**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CG Docket No. 03-123         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Telecommunications Relay         | ** | CG Docket No. 08-15          |
| Services                         |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| And Speech-to-Speech Services    | *) |                              |
| for                              | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Individuals with Hearing and     | *  |                              |
| Speech                           | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Disabilities                     |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Speech-to-Speech and Internet    | *) |                              |
| Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech   | ** |                              |
| Telecommunications Relay         |    |                              |
| Services                         | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: June 11, 2008 Released: June 24, 2008**

**Comment Date: (30 days after publication in the Federal Register)**

**Reply Comment Date: (45 days after publication in the Federal
Register)**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein and
Tate issuing separate statements.

# introduction

1.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*Notice*), we seek comment on
    several issues concerning the provision of Speech-to-Speech (STS), a
    form of telecommunications relay service (TRS).[^1] First, we seek
    comment on whether we should amend the TRS regulations to require
    that the CA handling an STS call stay with the call for a minimum of
    20 minutes.[^2] Second, we seek comment on whether the Commission
    should amend its TRS rules to require that STS providers offer the
    STS user the option of having her or his voice muted so that the
    other party to the call would only hear the STS CA re-voicing the
    call, not the voice of the STS user as well. Finally, we seek
    comment on ways we can ensure that STS users calling 711, the
    nationwide access code for state relay providers, will promptly
    reach an STS CA to handle their calls, including, for example,
    requiring TRS providers to use an interactive menu that allows the
    user to reach an STS CA as the first option.

2.  In addition, we seek comment on various issues with respect to
    Internet Protocol (IP) STS (IP STS). In December 2007, Hawk Relay
    filed a request for clarification[^3] that IP STS is a form of TRS
    eligible for compensation from the Fund. We tentatively conclude
    that IP STS is a form of TRS compensable from the Fund. We seek
    comment on this tentative conclusion, and related issues relevant to
    the provision, regulation, and compensation of IP STS.

# background

## Speech-to-Speech Relay Service

3.  On March 6, 2000, the Commission mandated that carriers obligated to
    provide TRS must also provide STS so that persons with speech
    disabilities can access the telephone system.[^4] STS relay service
    utilizes a specially trained CA who understands the speech patterns
    of persons with speech disabilities and can repeat the words spoken
    by such an individual to the other party to the call.[^5] As a
    general matter, a person with a speech disability initiates a STS
    call by calling a TRS provider on a standard telephone, and giving
    the CA the number of person he or she wishes to call. The CA then
    makes the outbound call, and re-voices what the STS user has said to
    the called party. Persons desiring to call a person with a speech
    disability via STS can also initiate an STS call. Because STS calls
    are made via the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), and
    therefore the geographic location of the parties to the call can be
    determined, states are responsible for compensating providers for
    the costs of intrastate STS, and the Fund compensates providers for
    the costs of interstate STS.[^6]

4.  The Commission's rules require STS CAs to stay with the call for at
    least 15 minutes before transferring the call to another CA.[^7] The
    Commission explained that although CAs handling text-to-voice calls
    must stay with the call for at least 10 minutes, a longer minimum
    for STS calls was appropriate because "changing CAs can be
    particularly disruptive to users with speech disabilities."[^8] The
    Commission noted that during the initial stages of a relay call
    there is a "settling-in" period, and that during this time "callers
    with speech disabilities develop greater assurance that the CA will
    understand them," and that "\[r\]otation of a CA during an STS call
    disrupts this assurance, and may even cause the user to speak less
    clearly."[^9]

5.  In the 2000 *711 TRS Dialing Order*, the Commission adopted
    nationwide 711 dialing access to allow both persons with hearing and
    speech disabilities and voice telephone users to initiate a TRS call
    from any telephone, anywhere in the United States, and be connected
    to the TRS facility serving that calling area.[^10] Subsequently,
    the Commission sought comment on whether it should adopt a separate
    three digit access number specifically for STS.[^11] In the *2003
    TRS Order*, the Commission declined to do so, concluding that
    calling 711 provided adequate means for STS consumers to reach an
    STS CA.[^12] The Commission explained that in any 711 call, the CA
    has to route and/or set up the call according to the form of TRS
    (*i.e.,* STS) or type of TRS call requested, and that to the extent
    STS calls are not reaching STS CAs in an appropriate fashion, the
    TRS provider may have to provide additional CA training, deploy
    advanced technologies, or offer multiple dialing options.[^13]

6.  The Commission also addressed whether access to STS could be
    improved by using a dialing menu, *e.g.,* an Interactive Voice
    Response (IVR), with STS being the first option in the voiced
    dialing menu.[^14] The Commission noted that "\[i\]n this way, STS
    users would simply need to 'press' the first key indicated to make
    their type of call selection, such as STS."[^15] Although the
    Commission declined to adopt such a requirement, the Commission
    stated that it would continue to monitor the implementation of 711
    dialing access for TRS calls (including STS calls) and encouraged
    TRS facilities to be innovative in finding ways to facilitate access
    to relay services.[^16]

## New STS Issues

7.  On June 26, 2006, Bob Segalman and Rebecca Ladew filed a petition
    requesting that the Commission amend its rules to require an STS CA
    to stay with the call for a minimum of twenty minutes, rather than
    15 minutes.[^17] Petitioners assert that because "STS calls often
    last much longer than text-to-voice calls\[,\] changing CAs on these
    calls prior to twenty minutes can seriously disrupt their flow and
    impair functionally equivalent telephone service."[^18] Petitioners
    explain that it generally takes a few minutes for a CA to begin to
    maximize his or her understanding of the speech patterns of a
    particular person with a speech disability.[^19] Petitioners further
    explain because CAs often have trouble understanding people's names
    and unusual technical words, persons with speech disabilities have
    to spell out these words.[^20] Further, Petitioners note that
    persons with speech disabilities require a greater amount of time
    and concentration to perform the tasks of listening to the other
    party, thinking, forming a response, and then speaking.[^21] Given
    these factors, Petitioners contend that changing CAs during a call
    both disrupts the STS user's concentration and requires the new CA
    to become familiar with the STS user's speech pattern, thereby
    impeding the conversation.[^22] Petitioners add that because
    reducing the frequency of CA changes will result in calls being
    processed more efficiently, the average cost of the calls will be
    less.[^23]

