**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CC Docket No. 90-571         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Telecommunications Relay         | ) |                              |
| Services and the Americans with  | * |                              |
| Disabilities Act of 1990         | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

> **SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted:** March 13, 2001 **Released:** March 16, 2001

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

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

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Paragraph Number

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND 4

A. Coin Sent-Paid Requirement 4

B. Alternative Plan 7

C. 1997 and 1998 Suspension Orders 18

D. Response to the 1997 and 1998 Suspension Orders 21

III\. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 24

A. Overview of Proposed Rules 24

B. Proposed Rules 31

1\. Payment Methods 31

2\. Consumer Education Programs 40

3\. TTY to TTY Calls from Payphones 53

4\. Monitoring Technological Solutions to the Coin Sent-paid Issue 55

5\. Impact of the Recent Commission Decisions on our Proposed Rules 57

IV\. CONCLUSION 58

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 59

A. [Ex Parte]{.underline} Presentations 59

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 60

C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 72

D. Comment Filing Procedures 73

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 81

# INTRODUCTION

1.  Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is
    codified at section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended (the Act), mandates that the Commission ensure that
    interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services (TRS)
    are available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient
    manner, to individuals in the United States with hearing and speech
    disabilities.[^1] Title IV aims to further the Act's goal of
    universal service by providing to individuals with hearing or speech
    disabilities, telephone services that are functionally equivalent to
    those available to individuals without such disabilities. The
    Commission is fully committed to furthering these goals in the
    manner directed by Congress.

2.  The ADA requires the Commission to establish functional
    requirements, guidelines, and operational procedures for TRS, and to
    establish minimum standards for carriers' provisioning of TRS. To
    establish a TRS that provides services which are functionally
    equivalent to telephone services available to voice users, Congress
    directed, among other things, that the Commission prohibit TRS
    providers from "failing to fulfill the obligations of common
    carriers by refusing calls."[^2] In its *First* *Report and Order on
    TRS*, the Commission interpreted this ADA mandate to require TRS
    providers to handle "any type of call normally provided by common
    carriers," and placed the burden of proving the infeasibility of
    handling a particular type of call on the carriers.[^3] The
    Commission interpreted \"any type of call\" to include coin
    sent-paid calls, which are calls made by depositing coins in a
    standard coin-operated public payphone.[^4] Subsequent concerns
    about the technical difficulties associated with handling coin
    sent-paid calls through TRS centers, however, resulted in multiple
    suspensions of the mandate for TRS providers to handle these types
    calls. The Commission issued the first of these suspensions in 1993;
    the most recent of these suspensions remains in effect through May
    26, 2001.[^5]

3.  Because no technological solution to the coin sent-paid issue
    appears imminent, we issue this *Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* (*Notice*) to determine the best plan to make the full
    range of payphone services available to TRS users. Section 225 of
    the Act requires the Commission to ensure that interstate and
    intrastate relay services are available throughout the country and
    to promulgate regulations prohibiting relay operators from failing
    to fulfill the obligations of common carriers by refusing calls.[^6]
    Thus, the Commission has a responsibility to seek further
    information on the coin sent-paid issue in order to provide persons
    with hearing and speech disabilities with the most efficient manner
    of utilizing TRS from payphones. Furthermore, the Commission has a
    responsibility under section 225(d)(1)(D) of the Act to ensure that
    "users of telecommunications relay services pay rates no greater
    than the rates paid for functionally equivalent voice communications
    services . . . ."[^7] As a result of this obligation, the Commission
    must determine if the coin sent-paid rules are efficient and
    cost-effective for TRS users. In this *Notice*, we therefore seek
    comment on whether to modify the Commission's rules to permit TRS
    providers to treat coin sent-paid TRS calls in a manner different
    from all other calls, or to suspend permanently the enforcement of
    the requirement that TRS be capable of handling any type of call
    with respect to coin sent-paid calls. Additionally, we seek input on
    our proposed rules to provide functionally equivalent payphone
    service to TRS users in order to develop a sound policy on the
    obligations of TRS providers with respect to coin sent-paid calls.

# BACKGROUND 

## Coin Sent-Paid Requirement 

4.  Congress directed that TRS providers be capable of handling all
    calls normally provided by common carriers. In accordance with this
    mandate, the Commission required, in its First Report and Order on
    TRS, that TRS providers be able to handle coin sent-paid calls by
    July 26, 1993.[^8] Prior to the 1993 deadline, interested parties
    filed petitions for reconsideration of the Order adopting this coin
    sent-paid requirement, arguing that TRS was incompatible with coin
    sent-paid technology.[^9] The Commission found that the petitioning
    carriers had failed to meet their heavy burden of proving the
    infeasibility of providing a service readily available to voice
    telephone users.[^10] The Commission found no basis to exempt TRS
    providers from handling coin sent-paid calls, and again ordered
    carriers to comply with the coin sent-paid requirement by July 26,
    1993.[^11]

5.  As the July 26, 1993 implementation date for TRS providers to handle
    coin sent-paid calls approached, several parties requested that the
    Commission exclude coin sent-paid calls from the mandatory minimum
    TRS requirements.[^12] Petitioners explained that TRS was not
    connected to the Automated Coin Telephone System or the Traffic
    Operator Position System (TOPS), which are used for rating coin
    sent-paid calls on a real time basis. Handling TRS calls made with
    coins at payphones, they contended, would be technically difficult
    because a relay call is, in fact, two separate calls \-- one from
    the customer to the relay center and a second call from the relay
    center to the called party. Commenters argued that TOPS, the system
    for assessing the correct charge for coin calls, and for handling
    coin collection and return functions, is only able to rate the first
    leg of the call. Neither TOPS nor the TRS centers are equipped to
    rate the second leg of the call, which reaches the caller's
    destination.

