to three months.[^85] Bell Atlantic's assertions
    are further supported not only by evidence of its own experience,
    but also by the implementation of 711 dialing within a four-month
    period in the state of Nevada.[^86] We also conclude that carriers
    deploying switch-based technology can reasonably implement 711
    access to TRS within one year. We base our conclusion on the
    experience of states such as Hawaii, where GTE deployed 711 access
    to TRS using switch-based technology.[^87]

32. As we explained above, implementing nationwide 711 access to TRS
    will significantly improve the ability of people with hearing and
    speech disabilities to utilize the telephone network, as well as the
    ability of the general public to communicate with people with
    hearing and speech disabilities through TRS. The sooner 711 access
    to TRS is implemented on a nationwide basis, the sooner all
    Americans will experience the enhanced efficiency and convenience
    that three-digit dialing has to offer. Thus, we hereby require that
    all telecommunications carriers, including wireline, wireless, and
    payphone providers, implement 711 access to all relay services, in
    accordance with Commission's standards as detailed above, on or
    before October 1, 2001. We defer to the expertise of the carriers,
    in cooperation with individual states and TRS providers, to develop
    and determine the most appropriate technological means of
    implementing 711 access to TRS, as their particular network
    topologies and architectures might dictate.

### Other Implementation Issues

#### Background

33. Although we find that there are no issues relating to technical
    feasibility that would prevent carriers from making the necessary
    modifications to their switches to enable 711 access to TRS pursuant
    to the standards set out in this Order, we are aware of unique
    implementation issues facing some payphone providers. In addition,
    private branch exchange (PBX) providers, [^88] who are not common
    carriers, may need to make modifications to their systems to allow
    711 access to TRS. Finally, we are aware that while wireless 711
    calls can be translated to any seven or ten-digit number and
    connected with relay centers, wireless carriers may face challenges
    related to the proper routing and billing of TRS calls.[^89]

#### Discussion

34. [Wireless Carriers.]{.underline} In its July 5, 2000, *ex parte*
    filing, CTIA details several problems wireless carriers face in
    providing access to TRS.[^90] First, CTIA states that, because
    wireless systems are configured based on their licensed coverage
    areas, which often do not coincide with state local access and
    transport area (LATA) boundaries, wireless calls are routed to the
    nearest switch, which may or may not be located within the same
    state as the caller.[^91] Thus, CTIA explains, wireless TRS callers
    may get routed to a relay provider located in a different state than
    the one in which the caller is located.[^92] Second, CTIA states
    that wireless callers roaming outside of their home territory would
    be routed to the relay center serving the caller's geographic
    location, not the relay center serving the caller's home
    territory.[^93] According to CTIA, in order for roaming wireless
    callers to successfully complete a 711 call, an intrastate relay
    provider must be willing and able to handle the call.[^94] Third,
    CTIA maintains that when a wireless call is routed to a local TRS
    center, the TRS center often cannot identify the call as a wireless
    call. The consequence, CTIA maintains, is that such calls are often
    erroneously identified as interstate calls.[^95] These problems
    further complicate billing for wireless TRS calls because, as CTIA
    notes, at this time wireless billing systems are not configured for
    billing TRS calls.[^96]

35. We acknowledge the issues raised by CTIA relating to the provision
    of wireless 711 access to TRS, and agree that the capability and
    readiness of the relay center to handle wireless calls is a critical
    component in enabling the wireless carrier to fulfill its customers'
    expectations that they will receive relay services. Some of the
    problems raised by CTIA, however, may not relate specifically to our
    requirement to implement 711 access to TRS, but instead to the
    existing obligation to provide wireless access to TRS.[^97] One
    unique problem that arises as a result of the Commission's 711
    obligations is that wireless callers roaming outside their home
    territory will be routed to the relay center serving the caller's
    physical location, or possibly the cell tower's or mobile switch's
    physical location, rather than the caller's home location. The relay
    center must then be able and willing to handle the call despite the
    fact that it may be identified as an out-of-state call. Nonetheless,
    as we noted in our *Improved TRS Order*, our current rules require
    TRS to be capable "of handling any type of call normally provided by
    common carriers and the burden of proving the infeasibility of
    handling any type of call will be placed on the carriers."[^98]
    Furthermore, as we also stated in that Order, we need not create new
    rules to address the problems related to wireless access to TRS
    because our rules already establish the obligation to properly
    complete all TRS calls.[^99] Therefore, based on the ease of
    translating 711 calls into traditional seven or ten-digit TRS calls,
    which all carriers, including wireless carriers, are already
    required to complete, we believe that requiring wireless carriers to
    implement 711 access to TRS within one year is reasonable.[^100]

36. While we do not require specific solutions to the challenges of
    implementing wireless 711 access to TRS, we do expect wireless
    carriers, relay providers, and any other relevant parties to work
    together to fulfill all of the requirements established in this
    Order, by the one-year implementation deadline, in addition to
    fulfilling existing requirements under our TRS rules. We note that
    states may need to modify their contracts with relay providers to
    facilitate this arrangement. We encourage the states to do so as
    expeditiously as possible. Moreover, where relay providers incur
    additional costs associated with setting up mechanisms to identify
    and handle wireless calls, these costs would be reimbursable, as
    discussed below, under existing intrastate and interstate funding
    mechanisms.

37. We defer to the expertise of carriers and relay providers to
    identify and deploy the best method of implementation in light of
    their particular circumstances. We recognize, however, that unless
    both wireless carriers and relay providers make the necessary
    modifications to their systems in a coordinated fashion, the
    successful implementation of 711 access to TRS will be delayed.
    Accordingly, we strongly encourage wireless carriers, relay
    providers, and other relevant parties to work together in an
    industry forum or other appropriate collaborative process to develop
    solutions to implement 711 access to TRS in accordance with our
    rules.

38. We believe that carriers and relay providers are in the best
    position to judge whether they are making sufficient progress
    towards resolving the implementation issues raised by CTIA.
    Accordingly, if within 4 months of the effective date of this Order,
    wireless carriers believe that they will not be able to resolve
    these implementation issues in a timely manner, we urge them, either
    individually or collectively, to file a report with the Commission
    stating that their ability to comply with the one-year deadline is
    in jeopardy. We also encourage relay providers to file a similar
    report if they deem it necessary. The report should contain specific
    details of any collaborative efforts to date, including a timeline,
    details of the implementation issues resolved and of outstanding
    issues or other problems causing the jeopardy, and the names and
    necessary contact information for the individuals participating in
    any collaborative efforts. The report should estimate the impact of
    the problem, including anticipated delay and/or restrictions to
    market coverage or feature support. We expect that these "jeopardy"
    reports will form the basis for discussions with the Commission
    about possible solutions to the outstanding implementation issues.
    If we do not receive a report of this nature, we will assume that
    the ability to comply with the one-year timeframe is not in
    jeopardy. Moreover, as we reminded carriers in the *Improved TRS
    Order*, if necessary, the Commission may consider enforcement
    action, including forfeitures, should carriers fail to meet their
    obligations regarding access to relay services.[^101] We are
    confident, however, that both wireless carriers and relay providers
    will make the upgrades necessary to allow relay providers to
    recognize incoming wireless calls as bonafide TRS calls and to
    properly route and bill all TRS calls.

39. [Payphone Providers]{.underline}. We recognize that payphone
    providers will have to make modifications to their equipment in
    order to implement 711 dialing and to ensure that the 711 call to
    the relay center is a toll free call. According to information
    provided by the American Public Communications Council (APCC), there
    are generally two types of payphone terminal equipment, \"dumb\" and
    \"smart\" payphones.[^102] \"Dumb\" payphones are connected to
    central office-controlled payphone lines, also known as smart
    payphone lines or coin lines.[^103] \"Smart\" payphone terminals are
    connected to dumb payphone lines, which are traditional business
    lines with added features such as call screening and call
    blocking.[^104] APCC indicates that the best way for smart payphones
    to route 711 calls would be identical to the way 911 calls are
    routed.[^105] The payphone provider would send the three-digit call
    to the LEC switch and the LEC switch would translate the three-digit
    call into the seven or ten-digit destination number.[^106] Based
    upon the descriptions provided by APCC detailing how providers of
    smart payphones would handle 711 calls, we conclude that it is
    technically feasible for payphone providers deploying smart
    payphones to implement 711 access to TRS.[^107] Since dumb payphone
    lines are traditional business lines with added features, this
    conclusion applies equally to payphone providers deploying dumb
    payphones.[^108] We base this conclusion on the information provided
    by APCC, the technical feasibility of 711 for wireline carriers, and
    the fact that payphone providers deploying dumb payphones have
    implemented 911 dialing, which requires technical modifications
    similar to those required for 711 dialing.[^109]

40. [PBX Providers]{.underline}. We also recognize that companies
    providing PBX equipment to businesses and organizations will need to
    program their PBXs to enable 711 dialing to TRS centers from their
    user locations. Because many individuals work for companies and
    organizations that utilize PBXs, modifying PBXs to accommodate 711
    dialing is essential to ensuring that all Americans have the
    opportunity to benefit from this abbreviated dialing arrangement.
    Based upon information provided by Lucent Technologies, we believe
    that programming most PBXs to handle 711 is technically feasible and
    would not impose any undue burdens or costs.[^110] Our finding of
    technical feasibility is further supported by the fact that PBXs
    generally support 911 access to emergency services, and the
    necessary programming is analogous. We realize that callers from PBX
    locations may be required to dial 9 or another prefix before
    entering the 711 code where the prefix would also be needed for all
    other outside calls. We do not, however, consider this dialing
    arrangement to be an impediment to modifying PBX systems to permit
    711 dialing for access to TRS. We encourage PBX operators to work
    with carriers and TRS providers to facilitate 711 dialing from their
    user locations.