8.  Petitioners also request that the Commission specify that the 20
    minute period begins when "effective" communication begins between
    the STS user and the CA.[^24] Specifically, petitioners request that
    the Commission mandate that a call may not be transferred to a new
    CA until at least 20 minutes have passed after the caller
    established effective communication with the CA.[^25]

9.  In addition, we have received anecdotal information concerning two
    other STS issues. First, we understand that some STS providers offer
    the STS user the option to have his or her voice muted so that the
    other party to the call only hears the CA re-voicing the call. We
    also understand that many STS users prefer that their voice not be
    passed through to the other party to the call because it can be
    distracting. Second, the Commission has received several reports
    from STS users that they have been disconnected after dialing 711
    when the CA attempts to transfer the caller to an STS CA. These
    incidents may suggest that some TRS CAs are not properly trained or
    equipped to receive and transfer STS calls to an STS CA.

## IP STS

10. On December 21, 2007, Hawk Relay filed a request for clarification
    that IP STS is a form of TRS eligible for compensation from the
    Fund. Hawk Relay describes IP STS as a type of STS that uses the
    Internet, rather than the PSTN, to connect the consumer to the relay
    provider.[^26] Hawk Relay explains that instead of using a standard
    telephone to make the relay call, an IP STS user can use a personal
    computer or personal digital assistant (PDA) device and, with the
    installation of softphone application software, can make a voice
    call via the Internet to the relay provider.[^27] As Hawk Relay
    describes an IP STS call, the call is initiated by the user clicking
    on an icon on his or her computer or PDA; the relay user is then
    connected to a CA over the Internet and tells the CA the number to
    be dialed; the CA then connects the IP STS user with the called
    party and relays the call between the two parties.[^28] Hawk Relay
    asserts that IP STS offers several benefits over PSTN-based (or
    "traditional") STS, including portability (the computer or PDA is
    not tied to a specific location); ease of use, particularly for
    persons with limited dexterity (the user does not have to dial a
    number, but can just click on one icon, to initiate a call); and
    increased competition that will promote further innovation among
    relay providers.[^29]

11. Hawk Relay states that, as "an extension of traditional STS," IP STS
    falls within the scope of TRS under Title IV because it allows
    persons with speech disabilities to access the telephone system to
    communicate by wire or radio.[^30] Hawk Relay also notes that Title
    IV mandates that the Commission ensure that it "do\[es\] not
    discourage or impair the development of improved technology."[^31]
    Hawk Relay notes that, consistent with this mandate, the Commission
    has previously recognized new forms of TRS, including other
    Internet-based forms of TRS -- Video Relay Service,[^32] Internet
    Protocol (IP) Relay,[^33] and IP Captioned Telephone Service (IP
    CTS).[^34] Further, Hawk Relay requests that IP STS calls be
    eligible for compensation from the Fund. Hawk Relay does not
    address, however, whether *all* IP STS calls should be compensated
    from the Fund (*i.e.,* both interstate and intrastate), and does not
    suggest what the appropriate IP STS compensation rate should be, or
    whether it should be different from the interstate STS rate.
    Finally, Hawk Relay requests that certain TRS mandatory minimum
    standards be waived for IP STS because they have been waived for
    STS.[^35]

12. The *Hawk Relay Request* was placed on Public Notice,[^36] and one
    comment and one reply comment were filed.[^37] Both commenters
    support the request that the Commission recognize IP STS as a form
    of TRS compensable from the Fund.[^38] In addition, both commenters
    agree that the Fund should compensate *all* IP STS calls because, as
    is the case with the other Internet-based forms of TRS, it is
    presently not technologically feasible to determine which calls are
    interstate and which are intrastate.[^39] Speech Communications
    Assistance by Telephone, Inc. (SCAT) also suggests that the
    compensation rate for IP STS should be high enough to give providers
    the incentive to identify and recruit users, to reimburse providers
    for giving computers and other equipment to the users, and to pay
    for up to ten home visits per consumer to instruct the consumers on
    how to use the service.[^40] In addition, American Network agrees
    with Hawk Relay that certain waivers of the TRS mandatory minimum
    standards are appropriate.[^41]

## Other STS and IP STS Issues

13. SCAT asserts that STS outreach efforts have not been adequate to
    identify and reach all potential users.[^42] SCAT notes that the
    majority of STS calls are intrastate, and that state STS rates have
    generally been below cost and not adequate to support sufficient
    outreach.[^43] SCAT therefore requests that the Commission require
    states to increase their STS compensation rate to ensure that STS is
    made available to all users.[^44] In addition, because of the
    relatively low volume of STS calls, SCAT suggests that there should
    be only one national provider and one call center that serves the
    whole country.[^45]

# Discussion

## STS Issues

14. We seek comment on whether the Commission should amend the TRS
    regulations to require that an STS CA must stay with the call for a
    minimum of twenty minutes, rather than the present minimum of
    fifteen minutes. Specifically, we seek comment on the advantages and
    disadvantages of such a rule change, or whether some other minimum
    time period should be adopted. We also seek comment on alternative
    approaches or additional requirements the Commission might adopt to
    ensure the effective and efficient relaying of STS calls.

15. We also seek comment on whether we should more specifically define
    the point at which the minimum time period begins to run, *e.g.,*
    when "effective" communication takes place between the STS user and
    the CA, regardless of whether we extend the minimum time period a CA
    must stay with an STS call. We further seek comment on what criteria
    should be used to determine when effective communication begins and
    who would make that determination.

16. In addition, we seek comment on whether the Commission should amend
    its TRS rules to require that STS providers offer the STS user the
    option of having her or his voice muted so that the other party to
    the call would only hear the STS CA re-voicing the call, not the
    voice of the STS user as well. We understand that presently some STS
    providers voluntarily offer this option, and that many STS users
    prefer that their voice not be passed through to the other party to
    the call because it can be distracting and make the call flow less
    smoothly.