6.  At the same time that the petitioners asserted that it was
    infeasible to handle coin sent-paid calls, they suggested that
    within two years, new technologies would be available to solve the
    technical difficulties.[^13] Consequently, the Bureau suspended the
    coin sent-paid rule for an additional two years, until July 26,
    1995, so that carriers could develop the technology to provide the
    coin sent-paid service to TRS users.[^14]

## Alternative Plan 

7.  Shortly after the release of the Bureau's 1993 Suspension Order, an
    industry team was created to resolve the technical problems
    associated with handling coin sent-paid relay calls. This team
    developed a solution using a network platform, called the Coin
    Signaling Interface (CSI), which would provide an interface between
    the relay center and the payphone to rate the call. Notwithstanding
    the development of this solution, as July 26, 1995 approached,
    several carriers again petitioned the Commission for a continued
    suspension of the requirement that TRS providers handle coin
    sent-paid calls. Petitioners asserted that the CSI technology had
    serious drawbacks, and that compliance with the coin sent-paid
    requirement still was not technically feasible.[^15] Petitioners
    proposed an Alternative Plan to enable individuals to make relay
    calls from payphones using payment methods other than coins. The
    Alternative Plan proposed to require carriers to: (1) allow TRS
    users to make local TRS payphone calls free of charge; (2) enable
    TRS users to make toll calls by using calling or prepaid (debit)
    cards with rates equivalent to or less than those that would apply
    to a similar conventional call made using coin sent-paid service
    (coin call rates); and (3) develop programs to educate TRS users
    about alternative payment methods and to make calling or prepaid
    cards available to TRS users. Interested parties filed comments and
    reply comments on the petitions.[^16] The Bureau suspended
    enforcement of the coin sent-paid requirement for one month until
    August 26, 1995 to evaluate the record.[^17]

8.  On August 25, 1995, the Bureau released a *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* (*Interim* *Plan Order*) in which it concluded that providing
    the TRS coin sent-paid service was not technically feasible at that
    time.[^18] The Bureau agreed with commenters that the CSI technology
    would have serious drawbacks. Specifically, the Bureau found: (1)
    that this technology would result in a 20-30 second post dialing
    delay, calling into question whether such calls would be
    functionally equivalent to conventional coin sent-paid calls; (2)
    that, in violation of the Commission's rules, it would not be able
    to accommodate calls from TTYs that transmit data using the American
    Standard Code for Information Interexchange (ASCII);[^19] and (3)
    that it would require a special relay access number -- different
    from each state's TRS relay number -- to be routed through the CSI
    platform. Finally, the Bureau acknowledged that operating the CSI
    platform would be extremely expensive.[^20] Based on these findings,
    the Bureau suspended the TRS coin sent-paid requirement for an
    additional two years, until August 26, 1997, and adopted the
    Alternative Plan for the two-year interim period.[^21] The Bureau
    also directed carriers to file two reports on the effectiveness of
    the Alternative Plan, due 12 and 18 months after the issuance of the
    Bureau\'s Order. (*12-Month Report* and *18-Month Report*
    respectively).[^22]

9.  [12-Month Report]{.underline}. On August 26, 1996, USTA, on behalf
    of the TRS Industry Team (Team),[^23] filed the *12-Month
    Report.*[^24] In this Report, the Team reported that a variety of
    consumer education programs had been effective in teaching TRS users
    how individuals with hearing and speech disabilities could use
    payphones. [^25] The Report also stated that the Team had consulted
    with representatives of the TRS user community and had revised the
    educational materials to accommodate the latter\'s concerns. The
    Team reported that fewer than 10 complaints about the Alternative
    Plan had been registered and that these complaints did not challenge
    the substance of the Alternative Plan, but were directed towards
    ancillary issues, such as the use of calling cards and prepaid
    cards.[^26] The *12-Month Report* represented that all complaints
    had been handled promptly and that no subsequent corrective action
    was necessary.

10. The *12-Month Report* included comments from the National
    Association for the Deaf (\"NAD\") questioning the effectiveness of
    the consumer education campaign. According to the NAD, much of the
    campaign\'s material promoted individual relay providers or
    telecommunications companies rather than providing educational
    information about the relay service. NAD also stated that the Team
    had not successfully implemented the Alternative Plan\'s requirement
    that the rates for toll calls using calling or prepaid cards not
    exceed coin-call rates.

11. 1[8]{.underline}[-Month Report]{.underline}. The *18-Month
    Report*[^27] recommended that the Alternative Plan be made permanent
    because: (1) the only technical solution that can provide the coin
    sent-paid service is CSI, which has serious deficiencies; (2) CSI is
    not cost effective, based on the limited volume of TRS calls made
    using payphones; and (3) the CSI solution is even more expensive
    than reported at the time of the Bureau\'s *1995 Suspension Order*,
    because of the Commission\'s decisions in the *1996 Payphone
    Orders*[^28] and the docket addressing N11 codes and other
    abbreviated dialing arrangements.[^29] The *18-Month Report* further
    contended that carriers had educated consumers about the TRS through
    presentations made to state, regional, and national entities that
    represented individuals with hearing disabilities and to more
    general audiences, such as schools and community organizations. The
    *18-Month Report* also described future planned educational efforts
    by the Team.

12. The *18-Month Report* stated that most TRS centers accept prepaid or
    debit cards.[^30] The Report stated, however, that TRS centers do
    not know the specific charges that are associated with each prepaid
    card and that the rates and practices of prepaid card providers
    vary. The Report explained that \"some prepaid cards charge
    consumers by units (rather than by minutes of use), some offer flat
    rate charges, while others charge different units or minutes based
    on the area code of the number to be called.\"[^31] According to the
    Report, some prepaid cards even charge for uncompleted calls, such
    as when a busy signal is encountered. The *18-Month Report* argued
    that TRS centers cannot ensure that every prepaid card provider\'s
    rates or practices are the same as those of the vendor that provides
    TRS for a particular state. Furthermore, because the prepaid card
    market consists of over 400 prepaid card providers, the *18-Month
    Report* asserted that it is not feasible for the vendor to explain
    the differences between cards to TRS users. The *18-Month Report*
    contended that the TRS centers should not be required to educate TRS
    users about products or services that they do not offer or over
    which they have no control.[^32]

13. The Bureau requested comments on the Alternative Plan and the 12 and
    18 month status reports by Public Notice dated May 9, 1997.[^33]
    Commission staff subsequently met with representatives from the NAD,
    Consumer Action Network (CAN) and TDI on June 17, 1997, and with
    representatives from Sprint, MCI, AT&T and USTA on June 18,
    1997.[^34] All those participating in these discussions acknowledged
    the carriers\' contention that current CSI technology had serious
    deficiencies, and that, at the time, it was not a viable technology
    for providing TRS coin sent-paid service. Representatives of TRS
    consumers, however, believed that the consumer education part of the
    Alternative Plan had not been effective in informing TRS users about
    how they can use payphones to make relay calls.