## Cost Recovery

#### Background

41. In the *N11 Further Notice,* the Commission solicited comments
    regarding the projected costs for implementing and maintaining 711
    access to TRS and the means by which carriers should recover those
    costs.[^111] While parties submitted little specific cost data in
    response to our requests, several industry participants argued for
    the recovery of costs associated with implementing 711 access to
    TRS.[^112] In terms of specific cost estimates, in response to the
    *N11 NPRM*, AT&T estimated that development costs for implementing
    711 access with a gateway feature in its relay service centers would
    approach \$10.0 million.[^113] Most commenters, however, maintained
    that it was impossible to reasonably estimate costs until after the
    Commission had established the technical and operational parameters
    for implementing 711 access to TRS.[^114]

42. At the *711 Forum*, both Bell Atlantic and Maryland Relay provided
    some cost data based on their successful implementation of 711
    access in Maryland. Bell Atlantic estimates that it would cost less
    than \$100,000 per state to install an AIN-based platform to
    accommodate 711 access to TRS.[^115] Bell Atlantic states that this
    estimate only includes its own "incremental" costs.[^116] In an *ex
    parte* filed June 2000, Bell Atlantic notes that although there were
    real expenses involved in implementation of 711 access, the costs
    were within the range of other routine network upgrades and
    changes.[^117] Bell Atlantic has not, therefore, sought to recover
    costs for the implementation of 711 access.[^118] We commend Bell
    Atlantic for its stance on TRS cost recovery.

#### Discussion

43. Two categories of costs associated with 711 access to relay services
    are at issue: costs incurred by relay providers related to providing
    711 access to TRS, and costs incurred by carriers related to
    implementing 711 access to TRS. Our rules provide for specific cost
    recovery mechanisms for costs related to relay providers' provision
    and maintenance of TRS,[^119] and therefore, costs that relay
    providers incur associated with implementation and maintenance of
    711 access to TRS. In contrast, there is no specific cost recovery
    mechanism for carrier implementation of access to TRS service,
    whether or not such access is accomplished via 711. Carriers bear
    and recover their own costs associated with providing access to TRS.

44. [Carriers]{.underline}. Implementation costs associated with
    providing access to TRS through 711 must be borne by all common
    carriers as an obligation under section 225(b)(1) of the Act.[^120]
    Recovery of the costs associated with implementing 711 may not fall
    disproportionately on TRS users, as all carriers are obligated to
    ensure that TRS users pay rates no greater than the rates paid for
    functionally equivalent voice communications services.[^121]
    Wireline carriers may properly include the costs they incur in
    implementing 711 access to TRS with their joint and common costs and
    recover those costs from the rates charged for intrastate and
    interstate services, separated pursuant to the Commission's
    jurisdictional separation rules.[^122] Wireless carriers, which are
    neither subject to economic rate regulation nor to the
    jurisdictional separations rules, may recover their costs of
    providing access to TRS through 711 in any lawful manner that is
    consistent with their obligations under 47 U.S.C. § 225 (d)(1)(D)
    and 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(4). Carriers may recover education and
    outreach costs associated with providing access to TRS through 711
    in the same manner that they recover other costs associated with
    implementing 711, as explained *supra.*

45. [Relay Providers]{.underline}. We find that some of the costs
    imposed upon relay providers that are associated with the
    implementation and operation of 711 access to TRS, and education and
    outreach regarding this service, are likely to be intrastate costs.
    For costs associated with intrastate minutes of use, we conclude
    that the states should establish the appropriate cost recovery
    mechanism as required by section 225(d)(3)(B).[^123] Thus, to the
    extent that the state is certified to provide TRS under section
    225 (f) of the Act, the state must permit relay providers that fall
    under state regulatory jurisdiction to recover intrastate costs
    related to 711 implementation, including costs associated with
    education and outreach.[^124] We acknowledge that states and relay
    providers may need to adjust their contracts in order to allow relay
    providers to recover these costs.

46. We also find, however, that a portion of these costs may be
    attributable to the provision of interstate TRS. TRS providers shall
    submit the costs of providing 711 access, including the costs of
    education and outreach, as part of the annual data report of their
    total TRS operating expenses, to the interstate TRS Fund
    Administrator for purposes of computing payment and revenue
    requirements for the following year.[^125] The Fund Administrator
    must then consider these payment and revenue requirements when
    establishing the payment formula to compensate TRS providers for
    reasonable costs associated with 711 access to TRS, including the
    costs of education and outreach, as well as when determining the
    contributions to the fund that interstate telecommunications
    carriers must make.

47. Finally, we note that in the *Improved TRS Order,* we directed the
    Fund Administrator and the Interstate TRS Advisory Council to
    develop rules for recovery of costs associated with additional
    requirements related to the provision of TRS set out in that Order,
    within six months of its publication in the Federal Register.[^126]
    We directed the Fund Administrator and the Council to consider the
    comments regarding the cost recovery rules raised in that
    rulemaking.[^127] Because 711 access to TRS is a legitimate cost
    incurred in the provision of TRS, the Fund Administrator and
    Interstate TRS Advisory Council must account for the costs of
    providing 711 access when developing the rules for cost recovery as
    required in the *Improved TRS Order*.[^128] We encourage the public
    to include in their comments on the rules for recovery of costs any
    specific information related to the recovery of additional costs for
    711 access to TRS.

## Multivendoring

### Background

48. In the *N11 Further Notice*, we asked interested parties to address
    how competition among relay providers would be maintained, in
    accordance with section 225(c) of the Act, if N11 access to TRS were
    implemented.[^129] Section 225(c) of the Act requires TRS to be
    provided "individually, through designees, through a competitively
    selected vendor or in concert with other carriers."[^130]
    Specifically, in the *N11 Further Notice* and at the September 1999
    TRS Forum, we invited parties to address the possibility of
    developing an N11 \"gateway,\" or automated interactive menu, to
    promote access by consumers to multiple TRS providers.[^131] As we
    explained in the *N11 Further Notice*, with a gateway, a database
    inquiry would be launched as calls are initiated and callers would
    be able to select their TRS provider.[^132] Alternatively, callers
    would have their calls routed to a presubscribed TRS provider, much
    like how consumers today presubscribe to a long distance provider
    for 1+ long-distance calls.[^133]

49. In comments filed in response to the *N11 Further Notice*, Sprint
    expressed concern that an N11 dialing arrangement would only allow
    for access to one TRS provider, forcing other providers to use
    toll-free numbers.[^134] Sprint contends that the TRS provider that
    received the right to offer N11 access would be in a superior
    competitive position to other potential operators of TRS centers and
    this could deter entry of such competitors.[^135] Other commenters
    argued that requiring carriers to convert local switching offices to
    translate to a single TRS provider's toll-free number or other
    access number would be inconsistent with the preservation of having
    a single abbreviated number for accessing TRS.[^136] Southwestern
    Bell questioned whether the number of TRS calls within each state is
    so limited that it may be impossible for multiple, competing TRS
    providers to be financially viable in the same state.[^137]

50. NAD recommends maintaining competition in the same way that callers
    now use Dial-One Service for their long distance carriers. Under
    NAD's proposal TRS customers should be able to presubscribe to their
    preferred relay vendor from their homes or businesses[^138] but also
    have the ability to access a different provider when away from their
    "pre-selected phone." According to NAD, presubscription would enable
    relay providers to compete for individual consumer subscriptions and
    allow state or regional contracts to serve as the default TRS vendor
    for those regions. NAD states that travelers would be able to simply
    dial 711 from any phone and be assured access to TRS anywhere in the
    United States; providers could compete for business from consumers
    who are away from their pre-selected phones as these consumers would
    be able to dial either the existing national toll-free number or an
    alternative relay code to access that vendor.[^139]