17. Finally, we seek comment on ways we can ensure that STS users
    calling 711 will promptly reach an STS CA to handle their calls. We
    recognize that 711 dialing procedures vary from state to state, and
    that some relay providers use prompts so that the caller can
    indicate the type of call the caller desires to make. We seek
    comment on the feasibility of requiring TRS providers to use a
    prompt or menu that would permit STS callers to indicate that they
    would like to reach an STS CA. For example, after an STS caller
    dials 711 and reaches the provider, the caller could be directed to
    press one additional number on the telephone to reach an STS CA.
    Although, as noted above, the Commission addressed this issue in the
    *2003 TRS Order* and declined to adopt this requirement at that
    time, it also stated that it would monitor the implementation of 711
    dialing access.[^46] Because we have received complaints that STS
    users have been disconnected after dialing 711 when the CA attempts
    to transfer the caller to an STS CA, we seek comment, first, on the
    scope of the problem of STS callers being disconnected before
    reaching an STS CA. We also seek comment on ways by which we can
    ensure that STS users will promptly reach an STS CA without being
    disconnected, including through the use of menus or prompts that
    would direct STS callers to an STS CA.

## IP STS

18. We tentatively conclude that IP STS is a form of TRS compensable
    from the Interstate TRS Fund because it is an extension of STS that
    gives persons with speech disabilities an alternative way to
    initiate an STS call and reach a CA.[^47] We note that IP STS allows
    persons with speech disabilities to use a computer or PDA connected
    to the Internet, rather than a standard telephone connected to the
    PSTN, to initiate a call and speak with the CA. In this regard, IP
    STS borrows from both the STS and IP Relay services that the
    Commission has previously recognized as forms of TRS. Like STS, an
    IP STS CA listens to what the STS caller says and then re-voices
    what was said to the other party of the phone. Like IP Relay, the
    consumer is connected to the relay provider via the Internet, not
    the PSTN. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also
    tentatively conclude that a service will be considered IP STS as
    long as it allows the STS user to connect to the CA via a computer,
    PDA, or similar device and the Internet, rather than by making a
    traditional telephone call.[^48] We also seek comment on these
    tentative conclusions.

19. We also tentatively conclude that all IP STS calls may be
    compensated from the Fund if provided in compliance with the
    Commission's rules.[^49] We note that this is consistent with the
    present treatment of the other Internet-based forms of TRS -- VRS,
    IP Relay, and IP CTS -- and the fact that because one link of the
    call is made via the Internet it is generally not possible to
    determine if a particular call is interstate or intrastate.[^50] We
    also believe this arrangement will be an incentive for multiple
    providers to offer this service on a nationwide basis, generating
    competition that will enhance consumer choice, service quality, and
    available features.[^51] We seek comment on this tentative
    conclusion.

20. Further, we tentatively conclude that IP STS will be compensated at
    the same per-minute rate as STS, and seek comment on this tentative
    conclusion.[^52] We note that neither the *Hawk Relay Request* nor
    the comments specifically suggest a different rate. Hawk Relay is
    silent on this issue, and American Network suggests that the
    traditional STS rate should apply.[^53] Although SCAT suggests that
    the rate should be "possibly higher than the VRS reimbursement rate"
    (currently ranging from \$6.30 to \$6.77 per minute) to cover the
    costs of consumer equipment and home visits for training,[^54] we
    note that the Commission has made clear that the costs of customer
    equipment, equipment distribution, and installation of the equipment
    or any necessary software is not compensable from the Fund.[^55] We
    also note that the conclusion to compensate IP STS at the STS rate
    is consistent with our treatment of CTS and IP CTS rates, which
    pursuant to the *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order* are the same.[^56] At
    the same time, we also seek comment on whether differences in the
    way IP STS and STS are provided or used warrants different
    compensation rates for these services.

21. In the *TRS Provider Certification Order*, the Commission adopted a
    means by which common carriers seeking to offer IP Relay or VRS may
    seek Commission "certification" as an eligible provider.[^57] The
    Commission noted that the present eligibility criteria for
    compensation from the Fund set forth in the Commission's rules[^58]
    do not reflect advances in the way that TRS is offered, particularly
    with respect to the Internet-based forms of TRS. As a result, the
    Commission adopted a Commission certification alternative that would
    permit common carriers desiring to offer VRS and/or IP Relay, and
    not the other forms of TRS, to receive compensation from the
    Fund.[^59] This process is described in that order and the
    Commission's rules.[^60]

22. In the *2007 IP CTS Declaratory Ruling*, we concluded that entities
    desiring to offer IP CTS could become eligible for compensation from
    the Fund by seeking Commission certification under the certification
    rules.[^61] The Commission stated that "potential IP CTS providers
    may become eligible for compensation from the Fund by being accepted
    into a certified state TRS program or subcontracting with an entity
    that is part of a certified state program, or by seeking Commission
    certification."[^62] The Commission also emphasized that
    "\[p\]resent eligibility to receive compensation from the Fund for
    the provision of other forms of TRS (including captioned telephone
    service) does not confer eligibility with regard to the provision of
    the IP CTS."[^63]

23. We tentatively conclude that an entity desiring to provide IP STS
    may choose to seek certification from the Commission under the
    certification rules. Therefore, as with IP CTS, potential IP STS
    providers could become eligible for compensation from the Fund by
    being accepted into a certified state TRS program or subcontracting
    with an entity that is part of a certified state program,[^64] or by
    seeking Commission certification. Therefore, we also tentatively
    conclude that present eligibility to receive compensation from the
    Fund for the provision of other forms of TRS (including STS) would
    not confer eligibility with regard to the provision of the IP STS.
    We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.

24. Next, we seek comment on those mandatory minimum standards that are
    either inapplicable to IP STS or should be waived for IP STS. We
    tentatively conclude that providers of IP STS need not, at this
    time, meet the following requirements: (1) competent skills in
    typing and spelling for CAs[^65]; (2) handling calls in ASCII and
    Baudot formats[^66]; (3) call release[^67]; (4) Hearing Carry Over
    (HCO) and Voice Carry Over (VCO) services[^68]; (5) equal access to
    interexchange carriers[^69]; (6) pay-per-call (900)
    service[^70]; (7) speed dialing[^71]; and (8) outbound 711
    dialing.[^72] We also tentatively conclude that for those waivers
    presently contingent on annual reporting requirements, providers of
    IP STS must also file such reports.[^73] We seek comment on these
    tentative conclusions.