14. In comments to the Public Notice, carriers generally argued that
    coin sent-paid service offered through the CSI platform to TRS users
    would not be functionally equivalent to the coin sent-paid service
    available to non-TRS users.[^35] The post dial delay, the need for a
    separate access number, and the inability to handle calls were all
    cited as problems associated with the CSI solution.[^36] Many
    carriers argued that it would be unreasonable to require carriers to
    deploy an expensive and seriously deficient technical solution to
    provide coin sent-paid service through TRS centers.[^37] Indeed, GTE
    contended that it would not be unreasonable to assume that, as
    companies implement the Commission\'s directives in the *1996
    Payphone Orders*, the costs associated with implementing the CSI
    would actually increase.[^38]

15. All carriers and organizations representing carriers filed comments
    that supported making the Alternative Plan permanent.[^39] AT&T
    argued that there was no prospect that new technology would be
    developed in the foreseeable future to provide coin sent-paid calls
    through TRS centers.[^40] APCC noted that the Alternative Plan
    satisfies the statutory requirement that the TRS be provided \"to
    the extent possible\" and that communication service for all
    individuals is not mandated regardless of cost.[^41] SWBT and the
    Pacific Companies asserted that the Alternative Plan offers TRS
    users convenient ways to make coin sent-paid payphone calls for no
    more than is charged for conventional coin sent-paid calls.[^42]
    Additionally, carriers argued that the Alternative Plan burdened
    neither the TRS Fund[^43] nor carriers with enormous costs,
    disproportionate to the net benefit.[^44]

16. CAN and NAD agreed that, at the time, the technical and economic
    difficulties associated with completing coin sent-paid calls to
    relay centers precluded direct coin access to TRS.[^45] These groups
    recommended continued suspension of the coin sent-paid requirement,
    albeit for a limited period of time.[^46] They noted that technology
    is rapidly changing and may eliminate the technical and economic
    obstacles to TRS centers handling coin sent-paid calls.[^47]

17. These non-carrier commenters also argued that the educational
    components of the plan had not been effective because relay users
    still remained unaware of both the options for using prepaid or
    calling cards, and the procedures to be followed to make TRS calls
    from payphones.[^48] They suggested that the Commission strengthen
    the consumer education programs by requiring carriers to take a
    variety of additional steps to disseminate information about using
    TRS from payphones.[^49] Finally, these commenters recommended that
    the Commission monitor carriers\' progress with respect to their
    educational efforts by requiring that carriers submit a status
    report.[^50]

## 1997 and 1998 Suspension Orders 

18. On August 21, 1997, the Bureau released an Order suspending the
    enforcement of the coin sent-paid requirement for an additional year
    until August 26, 1998 (*1997 Suspension Order*).[^51] The Bureau
    found that providing the coin sent-paid service through TRS centers
    still was not technically feasible and that no technical solution
    appeared imminent. Consequently, the Bureau recommended that the
    Commission conduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether the
    Commission\'s requirement that TRS providers be capable of handling
    all calls, including coin sent-paid calls, should be modified.

19. In the *1997 Suspension Order*, the Bureau directed carriers to
    continue implementing the Alternative Plan set forth in the *1995
    Suspension Order*, and also to implement several of the consumer
    education proposals contained in the *18-Month Report.*[^52]
    Specifically, the Bureau directed the industry to (1) work with the
    hearing and speech disabled community to create and disseminate
    materials about TRS coin sent-paid calls, without advertising the
    services of individual carriers or relay providers; (2) send a
    consumer education letter, which had been developed in consultation
    with the Consumer Action Network (CAN), to TRS centers, which could
    then use the letter to educate TRS callers about using
    payphones; (3) send one or more representatives to regional and
    national meetings sponsored by the hearing and speech disability
    community to disseminate information, and to demonstrate how to call
    TRS centers from payphones;[^53] (4) consult with representatives
    from organizations that represent the hearing and speech disability
    community to determine the feasibility of executing other proposals
    contained in the *18-Month Report*, including a proposal to include
    articles in the magazines or newsletters of CAN\'s member
    organizations, and a proposal to create a laminated card with visual
    characters depicting how callers could make relay calls from
    payphones. The Bureau also required carriers to submit a report on
    their efforts to comply with the Bureau's directives to the
    Commission within two months of the publication of a summary of the
    *1997 Suspension Order* in the Federal Register.[^54] Carriers filed
    this report on November 7, 1997.

20. On August 10, 1998, the Bureau issued an order continuing the
    suspension of the coin sent-paid requirement. The *1998 Suspension
    Order* also extended the terms and conditions set forth in the *1997
    Suspension Order* until August 26, 1999.[^55] Since 1998, the Bureau
    has issued two additional orders suspending the coin sent-paid
    rules.[^56] The most recent suspension order, released on August 23,
    2000, suspends the coin sent-paid requirements for nine months or
    until such time as the Commission adopts final rules governing TRS
    users' access to payphones, whichever is earlier.[^57] This
    suspension will end on May 26, 2001.

## Response to the 1997 and 1998 Suspension Orders 

21. In a letter dated December 2, 1998,[^58] the Industry Team informed
    the Commission that it had taken several steps to comply with the
    directives set forth in the *1997 Suspension Order*. Among other
    things, the Industry Team explained that it had modified the
    consumer education letter with input from CAN and approximately
    eighteen organizations representing individuals with hearing and
    speech disabilities. The Team stated that it had disseminated the
    letter to TRS centers; published it in newsletters and on websites,
    and distributed it at a variety of meetings and conventions. The
    Industry Team indicated that, in consultation with the TRS user
    community, it had also produced a wallet-sized card with pictorial
    illustrations and instructions on how to access TRS centers from
    payphones. The Industry Team informed us that it had attended all
    national meetings sponsored by TRS user organizations named in the
    *1997 Suspension Order*[^59] and hundreds of regional and local
    meetings;[^60] that it had posted the educational letter next to the
    TTY payphones located in facilities hosting the national and
    regional meetings; and that it had created a videotape, for use at
    consumer meetings and conventions, containing step-by-step
    procedures for making a TRS call from a payphone.