51. We recently addressed the state of relay competition in our
    *Improved TRS Order.* In that Order, we explained that most states
    and carriers currently comply with the requirement under section
    225(c) to provide TRS by competitively selecting a single relay
    provider through a request for proposal process.[^140] TRS users are
    required to use their state's chosen TRS provider for intrastate
    calls. However, callers may make interstate calls through their
    state's provider or choose another TRS provider by dialing national
    toll-free numbers.[^141] In the *Improved TRS Order* we agreed with
    commenters that "competitive forces are generally the preferred way
    to improve service quality and bring new services to
    customers."[^142]

52. On April 27, 2000, the Common Carrier Bureau released the *Telegate
    Public Notice*[^143] requesting further comment on Telegate AG's
    (Telegate) proposal (Telegate Proposal) for presubscription to 411
    access to directory assistance. In the *Telegate Public Notice*, we
    also specifically requested comment on the technical feasibility and
    economic viability of implementing presubscription to 711 access to
    TRS, and whether implementing presubscription for 711 access to TRS
    would serve the public interest.[^144] The resolution of the
    questions pertaining to the presubscription to N11 codes in that
    proceeding may provide a framework for identifying measures that
    would facilitate and expedite multivendoring through presubscribed
    711 access to TRS. Estimates of the cost of implementing
    presubscription to 411 access to directory assistance filed in that
    proceeding varied greatly.[^145] The discrepancy of cost estimates
    is based, in part, upon whether or not the cost of converting
    switches over to AIN was included in the cost estimate.[^146]

### 2. Discussion {#discussion-6 .unnumbered}

53. We conclude, particularly in light of the current state of
    competition in the intrastate TRS market, that the benefits of 711
    access to TRS described in this Order are too great and too
    immediate to warrant a delay that would result from a Commission
    requirement to implement presubscription or multivendoring as this
    time. As we noted in our *Improved TRS Order*, only a few states
    have experimented with multivendoring.[^147] In fact, many
    commenters to this proceeding have asserted that the number of TRS
    calls within each state is so limited that multivendoring within the
    same area may not, at present, be a financially viable
    alternative.[^148]

54. We recognize, as we have in undertaking other pro-competition
    initiatives, that in order to encourage competition, the market for
    TRS must be (1) conducive to investment and innovation and (2)
    responsive to the needs of consumers. We believe that 711 access to
    TRS will address these objectives in two significant ways. First, by
    offering TRS users, particularly those traveling from state to
    state, easy to remember access to the particular relay service that
    they use or need (*e.g.*, TTY, voice, VCO, HCO and
    speech-to-speech), 711 access will encourage greater usage and spur
    competition and innovation to meet increased consumer demand.[^149]
    As we explain above, 711 access to TRS has increased the volume of
    TRS traffic in Maryland.[^150] Most notably, abbreviated access has
    significantly augmented TRS use among hearing individuals who now
    find it easier to return calls to TRS users.[^151] By simplifying
    access to TRS and ensuring a uniform, nationwide platform that
    provides TRS users easy access to their preferred TRS provider, it
    is possible that 711 access will attract potential, additional TRS
    vendors to states that currently do not have multiple vendors.

55. We will continue to support multivendoring because we believe that
    it will ultimately reduce the costs and improve the quality of TRS
    throughout the nation. We are persuaded that the implementation of
    711 access as described in this Order will not hinder the
    introduction of multivendoring**.** On the contrary, we believe that
    711 access to TRS is likely to expand the market of relay users,
    making entry into the TRS market more attractive for would-be
    competitors. Competition already exists for interstate access to
    TRS,[^152] and none of the requirements in this Order implementing
    intrastate access to 711 alter the ability of consumers to choose
    their interstate provider to access TRS. Furthermore, we encourage
    state relay administrators to retain their 800 numbers and to
    configure their 711 platforms in a manner that will enable consumers
    to access their preferred relay providers, should such states
    subsequently elect to implement multivendoring. Although we make no
    findings at this time as to the feasibility of Telegate's proposal
    for 711 access to TRS, we will review comments filed in response to
    the *Telegate Public Notice*, and may implement presubscription to
    711 access to TRS at a later date should we find that to be
    technically feasible, economically viable, and in the public
    interest. We encourage carriers to consider Telegate's proposal when
    deciding which technology to use in implementing 711 access to TRS.

## Education and Outreach

### Background

56. In the *Improved TRS Order,* we recognized that the Commission's TRS
    rule requiring publication in telephone directories, periodic bill
    inserts, and directory assistance services was insufficient to
    ensure that all callers are aware of available relay services.[^153]
    Moreover, we found that the quality of TRS suffered from the lack of
    awareness.[^154] Although we concluded that there was insufficient
    notice to effectuate a rule change at that time, based upon lengthy
    comments provided by several parties in that proceeding on the need
    for more effective outreach activities,[^155] we proposed a number
    of rule changes designed to increase the awareness of consumers both
    with and without hearing or speech disabilities about the
    availability and use of TRS.[^156] Among other things, we proposed a
    nationwide awareness campaign that would be financed by the
    interstate TRS Fund, that would reach all potential TRS users,
    consumers with disabilities, senior citizens who have lost their
    hearing late in life, potential STS users, and the general
    public.[^157] We also proposed to amend the mission of the
    interstate TRS Advisory Council to include establishing rules and a
    procedure to fund a coordinated national outreach campaign.[^158]
    The Commission will consider the record developed in that proceeding
    in assessing if and how the TRS rules should be modified to expand
    consumer awareness of available relay services.

57. At the *711 Forum*, we asked participants to discuss methods to
    educate and provide technical assistance to the public about 711
    access to TRS.[^159] Participants raised concerns about adequately
    educating the public regarding the purpose and use of 711, and
    distinguishing 711 TRS access from 911 emergency services.[^160]
    Participants also emphasized that such efforts should be continuous
    and ongoing, not ad hoc or infrequent, in nature.[^161] Others were
    concerned about the lack of information available to state PUCs who
    were often responsible, in large part, for educating the public
    about available relay services.[^162]

### Discussion

58. [Importance of Education and Outreach Programs]{.underline}. We
    believe that extensive outreach campaigns are necessary when
    carriers implement 711 access to TRS as required in this Order. We
    emphasize that the consumer education and outreach efforts
    contemplated under our proposals in the *Improved TRS Further
    Notice* will be particularly important as carriers, in cooperation
    with relay providers and states, implement 711 access to all relay
    services.[^163] In accordance with our existing rules, we encourage
    carriers, states, and relay providers to implement education and
    outreach programs that will increase public awareness and
    understanding of 711 access to TRS. Education and outreach programs
    will not only serve to enhance the effectiveness of the abbreviated
    dialing service, but also will prevent misunderstanding on the part
    of consumers who may otherwise misdial N11 numbers, inadvertently
    incurring charges for 411 directory assistance or erroneously
    calling 911 emergency services. [^164]

59. We agree with NAD and other commenters that in order for 711 access
    to TRS to be a success, TRS providers and common carriers, in
    conjunction with the states, will need to provide extensive
    information to the public about the existence of 711.[^165] For
    instance, as USTA recommends, states that currently maintain more
    than one toll-free number for relay service should educate their
    customers that the relay center responding to 711 calls will, by
    process of elimination, have to determine which relay service the
    caller needs.[^166] Furthermore, as explained by NAD, education
    about the routing of wireless TRS calls is needed.[^167]

60. We encourage carriers, states, and relay providers to be aware of
    and target specific segments of the market that would benefit from
    additional information about 711 access. For instance, education and
    outreach is especially important to reach potential VCO users and
    help them to realize the benefits that relay services can provide.
    Of the 26 million people who are hard of hearing in the US, a
    conservative estimate of those having difficulty hearing on the
    voice phone and who could benefit from VCO is 5 to 7 million
    users.[^168] According to Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc.
    (SHHH), the percentage of VCO users in any given state currently
    tends to be lower than that of TTY users.[^169] The reason for this
    is because VCO users are often people who have lost their hearing
    later in life; therefore, they are used to the speed and efficiency
    of the voice system and have higher expectations of telephone
    service. SHHH maintains that the real potential for relay service
    growth lies with these VCO users. Their prior experience with the
    regular telephone service creates a difficult transition to the
    relay service. Any relay feature, such as 711, that brings relay a
    step closer to the conventional telephone service will help
    encourage use of TRS by VCO users. The key to encouraging use of TRS
    by VCO users, as with all TRS users, is adequate education regarding
    the availability and ease of 711 dialing.

61. [Method of Education and Outreach]{.underline}. In order to ensure
    the efficient, effective, and successful use of 711 access to TRS,
    we require carriers, in cooperation with relay providers and the
    states, to engage in on-going and comprehensive education and
    outreach programs to publicize the availability of 711 access in a
    manner reasonably designed to reach the largest number of consumers
    possible. We recognize that a method that is reasonably designed to
    reach the largest number of consumers in one state or location may
    not be equally effective in another location. For that reason, we do
    not mandate in this Order any specific means of advertising 711
    access to TRS. Instead, we highlight some of the important issues
    that could be addressed through advertising campaigns, and provide
    an example of a successful education and outreach program that
    states can emulate when adopting their own campaigns. We emphasize,
    as discussed *supra,* that part of the costs of these education and
    outreach programs may be intrastate costs recoverable through
    established funding mechanisms. Accordingly, we encourage the states
    to establish a cost recovery mechanism as quickly as possible so
    that these costs can be recovered through the intrastate TRS fund.
    To the extent costs of education and outreach are attributable to
    the provision of interstate TRS, as stated above, relay providers
    should include these costs as part of their annual data report of
    their total TRS operating expenses.