25. Finally, we seek comment on the emergency call handling rules that
    should apply to IP STS. We note that in March 2008, the Commission
    adopted an order requiring Internet-based TRS providers to accept
    and handle such calls in accordance with the requirements outlined
    in that order. [^74] On June 11, 2008, however, the Commission
    adopted more comprehensive emergency call handling requirements for
    VRS and IP Relay.[^75] We seek comment on whether the requirements
    in the *2008 Emergency Call Handling Order* or the requirements in
    the *2008 TRS Numbering* Order should apply to IP STS, or whether
    some other rules should apply. Should, for example, IP STS users be
    required to register their location for purposes of emergency call
    handling? Relatedly, we seek comment on whether, pursuant to the
    *2008 TRS Numbering Order*, IP STS users be required to obtain a
    ten-digit NANP telephone number so that traditional telephone users
    can call an IP STS user by dialing that number and without knowing
    the IP STS user's current IP address? Assuming these requirements
    should apply to IP STS users, we seek comment on whether they should
    be modified in the context of IP STS and, if so, how.

## Other STS and IP STS Issues

26. *Outreach*. Comments reflect concern that outreach efforts with
    respect to STS have not been adequate to identify and reach
    potential STS users.[^76] In addition, SCAT has noted that the
    majority of STS calls are intrastate and that the state STS rates
    are generally below actual costs, and that therefore the intrastate
    providers lack sufficient funding to do the outreach that is
    necessary to reach the large number of potential STS users.[^77]
    SCAT has therefore requested that the Commission require the states
    to increase their STS compensation rates to ensure that STS is made
    available to all potential users.[^78] We seek comment on this
    request. In particular, does the Commission have the authority to
    require individual states to increase the compensation rates paid
    for intrastate STS?[^79] In addition, we seek comment on other steps
    we might take to ensure that *all* STS providers receive sufficient
    compensation to engage in sufficient outreach to inform new
    potential users of this service.

27. We also seek comment on specific outreach efforts that might extend
    the reach of STS (and possibly IP STS) to new users, and whether we
    should mandate such specific efforts of both intrastate and
    interstate providers.[^80] We also seek comment on whether use of
    the MARS rate for STS (and possibly IP STS), as currently provided,
    is inadequate to compensate providers for the level of outreach
    necessary to reach potential STS users. We note that in the *2007
    TRS Cost Recovery Order* the Commission added an additional sum to
    the STS rate to be used by providers for outreach.[^81] We seek
    comment on this approach, the appropriate amount of such an
    additional amount, and whether such outreach should be funded
    through an adjustment to the per-minute compensation rate or in some
    other way. More generally, we seek comment on any other issue
    relating to the funding of outreach for STS (and possibly IP STS)
    and specific types of outreach that would be most effective.

28. *One Nationwide STS Provider*. A commenter has suggested that, given
    the relatively low usage of STS (compared to the other forms of the
    TRS), it might be appropriate to have a single, nationwide provider
    offer both interstate and intrastate STS.[^82] We seek comment on
    this suggestion. As a threshold matter, we seek comment on whether
    the Commission would have the authority to mandate such an approach
    to the provision of service, given that section 225 places the
    obligation on carriers to provide TRS and on states to oversee the
    provision of intrastate TRS.[^83] If the Commission does have
    jurisdiction to adopt this approach, we seek comment on the merits
    of doing so as opposed to the present arrangement for the provision
    of service (*i.e.,* each state selects one or more intrastate
    provider for the state, and that provider also offers interstate
    service). In addition, how would we select such a provider? Finally,
    assuming we recognize IP STS as a form of TRS, we seek comment on
    whether the nationwide provider would offer both IP STS and STS, or
    just STS.

# procedural matters

29. *Comments and Reply Comments.* Pursuant to sections 1.415, 1.419,
    and 1.430 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419,
    1.430, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
    before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All
    filings should refer to CG Docket No. 03-123 and CG Docket No.
    08-15. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
    Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.[^84] For
    additional information on this proceeding, please contact Gregory
    Hlibok in the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at
    <Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov> or (800) 311-4381(voice).

30. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/>. Filers should
    follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting
    comments. Because multiple docket numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the
    comment to each docket number referenced in the caption, which in
    this instance are CG Docket No. 03-123 and CG Docket No. 08-15. For
    each transmittal, commenters also should include their full name and
    postal service mailing address. Parties also may submit electronic
    comments by Internet e-mail. To obtain filing instructions for
    e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    ecfshelp@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body
    of the message: "get form \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form
    and instructions will be sent in reply. You also may obtain a copy
    of the ASCII Electronic Transmittal Form (FORM-ET) at
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html\>. Parties who choose to file
    by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
    overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
    Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving
    U.S. Postal Service mail).

31. For hand deliveries, the Commission\'s contractor, Natek, Inc., will
    receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
    Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110,
    Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00
    a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
    rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
    entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S.
    Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
    East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service
    first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be
    addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. All
    filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of
    the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

32. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary
    of the substantive discussion and questions raised in the *Notice*.
    We further direct all interested parties to include the name of the
    filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their
    comments and reply comments. We strongly encourage that parties
    track the organization set forth in this *Notice* in order to
    facilitate our internal review process. Comments and reply comments
    must otherwise comply with section 1.48 and all other applicable
    sections of the Commission's rules.[^85]

33. To request materials in accessible formats (such as Braille, large
    print, electronic files, or audio format), send an e-mail to
    fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
    202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). This *Notice* can also be
    downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format at
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro\>.

34. *Ex Parte Rules.* This matter shall be treated as a
    "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
    *ex parte* rules.[^86] Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations
    are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must
    contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not
    merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two
    sentence description of the views and arguments presented is
    generally required.[^87] Other requirements pertaining to oral and
    written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the
    Commission's rules.

35. *Regulatory Flexibility Certification*. As required by the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),[^88] the Commission has
    prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification of the
    possible significant economic impact on small entities of the
    policies and rules addressed in this document. The certification is
    set forth in Appendix.

36. *Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis.* This document does not
    contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork
    Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition,
    therefore, it does not contain any new or modified "information
    collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
    employees," pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
    2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).