22. In April and May of 1999, we received consumer responses to the TRS
    Coin Sent-Paid Industry Team Activity Report.[^61] These responses
    contended that the educational letter had not been printed in
    various organizational newsletters, that coin sent-paid exhibits at
    conferences did not include prominent displays or hands-on
    opportunities for consumers, that wallet-sized cards were
    inconspicuously displayed, and that program books of various events
    did not list information or workshops about the Alternative
    Plan.[^62] Responding parties also raised concerns about efforts to
    educate the public through web sites, noting that potential users of
    coin sent-paid phones may not have computers and therefore, access
    to such sites.[^63]

23. In its April 1999 Response, CAN requested that the Commission
    require the Industry Team to develop an annual funding plan, in
    consultation with CAN, to address the objectives of the Alternative
    Plan, as modified in 1995. CAN noted that it would support permanent
    adoption of the Alternative Plan if this funding plan proved to be
    successful in expanding awareness about TRS payphone access.

#  NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

## Overview of Proposed Rules 

24. [Request for Comments.]{.underline} To date the record developed in
    this proceeding demonstrates that providing a functionally
    equivalent coin sent-paid service to TRS users is not technically
    feasible at this time. Section 225 of the Act requires that carriers
    provide relay services which are "functionally equivalent" to voice
    telephone service.[^64] To date, only one solution for processing
    coin sent-paid relay calls -- the CSI solution -- has been
    developed. In order to determine whether payphone service offered to
    TRS users over the CSI platform would satisfy section 225, we must
    examine whether this service meets this \"functional equivalency\"
    mandate. We tentatively agree with commenting carriers and
    non-carriers that implementing the CSI platform to provide coin
    sent-paid access to the TRS centers at this time would not create a
    TRS service that is functionally equivalent to coin sent-paid or
    other payphone services available to non-TRS users.[^65] First, the
    20 to 30 second delay on calls made using CSI technology would make
    the relay service much slower than traditional payphone service,
    seriously inconveniencing TRS users. In addition, the CSI platform
    is not compatible with the ASCII format, and therefore its
    implementation would violate section 64.604(b)(1) of our rules,
    which requires TRS to be compatible with both the ASCII and Baudot
    formats.[^66]

25. Throughout the history of this proceeding, we have sought technical
    solutions other than the CSI solution to meet the functional
    equivalence requirement of Section 225 of the Act. The industry,
    however, has been unable to develop such technical solutions for the
    last ten years. Based on the current record, we specifically propose
    that it is unlikely that the industry will develop an economically
    feasible technical solution in the foreseeable future.

26. Based on the data for toll calls for non-TRS users, we tentatively
    conclude that the number of toll coin sent-paid calls that TRS users
    would make, if they could, would be small, and might be
    significantly less than two percent of all relay calls. We base our
    conclusion on data, provided by AT&T in the *18**-Month Report,*
    stating that the percentage of coin usage on its network has
    declined from slightly over 2 percent in 1993 to 1 percent in 1996.
    According to AT&T, the decline in coin sent-paid calls can be
    expected to continue in the face of recent marketplace developments,
    such as the growth of prepaid card use, broader deployment of
    calling cards, and the development of competitive alternatives such
    as wireless telephony.[^67] We also base our conclusion that TRS
    toll usage is minimal on the fact that TRS payphone calls in
    general, including calls made using calling cards or prepaid cards
    and third party collect calls, comprised less than two percent
    (between 1.35 percent and 1.97 percent) of all TRS calls in
    1996.[^68] We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Parties who
    dispute our conclusion should submit any available data or other
    available supporting evidence relating to coin sent-paid call usage
    for non-TRS users and payphone call usage for TRS users.

27. Section 64.604(a)(3) of our rules requires carriers to handle all
    calls, including coin sent-paid calls, unless carriers can prove the
    infeasibility of handling a particular type of call. Given our
    specific proposals that: (1) employing CSI would not satisfy the
    functional equivalency test under section 225 of the Act; (2) there
    is no other known technical solution to provide coin sent-paid
    calling through the TRS centers; and (3) coin sent-paid usage is
    continuing to decrease among non-TRS users, we propose to eliminate
    the obligation of carriers to handle coin sent-paid calls to TRS
    center, as currently required by section 64.604(a)(3) of our rules.
    In its place, we propose new rules in this Notice that are designed
    both to enable TRS users, without coins, to make relay calls from
    payphones that are functionally equivalent to calls by non-TRS
    users, and to provide the education and outreach needed to ensure
    that TRS consumers are aware of the methods by which they can make
    these calls.

28. Our proposal to eliminate the requirement that TRS providers be able
    to handle coin sent-paid calls will eliminate as well the
    uncertainty that our temporary suspensions have created for both the
    industry and consumers.[^69] Instead, we specifically propose that
    carriers must provide a payphone service for TRS users that is
    functionally equivalent to that provided to callers not using a
    relay service. We intend our proposed rules to provide clear
    direction on how carriers must achieve functionally equivalent
    payphone service for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, or
    who have speech disabilities. The decline in the number of coin
    sent-paid calls by non-TRS users and the increase in prepaid and
    calling card usage for all users suggest that our proposed approach
    may better fit TRS users\' needs and patterns of usage, as well as
    nationwide patterns, and that it would be more technically and
    economically sound than implementing the CSI technology.[^70]

29. We recognize that section 225(d)(2) requires the Commission\'s
    regulations to encourage the use of existing technology and not to
    discourage or impair the development of improved technology. We,
    therefore, encourage carriers and equipment manufacturers to develop
    future improvements in coin sent-paid technology that could support
    coin sent-paid service through TRS centers. We invite interested
    parties to submit information about new technologies that can
    provide coin sent-paid service through the TRS centers in a manner
    that is functionally equivalent to traditional payphone service. We
    note that if such a new technology were developed, the Commission
    would reexamine these issues and its findings in this
    proceeding.[^71] Parties that disagree with our proposal to exempt
    coin sent-paid calls from our current TRS requirements should
    comment on the costs and burdens of any uncertainty that will result
    if we continue to suspend enforcement of section 64.604(a)(3) of our
    rules insofar as coin sent-paid calls are concerned, on a temporary
    basis.

30. In order to ensure compliance with section 225 of the Act and
    section 64.604(a)(3) of our rules, TRS must be capable of handling
    all other types of payphone calls -- other than coin sent-paid --
    that are normally provided by common carriers. To fulfill these
    statutory and regulatory requirements and to ensure that TRS calls
    made through payphones are functionally equivalent to voice calls
    made through payphones, we specifically propose that common carriers
    should: (1) not charge TRS users for making calls that would
    otherwise be local from payphones; (2) enable TRS users to use
    calling cards, credit or third party billing for toll calls from
    payphones at rates which are the lower of the coin sent-paid rate or
    the rate for the calling card, credit, or third party billing;
    and (3) conduct extensive consumer education programs to educate TRS
    users about their payphone calling options. Our proposed rules are
    based on the Alternative Plan, and the experience associated with
    its implementation. We seek comment on the foregoing specific
    proposals and on the attached proposed rules.