62. While carriers must continue to utilize bill inserts and provide
    information in telephone directories pursuant to the Commission's
    current TRS rules, we also encourage carriers, states, and relay
    providers to disseminate information through the mainstream media,
    including newspaper, radio, and television advertisements and
    articles, which can more effectively reach substantial portions of
    the American public. Additionally, we encourage the dissemination of
    information about 711 access through conferences and membership
    publications of individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have
    speech disabilities, and of senior citizens, to reach significant
    segments of the population that could benefit from relay services.
    Furthermore, we agree with commenters at the *711 Forum* that
    carriers, relay providers, and states should implement an outreach
    program similar to that used for 911.[^170] One reason why certain
    PSAs are so successful in reaching the mainstream population is that
    states have often solicited the endorsement of public figures to
    proclaim the benefits of 911 and to celebrate the accomplishments of
    those who work in the field of emergency communications.[^171] These
    public figures then continue to conduct outreach to the public by
    appearing at events and through print media.[^172] We believe that a
    similar campaign is sure to be equally successful in the
    implementation of 711 access to TRS.

63. Because we recognize that 711 access to TRS was effectively
    implemented in Maryland, we provide a brief description of some of
    the education and outreach programs instituted when Maryland
    implemented 711 dialing for TRS access. The program, coordinated by
    Maryland Relay, is a product of a cooperative effort by the
    Department of Budget and Management, Bell Atlantic, the state
    government, and Sprint, the current relay provider.[^173] Maryland
    relay began the comprehensive outreach program with a press
    conference that was attended by members of broadcast and print
    media. Maryland found that the presence of the press generated a
    significant amount of follow-up coverage. As a follow up, Maryland
    conducted a paid television advertising campaign in the two largest
    relevant television markets, Baltimore and the Washington
    metropolitan area. They supplemented this paid advertising with free
    public-service announcements. During this same time period, they
    began advertising in both the [Washington Post]{.underline} and the
    [Baltimore Sun]{.underline}, running the same advertisement in
    publications that reach consumers with hearing disabilities.
    Maryland relay also publishes its own newsletters twice a year and
    has included articles on 711 access.[^174] Bell Atlantic
    participated in the advertising campaign by providing, at no charge,
    bill inserts that advertised the ease of use of 711 access and
    explained the available relay services.[^175] Finally, Maryland
    relay continues to provide a toll-free, customer-service number that
    provides information and technical assistance to individuals
    requesting information about 711 access.[^176] Maryland asserts that
    as a result of its campaign, public awareness is at an all-time
    high, telephone inquiries to the state\'s Maryland relay customer
    service department for information regarding relay have risen
    dramatically, and call volumes to the relay center have increased
    significantly.[^177]

64. We commend the Maryland Department of Budget and Management, Bell
    Atlantic, Maryland Relay, the State of Maryland and Sprint for their
    coordinated and effective outreach and education efforts concerning
    711 deployment in Maryland. Although the record reflects that the
    education and outreach program in Maryland has been very successful,
    this by no means serves as an exhaustive list of efforts that can be
    taken. We applaud the efforts of Maryland and other states that have
    successfully implemented 711 access to TRS, and encourage carriers,
    relay providers, relay centers, and states to institute the most
    creative and wide-spread advertising campaign possible.

## IV. Procedural Matters {#iv.-procedural-matters .unnumbered}

## A. Regulatory Flexibility Act {#a.-regulatory-flexibility-act .unnumbered}

65. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. § 603,
    an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated
    in the *N11 Further Notice*. The Commission sought written public
    comment on the proposals in the *N11 Further Notice*, including the
    IRFA. Appendix B sets forth the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis for this Second Report and Order.

## Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

66. The Notice did not propose changes to the Commission's information
    collection requirements, and therefore, an initial paperwork
    reduction analysis was not required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
    of 1995. The Commission certifies that no information collection
    changes are imposed by the rules adopted in this order. The action
    contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
    Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose no new or modified
    reporting and/or record-keeping requirements or burdens on the
    public.

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

67. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to authority found in
    sections 1, 4(i) and 4(j), 201-205, 218, 225, and 251(e)(1) of the
    Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i),
    154(j), 201-205, 218, 225, and 251(e)(1) this Report and Order IS
    ADOPTED, and Part 64 of the Commission\'s rules ARE AMENDED as set
    forth in the attached Appendix A.

68. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each common carrier providing telephone
    voice transmission services shall provide, not later than October 1,
    2001, access via the 711 dialing code to all relay services as a
    toll free call.

69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments to sections 64.601 through
    64.605 of the Commission\'s rules as set forth in Appendix A ARE
    ADOPTED, effective October 1, 2001. The action contained herein has
    been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    and found to impose no new or modified reporting and/or
    record-keeping requirements or burdens on the public.

70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

71. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and 4(j),
    201-205, 218, 225, and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218, 225,
    and 251(e)(1) this Report and Order IS ADOPTED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A: Final Rules**

Part 64, Subpart F of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
revised as follows:

**PART 64 - MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS**

Subpart F- Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer
Premises Equipment for Persons with Disabilities

1.  The authority citation for Part 64 is amended to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. Section 154, 47 U.S.C. Section 225, 47 U.S.C.
Section 251(e)(1)

2\. In Section 64.601, we insert the following definition at the
beginning:

711\. The abbreviated dialing code for accessing all types of relay
services anywhere in the United States.

3\. We revise the first paragraph in Section 64.603 to read as follows:

Each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services
shall provide, not later than July 26, 1993, in compliance with the
regulations prescribed herein, throughout the area in which it offers
services, telecommunications relay services, individually, through
designees, through a competitively selected vendor, or in concert with
other carriers. Speech-to-speech relay service and interstate Spanish
language relay service shall be provided by March 1, 2001. In addition,
each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services
shall provide, not later than October 1, 2001, access via the 711
dialing code to all relay services as a toll free call. A common carrier
shall be considered to be in compliance with these regulations:

4\. We insert the following sentence at the end of Section 64.604(C)
paragraph (2):

In addition, each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission
services shall conduct, not later than October 1, 2001, ongoing
education and outreach programs that publicize the availability of 711
access to TRS in a manner reasonably designed to reach the largest
number of consumers possible.

**APPENDIX B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^178] an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the
N11 Further Notice (Notice).[^179] The Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the notice, including comment on the IRFA.
There were no comments received on the IRFA. This present Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^180]

> **Need for, and Objectives of, this Report and Order.**

2\. This rulemaking proceeding was initiated in order to improve the
uniformity and efficiency of services provided through
telecommunications relay services (TRS) for the benefit of TRS users and
members of the general public with whom they communicate. The
Commission's goal was to improve the convenience and consistency of
dialing for TRS by implementing the 711 code previously reserved for
this purpose.

3\. In the Notice, the Commission sought public comment on the technical
feasibility of implementing 711 access to TRS. The Notice also asked
parties: (1) if it would be possible to develop within a reasonable time
an N11 \"gateway\" offering access to multiple TRS providers; (2)
whether, with such gateway access, TRS calls would still be answered
within the Commission\'s mandatory minimum standards for TRS answer
times; (3) whether such a gateway would be consistent with section 255
of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; and (4) whether any other important
disability services could be accessed through the same gateway. The
Notice also requested comment from interested parties, particularly TRS
providers, about the possibility of providing both voice and text TRS
services through the same abbreviated N11 code (711).

4\. In this Second Report and Order, we adopt rules that require all
carriers to provide 711 access to all types of relay services. We
require all wireline carriers, CMRS carriers, and payphone providers to
implement 711 dialing on or before October 1, 2001. We also require
carriers and relay providers, in cooperation with the states, to engage
in on-going and comprehensive education and outreach programs that
publicize the availability of 711 access to TRS in a manner reasonably
designed to reach the largest number of consumers possible.

5\. By requiring uniform, nationwide 711 access to TRS, we further our
Congressional mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act to
establish relay services that are functionally equivalent to voice
telephone services. We expect that 711 dialing will make TRS easier and
more convenient for all Americans. TRS users will be able to initiate a
call from any telephone, anywhere in the United States, without having
to remember and dial a 7 or 10-digit number, and without having to
search for different numbers to access local TRS providers when
traveling from state to state. We also expect an increase in the number
of first-initiated and return relay calls by individuals without
disabilities.

**Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRF[A]{.smallcaps}.**

7\. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.

**Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules Will Apply.**

8\. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^181] The Regulatory
Flexibility Act defines the term "small entity" as having the same
meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
business concern" under section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^182] A
small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

9\. *TRS Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of TRS.
The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)
companies.[^183] The SBA defines such establishments to be small
businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^184] According
to our most recent data,[^185] there are 11 interstate TRS providers,
which consist of interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers,
state-managed entities, and non-profit organizations. We do not have
data specifying the number of these providers that are either dominant
in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated,
or have more than 1,500 employees, and we are thus unable at this time
to estimate with greater precision the number of TRS providers that
would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. We
note, however, that these providers include large interexchange carriers
and incumbent local exchange carriers. Consequently, we estimate that
there are fewer than 11 small TRS providers that may be affected.

10\. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers
of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as
the number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the
Commission publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service* report.[^186]
However, in a recent news release, the Commission indicated that there
are 4,144 interstate carriers.[^187] These carriers include, *inter
alia*, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers,
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service
providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone service,
providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.

11\. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing
\"Radiotelephone Communications\" and \"Telephone Communications, Except
Radiotelephone\" to be small businesses when they have no more than
1,500 employees.[^188] Below, we discuss the total estimated number of
telephone companies falling within the two categories and the number of
small businesses in each, and we then attempt to refine further those
estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone companies that
are commonly used under our rules.

12\. *Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.* The U.S. Bureau of
the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were
3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein,
for at least one year.[^189] This number contains a variety of different
categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange
carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile
service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators,
covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. It seems
certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify
as small entities or small ILECs because they are not \"independently
owned and operated.\"[^190] For example, a PCS provider that is
affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500
employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It is
reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are
small entity telephone service firms or small ILECs that may be
affected.

13\. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis.
As noted above, a \"small business\" under the RFA is one that, inter
alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (*e.g.,* a
telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and
\"is not dominant in its field of operation.\"[^191] The SBA\'s Office
of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are
not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is
not \"national\" in scope.[^192] We have therefore included small
incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA
action has no effect on Federal Communications Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts

14. *Local Exchange Carriers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
    developed a definition for small providers of local exchange
    services (LECs). The closest applicable definition under the SBA
    rules is for telephone communications companies other than
    radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^193] According to the most
    recent *Telecommunications Industry Revenue* data, 1,348 incumbent
    carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local
    exchange services.[^194] We do not have data specifying the number
    of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of
    operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more
    than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate
    with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify as
    small business concerns under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently,
    we estimate that fewer than 1,348 providers of local exchange
    service are small entities or small ILECs that may be affected.

15\. *Competitive Local Service Providers.* This category includes
competitive access providers (CAPs), competitive local exchange
providers (CLECs), shared tenant service providers, local resellers, and
other local service providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
competitive local service providers. The closest applicable definition
under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than
radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^195] According to the most recent
*Locator* data, 145 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of competitive local service.[^196] We do not have data
specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned
or operated, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater
precision the number of competitive local service providers that would
qualify as small business concerns under the SBA\'s definition.
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 145 small entity
competitive local service providers.

16\. *Wireless Telephony and Paging and Messaging.* Wireless telephony
includes cellular, personal communications service (PCS) and specialized
mobile radio (SMR) service providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular
licensees, or to providers of paging and messaging services. The closest
applicable SBA definition for a reseller is a telephone communications
company other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^197] According
to the most recent *Locator* data, 732 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of wireless telephony and 137 companies
reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging
service.[^198] We do not have data specifying the number of these
carriers that are not independently owned or operated, and thus are
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number that
would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA\'s definition.
Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 732 carriers are engaged in
the provision of wireless telephony and fewer than 137 companies are
engaged in the provision of paging and messaging service*.*

17\. *Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a
definition of small entities for telephone communications companies
except radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports
that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least
one year at the end of 1992.[^199] According to the SBA\'s definition, a
small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is
one employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^200] All but 26 of the 2,321
non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported
to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295
non‑radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or
small ILECs. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers
tha[t]{.underline} are not independently owned and operated, and thus
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small
business concerns under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate
that fewer than 2,295 small telephone communications companies other
than radiotelephone companies are small entities or small ILECs.

18\. *Pay Telephone Operators.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to pay
telephone operators. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules
is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone
(wireless) companies.[^201] According to the most recent *Trends in
Telephone Service* data, 615 carriers reported that they were engaged in
the provision of pay telephone services.[^202] We do not have data
specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned
and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of pay telephone
operators that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA\'s
definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are less than 615 small
entity pay telephone operators.

#  {#section-1 .Helene .unnumbered}

**Description of Projected Reporting, Record-keeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements.**

19\. This order mandates that, on or before October 1, 2001, all
carriers must obtain the telephone number for the state-certified relay
center in each state of operation. This number can be obtained by
contacting either the state agency for TRS or the Federal Communications
Commission. The cost of obtaining and maintaining this number on file is
nominal for all businesses, including small entities. In addition, all
state agencies for TRS must accept and address complaints regarding 711
access to TRS. The annual reports of these state agencies to the Federal
Communications Commission must include a summary of such complaints.
Therefore, the burden of monitoring complaints and compliance falls not
upon small entities, but upon the appropriate state agencies.

> **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
> Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered**.

20\. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities. 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

21\. We considered the status quo alternative that is, leaving 711
access to TRS up to voluntary, cooperative efforts among carriers, TRS
providers, and state relay administrators. We concluded, however, that
uniform, nationwide 711 access to TRS would not occur without a
Commission mandate, and without such uniformity, the great benefits of
711 access to TRS would be thwarted. We considered whether to permit
compliance exemptions or time extensions for small carriers. Given the
Congressional mandate that all carriers facilitate TRS that is
\"functionally equivalent\" to voice transmission services, the burden
would be especially high to justify waivers in 711 implementation. Since
the record in this docket has shown the economic and technical
feasibility of implementing 711 access to TRS by all carriers within a
six-month period, we concluded that a year is ample time for all
carriers to comply with this Order, including those small entities who
might be affected by these new rules.

22\. This order focuses on performance not design criteria to achieve
711 access to TRS. We do not require any particular network technology
for 711 implementation. We anticipate that larger carriers with AIN
technology will use that approach, whereas smaller carriers without it
will use a switch-based approach. This latter approach was estimated to
require 1.5 labor hours to reconfigure each switch, a cost we consider
to be affordable over the course of a year, during which time other
switch maintenance would probably occur. We expect that small payphone
providers are likely to pass the 711 code to the local switch for
translation, rather than making the translation in each of their
payphones, thus assuring the affordability of 711 implementation to
them.

**Report to Congress**

23\. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including
this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
SBREFA.[^203] In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this
Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this Report and Order
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.[^204]

**Appendix C: List of Parties**

**List of Comments**

#  {#section-2 .Helene .unnumbered}

Ameritech

AT&T Corporation

Arbetta K. Hepfer

Bell Atlantic

Bell Atlantic and Nynex

BellSouth Corporation

Berks County Association

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association

Community Outreach

Dana Mulvany

David J. Nelson

Edward B. Bill

Eleanor K. Hartley

Frank Nemshick

GTE

Guy R. Winters

Hearing Society

Idaho Public Utilities

J.C. Hartley

James E. Loughlin

John L. Johnson

Karen A. Keil

Karen Swezey

Lois Beck

Loudoun Organization on Disability

Mary Jane Paluska

MCI Telecommunications

MCI Worldcom

Mitchell D. Travers

Nancy Dietrich

NYNEX

National Association of the Deaf

PA Public Utility Commission

Pacific Telesis Group

Pee Dee Mental Health Center

Pennsylvania Society for the Advancement of the Deaf

Personal Communications

Self Help for Hard of Hearing

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

Sprint Corporation

Telecommunications for the Deaf

Texas Advisory Commission

Travis County Department of Human Services

United States Telephone Association

US West

Valeria Hamilla

Wisconsin Telecommunications

**Reply Comments**

AT&T

BellSouth Corporation

David J. Nelson

Georgia Public Service Company

League for the Hard of Hearing

National Association of the Deaf

Southwestern Bell Telephone

**Ex Parte Comments**

AT&T

American Public Communications Council

Bell Atlantic

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association

Lucent Technologies Inc

Maryland Department of Budget & Management

National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Sprint Corporation

Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc.

Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.

Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications

Verizon Communications

[^1]: Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 336-69 (1990) (adding
    section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, as ammended, 47
    U.S.C. § 225).