# ordering clauses

37. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and
    (o), 225, 255, 303(r), 403, 624(g), and 706 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i) and (o), 225, 255,
    303(r), 403, 554(g), and 606, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS
    ADOPTED.

38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking SHALL
    BE EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

39. ![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.944444444444445e-4in"
    height="6.944444444444445e-4in"}IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
    Commission\'s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
    Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch Secretary

    **APPENDIX**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification**

1.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),[^89]
    requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared
    for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency
    certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities."[^90] The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as
    having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
    organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^91] In
    addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
    "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^92] A "small
    business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and
    operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
    (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small
    Business Administration (SBA).[^93]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
40. In the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, the Commission seeks comment
    on issues concerning the provision of STS and IP STS. The Commission
    proposes requiring an STS CA to stay with the call for a minimum of
    20 minutes, rather that the present minimum of 15 minutes, in order
    to ensure the effective and efficient relaying of STS calls. The
    Commission also proposes amending its TRS rules to require that STS
    providers offer the STS user the option of having her or his voice
    muted so that the other party to the call would only hear the STS CA
    re-voicing the call, not the voice of the STS user as well. In this
    *Notice*, the Commission provisionally proposes that the STS
    provider should be required to utilize an interactive menu that
    provides, as the first option, reaching an STS CA in order to ensure
    that STS users calling 711 will promptly reach an STS CA to handle
    their calls. For instance, after an STS caller dials 711 and reaches
    the provider, the caller would reach an STS CA by pressing one
    additional number on the telephone. Finally, the Commission invites
    comment on its tentative conclusion that IP STS is a form of TRS
    eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund.

41. The Commission concludes that these proposed changes may be
    necessary to improve the effectiveness and quality of STS and IP STS
    services so that users may receive a functionally equivalent
    telephone service, as mandated by Title IV of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act. We believe that none of these proposed changes
    would impose a significant burden on providers, including small
    business. However, if the proposed changes may result in additional
    financial burden on the part of the affected providers, including
    small entities, the providers will be promptly reimbursed from the
    Interstate TRS Fund for the costs of complying with the proposed
    rules, if adopted. Entities, especially small businesses, are
    encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of any reporting
    requirement that may be established in this proceeding. The
    modifications the Commission proposes consist of policies aimed at
    achieving a functionally equivalent telephone service for
    Internet-based TRS users and are not expected to have a substantial
    economic impact upon providers, including small businesses, because
    each small business will receive financial compensation for
    reasonable costs incurred rather than absorb an uncompensated
    financial loss or hardship.

42. With regard to whether a *substantial* *number* of small entities
    may be affected by the requirements proposed in this *Notice*, the
    Commission notes that, of the 7 providers affected by the *Notice*,
    only one meet the definition of a small entity. The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such firms having
    1,500 or fewer employees. [^94] Seven providers currently receive
    compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for providing STS: AT&T
    Corp.; GoAmerica, Inc.; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Nordia Inc.; Kansas
    Relay Service, Inc.; State of Michigan and Sprint. Because only one
    of the providers would be affected by this *Notice*, if adopted, is
    deemed to be small entities under the SBA's small business size
    standard, the Commission concludes that the number of small entities
    potentially affected by our proposed rules in this *Notice* is not
    substantial. Moreover, given that all providers potentially affected
    by the proposed rules, including the one that is deemed to be small
    entities under the SBA's standard, would be entitled to receive
    prompt reimbursement for their reasonable costs of compliance, the
    Commission concludes that the *FNPRM*, if adopted, will not have a
    significant economic impact on these small entities.

43. Therefore, we certify that the proposals in this *Notice*, if
    adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a
    substantial number of small entities.

44. The Commission will send a copy of the *Notice*, including a copy of
    this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.[^95] This initial certification
    will also be published in the Federal Register.[^96]

    **STATEMENT** **OF**

    **CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for
IP-Enabled Service Providers,* CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No.
05-196, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

*Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Speech-to-Speech and
Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay
Services,* CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 08-15, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.

Today we take additional steps to help improve the quality of life for
individuals with disabilities. We adopt a ten-digit numbering system for
Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS). We also seek
comment on ways to improve Speech-to-Speech service (STS) and whether IP
STS should be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. Through these
actions, we make progress in fulfilling our statutory goal of ensuring
that every person has equal access to this nation's communications
services.

We are well aware that there are many Americans with hearing or speech
disabilities that depend on TRS services for their daily communication
needs. The Commission remains committed to improving the quality of life
for individuals with disabilities by ensuring that they have the same
access to communication technologies as people without such
disabilities.

In March, the Commission committed to adopt an order providing a
ten-digit numbering system for Internet-based TRS by the end of June and
to require that the ten-digit numbering system be implemented no later
than December 31, 2008. I am pleased that we fulfill these commitments
today. Ten-digit numbering will enable Internet-based TRS users to make
and receive calls like anyone else, eradicating another barrier that
stands in the way of functional equivalency. Functional equivalency
means individuals with disabilities having access to the same services
as everyone else. This equal access is vital to accessing jobs,
education, public safety, and simple communications with family,
friends, and neighbors.

I also support our inquiry into ways to improve STS and our tentative
conclusion that IP STS is a form of TRS eligible for compensation from
the Interstate TRS Fund. IP STS has the potential to allow a broader
range of individuals to communicate. By not being constrained to a
specific piece of equipment that resides in a particular location, users
of this service would have tremendous flexibility in how and where they
use this service. Moreover, individuals with disabilities would have
access to new technologies and, specifically, be able to realize the
benefits of broadband services.

I want to assure those of you with hearing or speech disabilities that
we will not stop actively working to fulfill your need for functional
equivalence. We could not have taken today's actions without your
valuable input. We thank you for your participation in our proceedings
and look forward to working with you and the service providers to
implement the ten-digit numbering system and to improve speech to speech
service. It is by working together that we can best ensure that the
tremendous advances in communications are enjoyed by *all* Americans.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

 

*Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Speech-to-Speech and
Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay
Services,* CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 08-15, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.