## Proposed Rules 

### Payment Methods 

####  Local Calls

31. First, we specifically propose that local payphone calls made
    through TRS centers must be provided by carriers to TRS users on a
    cost-free basis. When a TRS user makes a relay call from a payphone,
    computer technology at the TRS center identifies the call as a
    payphone call. If the TRS user, then seeks to make a local call,
    carriers' "coin supervision" equipment in the central offices cannot
    process and supervise coin deposits for the second leg of the call
    from the payphone. The level of prevalent charges for local calls
    from payphones also makes it cost ineffective for such local calls
    to be billed later. Accordingly, when the CA observes on the
    computer monitor that the second leg of the call is a local one, the
    CA should indicate to the local carrier that it should not bill the
    TRS user for the local call.

32. Problems with billing for local calls from payphones may arise when
    TRS users access payphones using prepaid cards. If a consumer uses
    TRS for a local call from a payphone and provides the CA with the
    prepaid card\'s access number, the TRS user may be charged for the
    call because some prepaid cards start charging the moment the number
    to access the carrier\'s services is dialed. The CA has no way to
    delay the commencement of charges or to reverse the charges once
    they are incurred. Moreover, according to CAN, the definition of a
    local payphone call under the Alternative Plan has varied across
    states and TRS centers.[^72] CAN explains that, in some cases, a TRS
    user may be charged as if the call were a long distance call even
    though the distance between the caller and the called party is only
    a few blocks.[^73] We seek comment on methods to ensure that the TRS
    user that makes a local payphone call is not charged for the
    call.[^74]

33. We seek comment on whether we should adopt requirements to assist
    TRS users to avoid having to provide the prepaid card\'s access code
    to CAs for local calls. We specifically propose that CAs should ask
    TRS users for the telephone number to be dialed and tell the TRS
    users if the call is local, thereby precluding the need for the
    caller to provide a payment method. In addition, we propose to
    require carriers to implement consumer education programs that
    explain how and when to use pre-paid cards. Among other things, such
    programs should alert consumers that they should not use these cards
    for local calls. We seek comment on these proposals.

#### Toll Calls 

34. Second, we specifically propose that callers must be able to use
    calling cards, collect or third party billing to pay for toll calls
    from payphones using TRS centers. We further conclude that carriers
    may not charge more than the lower of the coin sent-paid rate or the
    rate for the calling card, collect, or third-party billing, for toll
    calls from payphones using TRS centers. This proposal differs
    slightly from the Alternative Plan, in that the Plan gave carriers
    the option of providing payphone TRS calls at coin call rates
    through *either* a calling card *or* a prepaid card. Although our
    proposed rules will not regulate the rate of toll TRS payphone calls
    made with prepaid cards, they offer TRS users other payment options
    for calls from payphones. We seek comment on our specific proposals.

35. Our specific proposal that carriers need not offer both calling and
    prepaid cards at rates equivalent to or less than the coin sent-paid
    rate is based on a number of factors**.**[^75] First, the Commission
    has no regulations regarding rates for prepaid card vendors that are
    not carriers.[^76] In *AT&T Corp. v. Bell South Corporation*, the
    Bureau explained that such prepaid calling cards function merely as
    a form of currency that permits holders to place both local and long
    distance calls when they are away from home.[^77] Thus, such cards
    are merely a method of billing and collecting. The Bureau therefore
    concluded that BellSouth's association with and issuance of, the
    BellSouth Prepaid Phone Card does not amount to the "provision" of
    in-region, interlata service in violation of section 271 of the
    Act.[^78] Furthermore, because prepaid card rates could vary
    significantly from vendor to vendor, it would be difficult to
    educate TRS users about the wide variation in prepaid card rates and
    to guarantee to TRS users that the prepaid card rates offered by
    certain carriers would be equivalent to or less than the coin
    sent-paid rate. Second, implementing the proposal could place
    carriers at a competitive disadvantage relative to other prepaid
    card vendors in the prepaid market because non-carrier prepaid card
    vendors could set market rates for their prepaid cards, while
    carriers would be prohibited from offering prepaid cards at rates
    greater than the coin sent-paid rate. We specifically propose that
    requiring carriers to provide prepaid cards at or below the coin
    sent-paid rate would not be feasible.

36. Rather than require carriers to offer prepaid cards at or below coin
    call rates, we propose to require all carriers to offer a calling
    card and to accept payphone TRS calls using third party or collect
    billing at or below the lower of the coin call rate or the rate of
    the method of payment chosen by the caller. [^79] We specifically
    propose that this proposal would satisfy carriers\' obligations
    under Title IV of the ADA to provide a functionally equivalent
    payphone service to that provided to non-TRS users. Under our
    proposed rules, although carriers would be required to offer coin
    sent-paid calling at the lower of coin sent-paid, calling card, and
    third party and collect billing rates for TRS users, carriers could
    continue to set their own prepaid card rates.[^80] Commenters have
    expressed confusion over the rates of relay calls made from
    payphones using calling cards or prepaid cards. For example, NAD
    suggests that consumers are not clear about whether they have a
    choice of using either calling or prepaid cards -- or just one of
    these methods -- at coin call rates.[^81] Similarly, USTA notes that
    the terms and rates of prepaid cards vary widely because these cards
    are offered by carriers as well as non-carriers.[^82] We
    specifically propose that our proposal would alleviate much of the
    confusion which exists under the Alternative Plan about obtaining
    TRS rates that are functionally equivalent to coin rates. This is
    because our proposed rule would provide assurance that the lowest
    rate for TRS payphone calls, whether it is the coin sent-paid,
    calling card, third party or collect billing rate, would be the rate
    charged the TRS user. By permitting callers to use calling card,
    third party and collect billing at whichever rate is lower, the coin
    call rates or the billing method chosen by the caller, we also
    believe we will eliminate problems that may be encountered by low
    income callers who may not qualify for calling cards. This option is
    especially important because carriers may opt only to provide
    calling cards, and not pre-paid cards, at the lower rate.