[^2]: TRS allows people with hearing or speech disabilities to
    communicate by telephone with persons who may or may not have such
    disabilities. This is accomplished through TRS facilities that are
    equipped with special technology and staffed by communications
    assistants (CAs) who relay conversations between persons using
    either text or voice telecommunications devices. To access TRS, a
    text telephone (\"TTY\") user dials the telephone number of the
    local TRS center. For the TTY user, this first step - the inbound
    call to the TRS center - is functionally equivalent to receiving a
    \"dial tone.\" The caller then gives the number of the party he or
    she desires to call to the CA. The CA in turn places an outbound
    voice call to the called party. The CA serves as the \"link\" in the
    conversation, converting all TTY messages from the caller into voice
    messages, and all voice messages from the called party into typed
    messages for the TTY user. The process is performed in reverse when
    a voice telephone user initiates the call. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601
    (5), (7).

[^3]: *Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and
    Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990*, CC Docket No. 90-571, Report and Order and Request for
    Comments, 6 FCC Rcd 4657 (1991) (*TRS First Report and Order*).

[^4]: Under section 225, common carriers providing telephone voice
    transmission services were required to begin providing TRS,
    throughout the areas they served, as of July 26, 1993. *See* 47
    U.S.C. § 225(c). Prior to this time, some states offered relay
    services, but the services offered differed from state to state, and
    were subject to many limitations. *See* [Strauss, Title IV --
    Telecommunications, Implementing the Americans with Disabilities
    Act]{.smallcaps} at 156-158 (Gostin & Beyer ed. 1993).

[^5]: *The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*,
    CC Docket No. 92-105, First Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 5572 (1997) (*N11 First Report and
    Order and FNPRM*) (sometimes referred to herein as the *N11 Further
    Notice*).

[^6]: *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CC Docket No.
    98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    FCC 00-56 (rel. Mar. 6, 2000) (*Improved TRS Order*) (sometimes
    referred to as *Improved TRS FNPRM*).

[^7]: *Id.*, FCC 00-56 at para. 17.

[^8]: *Id.*, FCC 00-56 at para. 74.

[^9]: *Id.*, FCC 00-56 at para. 117-119. The Order also allows
    reimbursement for video relay services, which enables individuals
    who use sign language to communicate through sign language
    interpreters hooked up through a video link. *Id.* at para. 24.

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^11]: *N11* *Further Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5610-11, paras. 67-68.

[^12]: Many states currently have two or more TRS access numbers
    (usually toll-free numbers) for reaching voice, TTY (baudot and
    ASCII), voice carry over \[VCO\], hearing carry over \[HCO\], STS,
    and other types of relay services. Voice carryover permits
    individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, but who can use their
    voices, to talk directly to the other party participating in the
    relayed telephone conversation. The CA then types the hearing
    party\'s message back in text. Hearing carryover permits relay
    callers who can hear, but who have no speech, to use CAS to type
    what they want to say. The relay caller hears directly from the
    other party to the relayed conversation. Baudot and ASCII are two
    formats used for TTY transmissions. Baudot, invented around the time
    of the telephone itself, uses a half‑duplex mode of operation,
    requiring the receiving party of a message to wait until the
    completion of the message before responding. ACSII, which stands for
    American Standard Code for Information Interchange, permits
    simultaneous communications, can transmit messages at a speed
    hundreds of times faster than Baudot, and allows for direct
    communication with computers. Strauss and Richardson, \"Breaking
    Down the Telephone Barrier ‑ Relay Services on the Line," 64 Temple
    Law Review 583, 585 (1991), *see* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 for definitions
    for the various types services. *See also Improved TRS Order*, FCC
    00-56 at para. 14. As discussed *infra*, several states have already
    implemented 711 dialing for access to TRS.

[^13]: According to Federal Communications Commission records, there are
    about 95 TRS numbers nationwide
    \<\<http://www.fcc.gov/cib/dro/trsphonebk.html\>\> (last updated
    June 27, 2000).

[^14]: In adopting comprehensive changes to our rules, we emphasized the
    critical importance of TRS given the vital role that
    telecommunications services play in a person's ability to
    participate in this information age. *Improved TRS Order* at para.
    5, note 10. Without access to TRS, a significant number of Americans
    might not be able to make or receive telephone calls from others. In
    its comments, NAD estimates that more than 28 million are deaf or
    have a hearing disability, and the National Center for Health
    Statistics estimates that more than 2.7 million people have a speech
    disability. NAD Comments at 1; "Prevalence of selected chronic
    conditions: United States, 1990-1992." National Center for Health
    Statistics (NCHS). Vital Health Stat 10(194), 1997.

[^15]: Ex Parte Comments of Gilbert Becker, Director, Telecommunications
    Access of Maryland, Maryland Relay, CC Docket No. 92-105, at 2-3
    (filed June 7, 2000) (Maryland Relay June 7, 2000 *Ex Parte*).

[^16]: *See* *The Use of N11Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
    Arrangements*, CC Docket No. 92-105, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    7 FCC Rcd 3004 (1992) (*N11 NPRM*). Abbreviated dialing arrangements
    are telephone numbers, which have fewer than the standard 7 or
    10-digits. Among abbreviated dialing arrangements, "N11 codes" are
    3-digit telephone numbers of which the first digit may be any digit
    other than 0 or 1, and the last two digits are both 1. *Id.*, 7 FCC
    Rcd at 3004, para. 5.

[^17]: *See*, *e.g.*, Petition by the U.S. Department of Transportation
    for Assignment of an Abbreviated Dialing Code for (March 8, 1999);
    Petition for Assignment of 211 Dialing Code for Use by the Public to
    Access Essential Public Resources (May 28, 1998). Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling of the General Services Administration (March 11,
    1994) (for a three-digit N11 code to gain access to all Federal
    Government agencies); the National Association of State
    Telecommunications Directors (NASTD) requested a three-digit
    abbreviated dialing code for access to state government, NASTD *Ex
    Parte* Presentation, CC Docket No. 92-107 (filed Sept. 22, 1993).

[^18]: *See* National Center for Law and Deafness and Telecommunications
    for the Deaf, Inc. (Relay Petition), filed Oct. 1993.

[^19]: *Id.*

[^20]: *Commission Requests Comment on Petition for Assignment of N11
    Codes to Facilitate Access to Telecommunications Relay Service*, CC
    Docket 92-105, Public Notice, 8 FCC Rcd 7587 (1993), clarified, 8
    FCC Rcd 8391 (1993).

[^21]: GTE Comments at 3 (explaining that GTE utilized the prefix 1
    before 711 and 511 to eliminate any difficulties with
    electromechanical or other end office switchews that would have
    required additional hardware and/or software to directly route an
    N11 code).

[^22]: On January 27, 1993, the Canadian Radio‑television and
    Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced its decision to
    reserve 711 and 511 for \"message relay services\" in Canada. CRTC
    directed the major phone companies to file a plan of implementation
    by July 1993. *See* *Canadian Association of the Deaf Successful in
    Fight for 7‑1‑1 MRS!*, Press Release (dated Jan. 27, 1993). To meet
    this directive, the phone companies sought advice from the Canadian
    Steering Committee on Numbering. This committee reached a consensus
    to designate 711 for TTY access, a new national 1‑800 number for
    voice access, and to reserve an additional N11 number for potential
    future use in Canada for voice access, subject to its adoption as
    the North American standard. Letter from Canadian Association of the
    Deaf to National Association of the Deaf and National Center for Law
    and the Deaf, (dated June 22, 1993). CRTC accepted this proposal on
    August 4, 1993. Letter from CRTC, to Mr. Al Lewis, Chairman,
    Canadian Steering Committee on Numbering (dated Aug. 4, 1993). On
    August 16, 1993, Bell Canada announced that the new numbers would be
    implemented in more than 90% of the local exchanges, and that the
    rest would be converted as analog exchanges were upgraded to digital
    technology. Canada Newswire (dated Feb. 11, 1994). On February 14,
    1994, Bell Canada, and other carriers in the Stentor Alliance began
    making 711 available for TTY acccess.

[^23]: For example, in October of 1993, Tennessee reserved 711 for
    intrastate TRS for a one year period. *In Re: Investigation of N11
    Allocations*, Interim Order, Docket 92‑13892 (Oct. 20, 1993).
    Similarly, in February of 1994, the North Carolina Utilities
    Commission rejected all requests for assignment of N11 codes for
    commercial information services, *In the Matter of Assignment of N11
    Dialing Codes*, Order Denying N11 Assignment (Feb. 18, 1994), and in
    March of 1995, the Public Service Commission of Nevada decided to
    defer action on the assignment of N11 codes pending resolution of
    the Federal Communications Commission docket on N11 codes. *In re
    Investigation of the issues surrounding the assignment of N11
    codes*, Order (March 3, 1995).

[^24]: *See N11 First Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 5572*.*

[^25]: *Id.*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5607, para. 56. Because N11 codes are a
    scarce resource, and because many states already provide for both
    TTY and voice users through a single number, the Commission declined
    to adopt a proposal by NCLD/TDI and others to set aside a second N11
    code for TRS access. *Id.*

[^26]: *Id.*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5606, para. 55.

[^27]: *N11 FNPRM*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5610-5611, at paras.67-68.