A cornerstone of the Americans with Disabilities Act is to ensure that
persons with disabilities can access the tools they need to lead
prosperous, productive and fulfilling lives. Speech-to-Speech Relay is
an important and underutilized service available to those with speech
disabilities. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raises important
questions about how to improve upon the service and how we can provide
more information so the disability community can take advantage of it.
The NPRM also tentatively concludes that IP-Speech-to-Speech (IP-STS)
service is eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund, and it seeks
comment on issues related to the administration of IP-STS as a covered
service. I am pleased to support the requests for comment and the
tentative conclusions as they shine a light on some very critical issues
in the provision of these services. Moreover, it is my hope that the
comments we receive will enable the FCC to complete these proceedings
quickly in order to provide those with speech disabilities additional
tools for staying connected.

I would like to thank the disabilities community for bringing these
issues to the Commission's attention and my colleagues for their
interest in opening a proceeding to address the specific needs of those
with speech disabilities.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Speech-to-Speech and
Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay
Services,* CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 08-15, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.

I am pleased to support this Notice seeking comment on ways to improve
Speech-to-Speech relay service, a vital connection for Americans with
speech disabilities. Speech-to-Speech relay service uses
specially-trained communications assistants who understand the speech
patterns of persons with speech disabilities and can repeat the words to
the other party to the call. By seeking comment on important technical
aspects of our Speech-to-Speech relay service requirements \-- including
extending minimum call lengths, providing better options for voice
muting, and enhancing access to 711, our nationwide code for access to
relay services -- we seek to recognize and respond to the unique needs
of Speech-to-Speech users. Perhaps most importantly, we tentatively
conclude the Internet-based Speech-to-Speech relay service should be
compensable from the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund. Consumers
explain that IP-based Speech-to-Speech relay service offers several
distinct benefits, including ease of use and mobility, over traditional
Speech-to-Speech relay services.

Taken together, these proposals have the potential to measurably improve
the services available to those with speech disabilities, bringing us
closer to our guiding principle of functional equivalence under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. My thanks to the staff of the Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau for their hard work on this item, and I
look forward to working with all my colleagues, consumers, and the
Bureau as we move forward expeditiously with these proposals.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

*Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Speech-to-Speech and
Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay
Services,* CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 08-15, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.

Today we continue to recognize our responsibilities to insure all our
citizens have access to communications services by issuing this NPRM. We
seek comment regarding the TRS regulations and specifically whether or
not the Commission should amend specific regulations applicable to
Speech-to-Speech (STS) services including whether to require that the
Communications Assistant (CA) remain with the call for a minimum of 20
minutes, and that providers offer the STS user the option of having her
or his voice muted so that the other party to the call would only hear
the STS CA re-voicing the call (and not also the voice of the STS user).
The draft NPRM also seeks comment regarding ways in which the Commission
can ensure that STS users calling 711 (the nationwide access code for
state relay providers) may promptly reach an STS assistant (CA) to
handle their calls, including, for example, requiring TRS providers to
use an interactive menu that allows the STS user to reach an STS CA as
the first option.

These are important issues for STS users, and the changes proposed will
likely result in the more efficient handling of STS calls. As the
Commission continues to consider the needs of all our consumers in this
digital age, I especially value the input of those who know first-hand
what rules will most effectively serve those consumers who will benefit
most.

[^1]: TRS, created by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990 (ADA), enables a person with a hearing or speech disability to
    access the nation's telephone system to communicate with a voice
    telephone user through a relay provider and a Communications
    Assistant (CA). *See* *generally* 47 U.S.C. § 225; 47 C.F.R. §
    64.601 *et seq.* (the TRS regulations). There are several forms of
    TRS, including Speech-to-Speech (STS), which we describe below. The
    Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) compensates providers for their
    reasonable costs of providing interstate service, and with some
    forms of TRS, both intrastate and interstate service. *See generally
    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,
    15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5149, para. 15 (Mar. 6, 2000) (*2000 TRS Report and
    Order*) (recognizing STS as a form of TRS); *Telecommunications
    Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with
    Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CC Dockets 90-571 and 98-67 and CG
    Docket 03-123, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 12475, 12479-80,
    para. 3 n.18 (June 30, 2004) (*2004 TRS Report and Order*)
    (discussing how TRS works).

[^2]: *See* Bob Segalman and Rebecca Ladew, Petition for Amendment to
    TRS rule on Speech-to-Speech Relay Service, CG Docket No. 03-123,
    filed June 26, 2006 (*STS Petition*).

[^3]: *See* Hawk Relay, *Request for Expedited Clarification for the
    Provision and Cost Recovery of Internet Protocol Speech to Speech
    Relay Service*, CG Docket No. 08-15, (filed Dec. 21, 2007) (*Hawk
    Relay Request*). The *Hawk Relay Request* was moved from CG Docket
    No. 03-123 to a newly created docket for all STS (including IP STS)
    matters, CG Docket No. 08-15. *See Consumer & Governmental Affairs
    Bureau Seeks Comment on Request for Clarification that Internet
    Protocol Speech to Speech Service is a Form of Telecommunications
    Relay Service Compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund*, CG Docket
    No. 08-15, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 1649, 1650, at n.7 (Feb. 4,
    2008) (*IP STS PN*).

[^4]: *See* *2000 TRS Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5148-51, paras.
    14-20.

[^5]: *See* *id.* at 5148, para. 14; 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(12).

[^6]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3); *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    64.604(c)(5)(i) & (ii). No specific funding method is required for
    intrastate TRS or state TRS programs. States generally recover the
    costs of intrastate TRS either through rate adjustments or
    surcharges assessed on all intrastate end users, and reimburse TRS
    providers directly for their intrastate TRS costs. We note that in
    recent months interstate STS minutes of use have averaged between
    13,000-15,000 per month. This is substantially less than the
    corresponding minutes of use for the other forms of TRS. *See*
    [*w*ww.neca.org/source/NECA_Resources_4285.asp](http://www.neca.org/source/NECA_Resources_4285.asp)
    (monthly reports indicating interstate minutes of use for all forms
    of TRS).

[^7]: *2000 TRS Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 5169-70, paras. 68-70;
    47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(1)(v).

[^8]: *2000 TRS Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5170, para. 70.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*, CC
    Docket No. 92-105, Report and Order*,* 15 FCC Rcd 15188 (Aug. 9,
    2000) (*2000 711 TRS Dialing Order)*. 711 dialing access for TRS
    became effective on October 1, 2001. *See id.* at 15204, para. 32.