37. We seek comment on the above proposal. Specifically, we request that
    commenters identify carriers that have chosen to comply with the
    Alternative Plan by offering a prepaid card at or below the coin
    call rate. This information will enable the Commission to determine
    how many carriers will be required to change their current practice
    of complying with the Alternative Plan and any hardship that might
    be involved in complying with the Commission\'s proposed rules. In
    addition, because new payment methods for payphones may become
    available, we seek comment generally on how our proposed rules
    should accommodate these new payment methods (i.e., smart cards).
    Finally, if we adopt this proposal, we seek comment on specific
    educational efforts that would be needed to acquaint consumers with
    information about the least expensive means of completing TRS calls
    from payphones.

38. CAN raises the concern that carriers often impose surcharges on TRS
    calls from payphones when consumers use a calling card.[^83] This
    has the undesired effect of causing the rate plus the surcharge to
    exceed the coin call rate. In order to eliminate this problem, we
    propose to clarify that carriers may impose surcharges on payphone
    calls but that the total cost of the surcharge and the calling card
    rate must not exceed the coin sent-paid rate.

39. Additionally, CAN raises the concern that TRS users are sometimes
    charged more than once for making toll payphone calls that reach an
    answering machine or an interactive voice responsive (IVR)
    system.[^84] This occurs where the CA does not have sufficient time
    both to inform the caller that a recorded message has been reached
    and to leave a message.[^85] In this situation, TRS users may be
    charged for multiple calls to the same number. To remedy this, we
    specifically propose that carriers should charge TRS users for only
    one call if the TRS user makes a relay call that reaches an
    answering machine or an IVR system and must make subsequent relay
    calls to leave a message on the machine or to retrieve information
    from the IVR system. This approach is consistent with changes made
    in the Commission's recent Report and Order on relay services, which
    now prohibits charges for additional calls needed to complete
    interactions with recorded messages.[^86] We ask for comment on how
    to ensure that TRS users are not charged twice in this situation.

### Consumer Education Programs 

40. We next address the issue of educating TRS users about their ability
    to make payphone calls. In recent Commission proceedings on TRS, we
    have noted the importance of adequate outreach and education to
    expand awareness about the availability of TRS. For example, in the
    *Improved TRS Order*, we reaffirmed the obligation of carriers to
    ensure that callers in their service areas are aware of TRS, noting
    that broad awareness is critical to meeting the functional
    equivalency mandate and to the provision of high quality relay
    services.[^87] In a *Further Notice* accompanying that Order, we
    proposed a number of rule changes designed to increase awareness
    about the availability and use of TRS. Similarly, in the *N11 Second
    Report and Order,* we noted the importance of comprehensive outreach
    in educating the public about the availability of 711 as the
    nationwide relay access code.[^88] Toward that end, we established a
    new rule requiring ongoing education and outreach programs to
    publicize the availability of 711 access "in a manner reasonably
    designed to reach the largest number of consumers possible."[^89]

41. We continue to believe that extensive outreach campaigns are
    necessary to expand consumer awareness about making TRS calls from
    payphones. Over the past several years, TRS consumers and industry
    have generally reached consensus on the types of outreach and
    education that can be effective for this purpose. Several of these
    measures have already been implemented by carriers. For example, in
    18-Month Report, the TRS Industry Team reported that it had prepared
    an informational letter and news article for consumer publications,
    had participated in exhibits at national and regional consumer
    conferences, and had developed a laminated card providing a
    pictorial explanation about TRS access from payphones. Virtually all
    of the consumer education projects undertaken by the Industry Team
    were the product of extensive discussions and consultation with the
    TRS consumer community.

42. In June 1997, consumers raised concerns about the effectiveness of
    the outreach efforts that had been reported in the Industry Team's
    18-Month Report. In response, the Bureau, in its *1997 Suspension
    Order*, directed the industry to further expand its consumer
    education proposals. As noted earlier,[^90] the *1997 Order*
    contained directives to create and disseminate materials about TRS
    coin sent-paid calls, send a consumer education letter to TRS
    centers, send one or more representatives to regional and national
    consumer meetings, and to consult with representatives of the
    hearing and speech disability community in carrying out each of
    these measures. In a letter to the Commission dated December 2,
    1998, the TRS Industry Team reported that, in fact, it had taken
    several additional steps to comply with the directives contained in
    the *1997 Order*. At that time, the Team reported that it had
    modified the consumer education letter with input from consumer
    organizations, disseminated the letter through TRS centers,
    newsletters, conferences, and websites, produced a wallet-sized card
    with pictorial illustrations, and had attended hundreds of national,
    regional, and local consumer conferences and meetings.

43. Notwithstanding the various outreach measures reported by the
    Industry Team, we remain concerned that the Industry Team\'s
    educational efforts have not been effective in educating the TRS
    community about their payphone options.[^91] In April and May of
    1999, we received consumer submissions that contended that the
    educational letter had not been printed in various organizational
    newsletters, that coin sent-paid exhibits at conferences did not
    include prominent displays or hands-on opportunities for consumers,
    and that program books of various events did not list information or
    workshops about the Alternative Plan. Parties also raised concerns
    about the failure to effectively distribute the laminated
    informational card and about reliance on educating the public
    through websites, noting that potential users of coin sent-paid
    phones may not have computers and therefore, access to such sites.

44. We specifically propose that implementation of the current
    educational and outreach programs has not been fully adequate. We
    believe, however, that this may be due to a reluctance on the part
    of the industry to engage in more extensive outreach efforts prior
    to our issuing a final rule resolving the issue of TRS calls from
    payphones. Our present proposal to eliminate the coin sent-paid
    mandate will open the door for the industry to now turn its efforts
    to expanding its educational programs. To this end, we seek comment
    on the following outreach proposals, many of which are the product
    of an industry-consumer consensus, and several of which more clearly
    define proposals already contained in our *1997 Order*. [^92]

45. First, propose to require that carriers mail to CAN members and
    member organizations and to TRS centers, a consumer education letter
    providing instruction on how to make TRS payphone calls and the
    various options available for payment of these calls. Carriers
    should consult with organizations representing individuals with
    hearing or speech disabilities to develop this letter in a manner
    that reflects the final rules adopted in this proceeding. [^93]
    Organizations representing TRS users and TRS centers could then
    disseminate this letter through newsletters and other means. We seek
    comments on the costs and benefits of preparing and distributing a
    letter of this kind.