[^28]: Letter from Marie T. Breslin, Directory, Federal Regulatory, Bell
    Atlantic, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, CC Docket No. 92-105 Attach. at p.1 (filed Aug. 3, 1999)
    (Bell Atlantic Aug. 3, 1999 *Ex Parte*).

[^29]: In March 2000, Massachusetts joined Maryland and Hawaii in
    offering 711 dialing for relay service. *See* Letter from Rita
    Beier, VISTA, to Karen Peltz Strauss, Deputy Chief, Consumer
    Information Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No.
    98-67, at 1 (filed June 5, 2000) (VISTA June 5, 2000 *Ex Parte*).
    Bell Atlantic also recently announced that it anticipates that it
    will implement 711 dialing in all of its in-region state by the end
    of 2000. Letter from Richard Ellis, Bell Atlantic, to Magalie Roman
    Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket
    92-105, at Attach. B (filed June 5, 2000) (Bell Atlantic June 5,
    2000 *Ex Parte*)*.* In addition to Hawaii and the Bell Atlantic
    states, Nevada implemented 711 access for TRS in April, 2000.
    *Nevada Leads the Way in Telephone Services for the Disabled* Press
    Release (Office of Governor Kenny Guinn) April 14, 2000 (Nevada
    Press Release).

[^30]: *See* *infra* para. 20, for explanation of AIN technology.

[^31]: *See Public Forum on 711 Access to Telecommunications Relay*
    Services, CC Docket No. 92-105, (Sept. 8, 1999) (*711 Forum*). *See
    Revised Public Notice on FCC Convenes a Public Forum on 711 Access
    to Telecommunications Relay Services*, Public Notice, CC Docket No.
    92-105, DA 99-1170 (rel. June 16, 1999)(*711 Forum Notice*).

[^32]: *See 711 Forum*, Transcript at 15-18, 36-41 and 60-64.

[^33]: See Appendix C for list of parties filing *ex parte* statements.

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^35]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^36]: *Id.*

[^37]: *N11* *First Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5606, para. 55.

[^38]: *Id*., 12 FCC Rcd at 5607, para. 56.

[^39]: A list of commenters as well as parties participating in the
    public forum or filing *ex parte* statements is attached to this
    *N11 Second Report and Order* as Appendix C.

[^40]: *See* GTE Comments at 2; *711 Forum*, Transcript at 15-18. *See
    also* Bell Atlantic June 5, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 1-3.

[^41]: *See, e.g. 711 Forum*, Transcript; Letter from Gilbert Becker,
    Maryland Relay, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, CC Docket 92-105 at 1-3 (filed April 3,
    2000) (Maryland Relay April 3, 2000 *Ex Parte*).

[^42]: Bell Atlantic June 5, 2000 *Ex Parte*; Nevada Press Release at 1.

[^43]: Letter from Gilbert Becker, Director, Maryland Relay, to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket
    No. 92-105, at 1 (filed July 11, 2000) (Maryland Relay July 11, 2000
    *Ex Parte*).

[^44]: *711 Forum*, Transcript at 63-64.

[^45]: Maryland Relay April 3, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 2.

[^46]: 47 U.S.C. § 225.

[^47]: Maryland Relay April 3, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 2.

[^48]: 42 U.S.C. § 12101, *et. seq.*

[^49]: *N11 Further Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5610-5611, para. 68.

[^50]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments at 1-2; BellSouth Comments at 2-3.

[^51]: *See generally 711 Forum* Transcript.

[^52]: *Id*.

[^53]: *See* *generally* [A. Dodd, The Essential Guide to
    Telecommunications,]{.smallcaps} 109 (1998). *See also* H. Newton,
    [Newton's Telcom Dictionary,]{.smallcaps} at 687 (14^th^ ed. 1998)
    (Newton), for a definition of switch-based technology.

[^54]: GTE Comments at 2.

[^55]: Letter from Gordon Maxson, GTE, to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 98-67 at
    1 (filed June 23, 2000) (GTE June 23, 2000 *Ex Parte*).

[^56]: *Id.*

[^57]: We acknowledge that some independent LECs' switches may not have
    the capability to convert an N11 code to a 10 digit number. Georgia
    Public Service Commission Reply Comments at 7; Bell Atlantic June 5,
    2000 *Ex Parte* at Attach., A.

[^58]: *See* Newton at pp.42-43.

[^59]: *Id.*

[^60]: *Id.*

[^61]: *Id.*

[^62]: *See* *711 Forum*, Transcript at 17-18. *See also* Bell Atlantic
    June 5, 2000 *Ex Parte* at Attach. B.

[^63]: Maryland Relay June 7, 2000 *Ex Parte***.**

[^64]: Bell Atlantic June 5, 2000 *Ex Parte* at Attach. B.

[^65]: *Id.* Attach., A at 2.

[^66]: *Id.* at Attach., B.

[^67]: *See* GTE Comments at 2; Bell Atlantic June 5, 2000 *Ex Parte*
    Attach., A at 2.

[^68]: *See* Nevada Press Release at 1.

[^69]: *See* Letter from Dustun L. Ashton, CTIA, to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Attach., at 1 (filed
    July 5, 2000) (CTIA July 5, 2000 *Ex Parte*) (stating that wireless
    carriers can translate 711 to any seven or ten digit number).

[^70]: *See infra* paras. 34-38.

[^71]: *See supra* n.26.

[^72]: Letter from Larry Fenster, MCI WorldCom, to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 5 (filed July 30,
    1999) (MCI WorldCom July 30, 1999 *Ex Parte*).

[^73]: *See* Maryland Relay April 3, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 3.

[^74]: Maryland Relay June 7, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 3*.* For example,
    Maryland Relay states that Maryland's thirty second requirement
    provides enough time for communications assistants to connect TRS
    users to the numbers requested, even though the system sequentially
    checks for the type of relay service desired by the user rather than
    using caller profiling. *Id.* (stating that Maryland has been able
    to maintain an average speed of answer of 3.0 seconds or less).

[^75]: *See* NAD Comments at 4 (estimating implementation would be
    feasible within one year); BellSouth Comments at 2-3 (estimating
    implementation would require at least three years).

[^76]: *See* Ameritech Comments at 2-3; Bell Atlantic and Nynex Comments
    at 2; BellSouth Comments at 4-5, 6.

[^77]: BellSouth Comments at 4.

[^78]: ^.^

[^79]: *See generally 711 Forum*, Transcript. *See* *also* U S WEST
    Comments at 3 (stating that, "Nationwide access to a preselected TRS
    provider is technically feasible, using either a switch-based or
    AIN-based solution. Deploying switch-based 711 dialing to TRS
    centers would be feasible in virtually all switches today.").

[^80]: *See, e.g.* Bell Atlantic June 12, 2000 *Ex Parte* Attach. at
    1*.*

[^81]: *Id..*

[^82]: *See* GTE August 2, 1999 *Ex Parte* Attach., A at pp.1-2; Bell
    Atlantic June 12, 2000 *Ex Parte* at Attachs. A-B.

[^83]: ^.^

[^84]: *See* Bell Atlantic June 12, 2000 *Ex Parte* at Attach., A.

[^85]: *Id.* at Attach. B.

[^86]: *Compare* Nevada Press Release (stating that 711 was fully
    implemented by April 1, 2000) *with* Letter from Todd Butterworth,
    Administrator, Relay Nevada, to all Nevada CPCN companies, (dated
    March 15, 2000) (stating that in December 1999, CPCN companies were
    requested to implement 711 access to TRS).

[^87]: GTE Comments at 2.

[^88]: PBX systems are on-site telephone systems that provide
    connections between staff at organizational sites and between staff
    and people outside of the system. PBX systems are located on the
    customers' premises. [Dodd]{.smallcaps}, *supra* n.53[.]{.smallcaps}

[^89]: CTIA July 5, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 1.

[^90]: *Id.*

[^91]: *Id.*

[^92]: *Id.*

[^93]: *Id.*

[^94]: *Id.*

[^95]: *Id.*

[^96]: *Id.*

[^97]: *Id*. (stating that wireless carriers can translate 711 to seven
    or ten-digit number. Once a 711 call is translated, it would have
    the same characteristics as the full seven or ten digit number. The
    same routing, roaming and billing problems would apply to a 711 call
    or a 7 or 10 digit call).

[^98]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3).

[^99]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3).

[^100]: *See* CTIA July 5, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 1.

[^101]: *Common Carrier Bureau Reminds All Common Carriers of their
    Obligation to Provide Access to Their Telecommunications Services
    via Telecommunications Relay Services*, Public Notice, DA 99-1871,
    rel. Sept. 14, 1999.

[^102]: Letter from Phillip Verveer, American Public Communications
    Council (APCC), to Jamal Mazrui, Technology Specialist, Common
    Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No.
    92-105, at 1 (filed July 20, 2000) (APCC July 20, 2000 *Ex Parte*).