[^11]: *2000 TRS Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5192, para. 126.

[^12]: *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CC Docket No.
    98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Second Report and Order, Order on
    Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd
    12379, 12410-11, para. 51 (June 17, 2003) (*2003 TRS Order*).

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Id.* at 12411, para. 52.

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.* at 12411-12, para. 53.

[^17]: *STS Petition* at 1.

[^18]: *Id.* at 3.

[^19]: *Id.* at 2.

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: *Id.*

[^22]: *Id.*

[^23]: *Id.*

[^24]: *Id.* at 2-3. The current rule states that the CA "answering and
    placing an STS call must stay with the call for a minimum of fifteen
    minutes." 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(1)(v).

[^25]: *STS Petition* at 3.

[^26]: *Hawk Relay Request* at 3 (IP STS is "no different than
    traditional STS except ... that the user connects to a relay
    provider through the Internet").

[^27]: *Id.* at 2-3. The computer or PDA must have a microphone and
    speaker. *Id.* at 3.

[^28]: *Id.* at 3.

[^29]: *Id.* at 3-5.

[^30]: *Id.* at 5; *see* 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^31]: *Hawk Relay Request* at 5; *see* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(2).

[^32]: Video Relay Service (VRS) is a form of TRS that enables the VRS
    user and the CA to communicate via a video link in sign language,
    rather than through text. VRS presently requires a broadband
    Internet connection. *See* *2000 TRS Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd
    at 5152-54, paras. 21-27 (recognizing VRS as a form of TRS); 47
    C.F.R. § 64.601(17) (defining VRS).

[^33]: IP Relay is a text-based form of TRS that uses the Internet,
    rather than the PSTN, for the link of the call between the relay
    user and the CA. *See Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay
    Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing
    and Speech Disabilities*, CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 7779
    (Apr. 22, 2002) (*IP Relay Declaratory Ruling*).

[^34]: IP Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) is a form of CTS where
    the connection carrying the captions between the relay provider and
    the user is via the Internet, rather than the PSTN. *See generally
    Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
    Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CC Docket No.
    98-67, Declaratory Ruling, 18 FCC Rcd 16121 (Aug. 1, 2003)
    (*Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling*); *Telecommunications
    Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with
    Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Internet-based Captioned Telephone
    Service*, CG Docket No. 03-123, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 379
    (Jan. 11, 2007) (*2007 IP CTS Declaratory Ruling*)*.* IP CTS is
    compensated at the same rate as CTS. *Telecommunications Relay
    Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing
    and Speech Disabilities*, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order and
    Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 20140, 20158, para. 38 (Nov. 19,
    2007) (*2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order)*.

[^35]: *Hawk Relay Request* at 6; *see* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604 (TRS
    mandatory minimum standards).

[^36]: *IP STS PN.*

[^37]: Comments were filed by Speech Communications Assistance by
    Telephone, Inc. (May 8, 2008) (SCAT Comments), and reply comments
    were filed by American Network, Inc. (May 22, 2008) (American
    Network Reply Comments).

[^38]: SCAT Comments at 3; American Network Reply Comments at 2.

[^39]: SCAT Comments at 3-4; American Network Reply Comments at 4.

[^40]: SCAT Comments at 4-5. SCAT states that the rate should be
    "possibly higher than the VRS reimbursement rate." *Id.* at 5.

[^41]: American Network Reply Comments at 5.

[^42]: *See* *Ex Parte* filed by SCAT (June 4, 2008) at 1 (SCAT *Ex
    Parte*).

[^43]: *See* Comments of Speech Communications Assistance by Telephone,
    Inc. (SCAT) (May 14, 2008) (filed in response to the Public Notice
    seeking comment on proposed 2008-2009 interstate TRS compensation
    rates; *National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) Submits the
    Payment Formula and Fund Size Estimate for the Interstate
    Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund for the July 2008
    Through June 2009 Fund Year*, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice,
    DA 08-1055 (May 2, 2008) (SCAT Rate Comments) (asserting that
    "providers often take a big loss on STS in order to obtain a
    statewide TRS contract").

[^44]: SCAT Rate Comments.

[^45]: SCAT Comments at 6.

[^46]: *2003 TRS Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 12411-12, paras. 52-53. Because
    at that time 711 dialing was relatively new, and some states were
    offering a dialing menu that facilitated access to STS, the
    Commission stated that as it "continue\[s\] to monitor the
    implementation of universal nationwide 711 dialing access for all
    types of TRS calls, \[it\] will also monitor the utilization of
    dialing menus for access to STS." *Id.* at para. 53.

[^47]: *See Hawk Relay Request* at 5; American Network Reply Comments at
    3.

[^48]: *See Captioned Telephone Declaratory Ruling,* 18 FCC Rcd at
    16127, para. 17 ("to avoid authorizing a particular proprietary
    technology, rather than a particular functionality or service, we
    define the captioned telephone . . . service that we recognize as
    TRS in this *Declaratory Ruling* as any service that uses a device
    that allows the user to simultaneously listen to, and read the text
    of, what the other party has said, on one standard telephone line.
    TRS providers, therefore, that may choose to offer captioned
    telephone . . . service are not bound to offer any particular
    company's service").

[^49]: *See* SCAT Comments at 4; American Network Reply Comments at 4.

[^50]: *See* *IP Relay Declaratory Ruling,* 17 FCC Rcd at 7779, para.1;
    *see also* *id.* at 7786, paras. 20-22.

[^51]: *See 2007 IP CTS Declaratory Ruling*, 22 FCC Rcd at 390, para.
    25.

[^52]: Pursuant to the *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order*, STS is
    compensated at the MARS rate applicable to both traditional TRS and
    STS based on the weighted average of state rates. *2007 TRS Cost
    Recovery Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 20165-66, paras. 57-61. The rate is
    presently \$2.723, which applies through June 30, 2008.

[^53]: American Network Reply Comments at 4.

[^54]: SCAT Comments at 4.

[^55]: *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
    Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CG
    Docket No. 03-123, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8063,
    8071, para. 17 (July 12, 2006).