46. Second, we specifically propose that carriers should attend and set
    up informational booths at local, regional and national consumer
    conferences of organizations representing people who are deaf, hard
    of hearing and speech disabled. At the booths, designees should
    disseminate educational material, which may include, but not be
    limited to, wallet-size cards with visual characters and text
    describing how to make relay calls from payphones. In addition,
    designees could provide \"hands-on\" demonstrations on access to TRS
    centers from payphones. We propose that carriers consult with
    consumers on the best means by which carriers can provide these
    demonstrations, i.e., whether carriers should play a videotape at
    the booth or set up a live demonstration using payphones.

47. Third, we seek comment on whether carriers should be required to
    place instructions on how to make TRS payphone calls, near or on TTY
    payphones located in public areas. Comments on this proposal should
    discuss the steps involved in posting the instructions, the location
    for the instructions, the entity responsible for posting the
    instructions, the costs involved, and ways to ensure that the
    instructions are not removed.

48. Fourth, we seek comment on whether we should require carriers to
    establish an Internet web site for individuals to obtain information
    about making relay calls from payphones. The web site could
    illustrate how to make relay calls from payphones, provide
    information on the cost of such calls, display the consumer
    education letter and/or provide a video on making a relay call from
    a payphone. Comments should focus on who should create the web site,
    where it should be located, if and how the web site should be
    publicized, and who should be responsible for underwriting the cost
    for the web site.

49. Fifth, we propose, as originally suggested by GTE, to require
    carriers to place step-by-step instructions that describe how to
    make relay calls from payphones in telephone directories.[^94] GTE
    observes that the directory is permanent and answers questions
    systematically and completely. GTE also explains that notification
    through directories allows disability organizations simply to refer
    an individual to the telephone directory that covers the serving
    area for instructions on how to make a relay call.[^95] We seek
    comment on this proposal. In addition, we seek comment on the
    information that should be published in the telephone directory
    (*e.g.*, steps required to make local, and toll TRS calls from
    payphones and the costs of making these calls).

50. We specifically propose that carriers should regularly consult with
    representatives of people with hearing and speech disabilities in
    carrying out the above measures, and to determine the effectiveness
    of each of these consumer education programs. We seek comment on
    this specific proposal.

51. The consumer education programs proposed in this *Notice* are only a
    few steps that we could require to improve consumer awareness about
    making relay calls from payphones. We seek comment on additional
    methods needed to educate TRS users about their payphone options,
    and the extent to which such outreach efforts should be coordinated
    with outreach and education efforts required in our other TRS
    proceedings.[^96]

52. Finally, similar to the requirements under the Alternative Plan to
    file reports with the Commission,[^97] we specifically propose that
    twelve months after we adopt final rules in this proceeding,
    carriers should submit a report to the Commission, detailing the
    steps that have been taken to comply with the consumer education
    programs contained in our final Order. Such report will facilitate
    Commission efforts to ensure that TRS consumers have the information
    they need to complete TRS calls from payphones. We further conclude
    that should we find such report to be adequate, there shall be no
    additional periodic reporting requirements imposed on carriers. We
    note that carriers have an ongoing obligation under our rules to
    provide the public with information about the availability and use
    of the TRS, including the availability and use of payphones to
    access TRS.[^98] Our specific proposal not to require additional
    reporting by carriers after submission of this 12-month report will
    not relieve carriers of this ongoing obligation. If, after an
    investigation on our own motion or in response to a complaint, we
    find a failure to comply with these rules, we may impose forfeitures
    or additional reporting requirements. We seek comment on our
    specific proposal.

### TTY to TTY Calls from Payphones 

53. The Alternative Plan does not address TTY-to-TTY calls from
    payphones. Because TTY-to-TTY calls from payphones are typical for
    TRS users, we must ensure that TRS users are, in fact, able to make
    these calls from payphones using the carriers of their choice, at
    rates that are equivalent to voice-to-voice calls from payphones.
    Our concern is that many TRS users are either unaware of their
    ability to make TTY-to-TTY calls from payphones, unfamiliar with how
    to make those calls, or unable to use their carriers of choice when
    making such calls.

54. We ask for comment on how individuals can make TTY-to-TTY calls from
    payphones using the carriers of their choice. Specifically, we seek
    information on the step-by-step procedure for making both local and
    toll calls from payphones, tracing the path of the calls through the
    network. Further, we request information on the method of payment
    for such calls, *i.e.*, whether or when individual users can use a
    calling card or a prepaid card to make such calls, and the method of
    billing. We specifically propose that individuals must be able to
    make TTY-to-TTY calls from payphones using the carriers of their
    choice, at rates which are equivalent to voice-to-voice calls. We
    ask for comment on whether and how the Industry Team should educate
    consumers about their ability to make such calls. We tentatively
    find that education on how to make such calls is necessary and ask
    for comment on this specific proposal.

### Monitoring Technological Solutions to the Coin Sent-Paid Issue

55. Our proposal to exempt coin sent-paid calls from our TRS
    requirements on a permanent basis comes after nearly a decade of
    concerted efforts to find a technical solution that could have made
    the handling of these calls both feasible and functionally
    equivalent to conventional voice telephone calls. Although a
    technical solution still does not appear to be imminent, rapidly
    changing developments in the field of telecommunications leaves open
    the possibility that a technical solution will be developed at some
    time in the future. We are concerned that if we stop monitoring the
    technological developments, a technical solution to the coin
    sent-paid issue may not be developed. We are also mindful, however,
    of not imposing stringent reporting requirements on carriers, given
    the years spent trying to find a technical solution to the coin
    sent-paid issue.[^99]

56. We seek comment on whether and how we should monitor technological
    developments in the provision of coin sent-paid service through TRS
    centers from payphones. If technology is developed that enables coin
    sent-paid service to be provided through the TRS centers in a manner
    that is functionally equivalent to voice calls, we specifically
    propose that the Commission should revisit the issue of how best to
    meet the requirements of section 225 of the Act. First, we ask
    parties to address the extent to which we should require carriers to
    continue to study the technological issue surrounding the
    transmission of coin sent-paid calls through TRS centers. Second, we
    ask parties to comment on the costs and benefits of requiring
    carriers to monitor technological developments in the provision of
    coin sent-paid service through TRS centers. We also tentatively
    conclude that the newly formed Consumer/Disability
    Telecommunications Advisory Committee will be a useful forum for
    discussing technological developments in the provision of coin
    sent-paid calls through TRS centers.[^100] We request that parties
    with specific suggestions regarding this Advisory Committee provide
    comment on this tentative conclusion. Finally, we seek comment on
    whether the Commission should require the TRS Industry Team to file
    periodic, timely reports when new technical developments arise.