[^103]: *Id.*

[^104]: *Id.*

[^105]: *Id.*

[^106]: *Id.*

[^107]: *Id.* at 2-3 (relating how four different smart payphone
    providers would handle 711 calls).

[^108]: *Id*. at 2.

[^109]: *Id.*

[^110]: Letter from Diane Law Hsu, Lucent Technologies (Lucent), to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
    CC Docket No. 92-105, at 1-2 (filed July 14, 2000) (Lucent July 14,
    2000 *Ex Parte*) (stating that many of Lucents PBXs may be converted
    to 711).

[^111]: *N11 Further Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5610, para. 67.

[^112]: CTIA Comments at 5,

[^113]: *See 711 Forum*, Transcript at 52-54. *See also* AT&T Comments
    at 4. We note that AT&T made its estimates prior to actual
    development or implementation.

[^114]: *See., e.g.,* *711 Forum.* Participants refering to the
    possibility of multivendoring requirements, which would
    significantly increase the cost of implementing 711. *See also*
    Sprint Comments at 4.

[^115]: *711 Forum*, Transcript at 17.

[^116]: *Id.*

[^117]: Bell Atlantic June 12, 2000 *Ex Parte* at Attach. A.

[^118]: *Id.*

[^119]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5).

[^120]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^121]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(D); 47 CFR § 64.604(c)(4).

[^122]: *Id.*, 47 CFR § 64.04 (c)(4)(i).

[^123]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B).

[^124]: 47 U.S.C. § 225 (f).

[^125]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C).

[^126]: *Improved TRS Order*, FCC 00-56 at para. 33.

[^127]: *Id*. *See also* Ms. Andrews Comments at 1; AIM Comments at 1;
    FPSC Comments at 2; Mr. Gregory Comments at 6; MCI Comments at 3;
    NCOD Comments at 1; NVRC Comments at 1; the President\'s Committee
    Comments at 5; Sprint Comments at 5; Mr. Stolz Comments at 2
    (conditioning his support upon protection against the funding of
    voluntary projects that may not be in the best interest of improved
    relay service); Texas PUC Comments at 3; Dr. Ratcliff Comments at 1;
    Dr. Segalman Comments at 1; Dr. Blackstone Comments at 1; Ms.
    Fairman Comments at 1; Mr. Fleming Comments at 1; Ms. Ladew Comments
    at 1; the Federation Comments at 2; Texas PUC Comments at 3; Mr.
    Travers Reply Comments at 2; COR Reply Comments at 5.

[^128]: *Improved TRS Order*, FCC 00-53 at para. 33.

[^129]: *N11 Further Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5610, para. 67.

[^130]: 47 U.S.C § 225(c).

[^131]: *N11 Further Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5610-5611, para. 68.

[^132]: *Id.*

[^133]: *Id.*

[^134]: Sprint Comments at 2.

[^135]: *Id.*

[^136]: *See, e.g.,* BellSouth Comments at 5.

[^137]: SBC Comments at 4; BellSouth Comments at 3.

[^138]: NAD Comments at 3.

[^139]: *See* Letter from NAD, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 92-105, at 5 (filed
    Sept. 27, 1999) (NAD Sept. 27, 1999 *Ex Parte*).

[^140]: *Improved TRS Order*, FCC 00-56 at para. 34. We noted that the
    cost of the intrastate relay service contract is generally recovered
    from all ratepayers in the state, either through an intrastate
    subscriber line surcharge or through the general ratemaking process.
    Interstate TRS is funded by a nationwide, interstate fund
    administered by NECA.

[^141]: *Id.*, FCC 00-56 at para. 34.

[^142]: *Id*., FCC 00-56 at para. 37.

[^143]: *Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Telegate's
    Proposal for Presubscription to "411" Directory Assistance
    Services,* CC Docket No. 99-273, CC Docket No. 98-67, Public Notice,
    DA 00-930 (rel. Apr. 27, 2000) (*Telegate Public Notice*).

[^144]: *Id.* at 3.

[^145]: *Compare* Telegate Proposal at 14 (estimating total cost of
    implementation at less than \$23 million), *with* GTE Comments on
    Telegate Proposal at 17 (estimating total costs of over 310
    million), *and* U S WEST Comments on Telegate Proposal at 15
    (stating that Telegate underestimated the total costs by a factor of
    four).

[^146]: *See* Telegate Reply Comments on Telegate Proposal at 17, 29
    (stating that GTE's cost estimation includes \$40 million dollars
    for network upgrades that Telegate did not include in its cost
    estimate). *Compare* Telegate Proposal at 14, Celentano Aff. at
    para. 53, *with* GTE Comments on Telegate Proposal at 17, *and* U S
    WEST Comments on Telegate Proposal at 15.

[^147]: *Improved TRS Order*, FCC 00-56 at para 37.

[^148]: *See* SBC Comments at 4; BellSouth Comments at 3.

[^149]: *See* NAD Comments at 2; Maryland Relay June 7, 2000 *Ex Parte*
    at 3.

[^150]: Maryland Relay June 7, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 3.

[^151]: Maryland Relay April 3, 2000 *Ex Parte* at 3.

[^152]: NAD Comments at 3 (stating that AT&T, Sprint and MCI compete for
    the interstate TRS market).

[^153]: *Improved TRS Order*, FCC 00-56 at para. 103; Section
    64.604(c)(2) of the Commission's rules requires that carriers assure
    that callers in their service areas are aware of the availability
    and use of TRS. The rule specifies that this can be accomplished
    through publication in their directories, periodic billing inserts,
    placement of TRS instructions in telephone directories, through
    directory assistance services, and incorporation of TTY numbers in
    telephone directories. 47 U.S.C. § 64.604(c)(2).

[^154]: *Improved TRS Order*, FCC 00-56 at paras. 103-04.

[^155]: Maryland Reply Comments at 12; TDI Comments at 20; NAD/CAN Reply
    Comments at 12; NVRC Reply Comments at 3.

[^156]: *Improved TRS Order*, FCC 00-56 at para. 134.

[^157]: *Id.,* FCC 00-56 at para. 134.

[^158]: *Id.,* FCC 00-56 at para. 134.

[^159]: *711 Forum,* Transcript at 66.

[^160]: *Id.* at 70-71.

[^161]: *Id.* at 79.

[^162]: *Id*. at 81.

[^163]: *See generally Improved TRS FNPRM*.

[^164]: *711 Forum*, Transcript at 70.

[^165]: NAD Reply Comments at 10-11; USTA Comments at 4.

[^166]: *Id.*

[^167]: NAD Reply Comments at 10.

[^168]: *Ex Parte* Comments of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People
    (SHHH), Inc., CC Docket No. 92-105 (filed August 20, 1999).

[^169]: *Id.,* at 3.

[^170]: *711 Forum,*Transcript at 72.

[^171]: *Id.,* Transcript at 71. However, in order to be successful, it
    is important that PSAs are not hidden during the middle of the
    night, or other times where only small audiances will be exposed to
    711.

[^172]: *Id.*

[^173]: *Id.,* Transcript at 82-87.

[^174]: *Id.*

[^175]: Bell Atlantic June 12, 2000 *Ex Parte* Attach. A at 2.

[^176]: *711 Forum*, Transcript at 83-86.

[^177]: Maryland Relay Comments at 12-13.

[^178]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^179]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 10322 at 10433-41.

[^180]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^181]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^182]: *Id*. at § 601(3).

[^183]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^184]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    Code 4813.

[^185]: This is recent data from the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, which administers the Interstate TRS Fund.

[^186]: Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau,
    Industry Analysis Division, *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table
    19.3 (March 2000).

[^187]: Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau,
    Industry Analysis Division, *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table
    19.3 (March 2000).

[^188]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    codes 4812 and 4813. *See also* Executive Office of the President,
    Office of Management and Budget, *Standard Industrial Classification
    Manual* (1987).

[^189]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, *1992 Census
    of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and
    Firm Size*, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995)(*1992 Census*).

[^190]: *See generally* 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^191]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^192]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (May
    27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of \"small
    business concern,\" which the RFA incorporates into its own
    definition of \"small business.\" *See* 15 U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small
    Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)(RFA). SBA regulations interpret
    \"small business concern\" to include the concept of dominance on a
    national basis. 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b). Since 1996, out of an
    abundance of caution, the Commission has included small incumbent
    LECs in its regulatory flexibility analyses. *See, e.g.,*
    Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd
    15499, 16144-45 (1996).

[^193]: *Id.*

[^194]: Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau,
    Industry Analysis Division, *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table
    19.3 (March 2000).

[^195]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^196]: *Locator* at 1-2.

[^197]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^198]: *Locator* at 1-2.

[^199]: *1992 Census, supra*, at Firm Size 1-123.

[^200]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^201]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^202]: Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau,
    Industry Analysis Division, *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table
    19.3 (March 2000).

[^203]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^204]: See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).