[^56]: *See 2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 20158, para.
    38.

[^57]: *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
    Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CG
    Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20
    FCC Rcd 20577, 20586-90, paras. 17-26 (Dec. 12, 2005) (*TRS Provider
    Certification Order*).

[^58]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(3) (setting forth three
    eligibility categories for TRS providers seeking compensation from
    the Fund). As the Commission has explained, these categories include
    being part of a certified state program, contracting with an entity
    that is part of a certified state program, or being a common carrier
    obligated to provide TRS in a state that does not have a certified
    state program. *TRS Provider Certification Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at
    20586-87, paras. 18-19.

[^59]: *TRS Provider Certification Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 20586, para.
    17.

[^60]: *Id.*, 20 FCC Rcd at 20588-90, paras. 22-26; 47 C.F.R. § 64.605.

[^61]: *2007 IP CTS Declaratory Ruling*, 22 FCC Rcd at 391, para. 28; 47
    C.F.R. § 64.605.

[^62]: *2007 IP CTS Declaratory Ruling,* 22 FCC Rcd at 391, para. 28
    (internal footnote omitted).

[^63]: *Id.*; *see also Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Clarifies
    the Eligibility Requirement for Compensation from the Interstate
    Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund for Providers of
    Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service*, CG Docket No.
    03-123, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 2889 (Feb. 28, 2008).

[^64]: If eligibility is established via a certified state program, the
    state program must notify the Commission within 60 days of
    substantive changes in their program. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    64.605(f)(1).

[^65]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(ii)& (iii). This includes the
    requirement that CAs must provide a typing speed of a minimum of 60
    words per minute, which does not apply to IP STS. Relaying an IP STS
    call would not involve typing.

[^66]: Providers of traditional TRS (*i.e.,* text-based TRS calls made
    via a TTY and the PSTN) must ensure that the TTY can communicate in
    either the ASCII or Baudot formats. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601(3) &
    (4); 64.604(b)(1). TTYs are not used in STS calls.

[^67]: Call release is a TRS feature that allows the CA to drop from the
    call after the CA has set up a telephone call between two TTY users.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(5). Call release is waived for IP Relay
    until January 1, 2009. *See Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities*, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 21869, 21873,
    para. 11 (Dec. 26, 2007) (*2007 Waiver Extension Order*).

[^68]: VCO permits a person with a hearing disability, but who is able
    to speak, to speak directly to the other party to the call (instead
    of typing text), but receive in return the called party's spoken
    words as text on the TTY. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(18). HCO permits
    a person with a speech disability, but who is able to hear, to type
    text to the other party to the call (which is voiced by the CA), but
    listen in return to what the called party is saying. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    § 64.601(8). VCO and HCO services are waived for IP Relay until
    January 1, 2009. *See 2007 Waiver Extension Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at
    21871-73, paras. 6-9.

[^69]: This requirement requires providers to relay long distance calls
    through the consumer's choice of interexchange carrier. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 64.604(b)(3). This requirement is waived permanently for IP
    Relay, provided that IP Relay providers offer free long distance
    service to their customers. *See 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC
    Rcd at 12524-25, paras. 124-27, and 12594, Appendix E (waiver
    chart). We tentatively conclude that the same approach should apply
    with respect to IP STS.

[^70]: Pay-per-call (900) services are calls that include a charge
    billed to the calling party. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3)(iv).
    This requirement is waived for IP Relay until January 1, 2009. *See
    2007 Waiver Extension Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 21873-74, paras. 12-13.

[^71]: Speed dialing allows a TRS user to place a call using a stored
    number maintained by the TRS provider. The TRS user gives the CA a
    "short-hand" name or number for the user's most frequently called
    telephone numbers. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(13). This requirement is
    waived for IP Relay until January 1, 2009. *See 2007 Waiver
    Extension Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 21875-76, paras. 20-21.

[^72]: Outbound 711 dialing permits TRS users to dial 711 to reach a
    relay provider. We tentatively conclude that to the extent an IP STS
    user initiates a call only via the Internet and a direct link to the
    provider, and not by dialing a telephone number, this requirement
    would be inapplicable to the service.

[^73]: *See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12594,
    Appendix E (waiver chart and also addressing filing of annual
    reports); *see also id.* at 12520-21, para. 111 (detailing required
    contents of annual report).

[^74]: *See generally Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities*, *E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers,*
    CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, Report and Order, 23 FCC
    Rcd 5255, 5259-63, paras. 8-12 (Mar. 19, 2008) (*2008 Emergency Call
    Handling Order*). The Commission required the providers to, in part:
    (1) accept emergency calls and deliver them to an appropriate PSAP
    that corresponds to the caller's location; (2) request, at the
    beginning of an emergency call, the caller's location; (3) implement
    a system so that incoming emergency calls are given priority
    handling if there is a queue. *Id.* at 5265, para. 16.

[^75]: *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
    Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities***,**
    *E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers,* Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No.
    03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, FCC 08-151 (adopted June 11, 2008)
    (*2008 TRS Numbering* Order).

[^76]: *See* SCAT *Ex Parte* at 1*.*

[^77]: *See* SCAT Rate Comments.

[^78]: *See* *id*.

[^79]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3) ("Jurisdictional separation of
    costs").

[^80]: We note that to the extent specific outreach steps are mandated,
    providers would be entitled to compensation for those costs.

[^81]: *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 20166, para. 61.

[^82]: *See* SCAT Comments at 6 (suggesting that because the STS user
    population is so small, there should be only one national provider
    and call center to serve the country).

[^83]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(c); *2004 TRS Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd
    at 12481, para. 6 (addressing state regulation of intrastate TRS).

[^84]: *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    13 FCC Rcd 11322, 11324-26, paras. 4-9 (Apr. 6, 1998).

[^85]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.48.

[^86]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 *et seq*.

[^87]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^88]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^89]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601--612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^90]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^91]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^92]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
    § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^93]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^94]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110. According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in this category which
    operated for the entire year. U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic
    Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size
    (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 513310
    (issued Oct. 2000). Of this total, 2,201 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and an additional 24 firms had employment of
    1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small. (The census data do not
    provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have
    employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category
    provided is "Firms with 1,000 employees or more.")

[^95]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^96]: *Id*.