### Impact of the Recent Commission Decisions on our Proposed Rules 

57. Since the *1995 Suspension Order*, the Commission has issued the
    *1996 Payphone Orders*. Section 276(a)(1) of the Communications Act
    prohibits any Bell operating company (BOC) that provides payphone
    service from subsidizing its payphone service directly or indirectly
    from its telephone exchange service operations or its exchange
    access operations.[^101] USTA points out that although deregulating
    the payphone industry may increase local calling rates, the free
    local calls offered to TRS users under the Alternative Plan will not
    change. We seek comment on how the *1996 Payphone Orders* might
    affect relay calls from payphones or whether these orders will
    interfere with the ability of carriers to provide TRS users with
    payphone access under our proposed rules. We ask for comment on
    whether carriers should be reimbursed from the Interstate TRS Fund
    for providing TRS users with free local calls under the proposed
    rules and whether the procedures are consistent with or conflict
    with section 276(a)(1).[^102]

# CONCLUSION 

58. This *Notice* explores the means by which individuals with hearing
    and speech disabilities will be able to make calls from payphones.
    The Commission has sought approaches that accommodate the concerns
    of both carriers and individuals with hearing and speech
    disabilities. We believe that the final rules adopted at the
    conclusion of this proceeding will provide payphone service to TRS
    users that is functionally equivalent to traditional payphone
    service provided to non-TRS users. It is our intention to craft
    solutions which fulfill the mandates of Section 225 of the Act and
    which are acceptable to both carriers and individuals with hearing
    and speech disabilities.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

## [Ex Parte]{.underline} Presentations 

59. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.
    Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine
    Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the
    Commission\'s rules. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203,
    and 1.1206(a) (1994). Written submissions, however, will be limited
    as discussed below.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

60. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^103] the
    Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
    entities by the policies and rules in this *Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*. Written public comments are requested on this
    IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must
    be filed by the deadlines for comments on the *Second Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*. The Commission will send a copy of the
    *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, including this IRFA,
    to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the *Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* and IRFA (or summaries
    thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

61. *Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule Changes*. The
    Commission is issuing this *Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* to seek comment on whether to modify the Commission's
    rules to permit TRS providers to treat coin sent-paid TRS calls in a
    manner different from all other calls, or to suspend permanently the
    enforcement of the requirement that TRS be capable of handling any
    type of call with respect to coin sent-paid calls. Additionally, the
    Commission seeks input on its proposed rules to provide functionally
    equivalent payphone service to TRS users in order to develop a sound
    policy on the obligations of TRS providers with respect to coin
    sent-paid calls.

62. *Legal Basis*. The authority for actions proposed in this *Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* may be found in sections 1,
    2, 4, 225, 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. sections 1, 2, 4, 225, 303(r).

63. *Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
    the Proposed Rules Will Apply*. 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.[^104] The RFA 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.[^105] 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).[^106] The rules we are
    considering in this proceeding, will affect telecommunications relay
    service (TRS) providers, pay telephone operators and wireline
    carriers and service providers.

64. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers
    of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well
    as the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data
    the Commission publishes annually in its Telecommunications Industry
    Revenue report, regarding TRS.[^107]

65. *TRS Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of
    telecommunications relay services (TRS). The closest applicable
    definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications
    companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^108] The
    SBA defines such establishments to be small businesses when they
    have no more than 1,500 employees.[^109] According to our most
    recent data,[^110] 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 by the proposed rules, if adopted. We
    seek comment generally on our analysis identifying TRS providers,
    and specifically on whether we should conclude, for Regulatory
    Flexibility Act purposes, that any TRS providers are small entities.

66. *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.[^111] According to the most
    recent *Trends in Telephone Service* data, 615 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of pay telephone
    services.[^112] 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.

67. *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.[^113] 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.[^114] 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 incumbent
    local exchange carriers (LECs). 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 incumbent LECs.

68. 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.[^115] 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.[^116] We have therefore
    included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analyses, although we
    emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and
    determination in other, non-RFA contexts.

69. *Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
    Compliance Requirements*. The proposed rules may require carriers to
    submit status reports on any new technologies that can provide coin
    sent-paid calls through the TRS centers. Any additional costs
    incurred as a result of this proceeding should be nominal because
    the entities affected, including any small businesses, have been in
    compliance with the *Interim Plan Order*. Thus, the Commission
    expects that the proposals will have minimal impact on small
    entities. We tentatively conclude that our proposals in the *Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* would impose minimum burdens
    on small entities. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.

70. *Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered*. 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). The Commission has tentatively
    concluded that the proposed rules will have minimal impact on small
    entities.

71. *Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
    Proposed Rules.* None.

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 

72. This *Second Further Notice* contains either a proposed or modified
    information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce
    paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on
    the information collections contained in this *Second Further
    Notice*, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L.
    No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as
    other comments on this *Second Further Notice*; OMB comments are due
    60 days from date of publication of this *Second Further Notice* in
    the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the
    proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
    performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
    the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
    the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
    utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
    minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of information technology.

## Comment Filing Procedures

73. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties shall file comments on or
    before thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this *Second
    Further Notice* in the Federal Register, and reply comments
    forty-five (45) days from the date of publication of this *Second
    Further Notice* in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using
    the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
    filing paper copies. *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in
    Rulemaking Proceedings, 13 FCC Rcd. 11322, 11326 (1998).

74. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
    should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and
    the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
    electronic comments by Internet e-mail. To receive filing
    instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail
    to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body
    of the message, "get form \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form
    and directions will be sent in reply. Or you may obtain a copy of
    the ASCII Electronic Transmittal From (FORM-ET) at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/efile/email.html>.

75. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
    appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
    two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
    number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary,
    Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties
    also should send three paper copies of their filing to Pam
    Slipakoff, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 4-C421,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.

76. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette to Pam Slipakoff, Network Services Division,
    Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445
    Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 4-C421, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a
    submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an
    IBM-compatible format using Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or a
    compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover
    letter and should be submitted in "read-only" mode. The diskette
    should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding,
    including the lead docket number in the proceeding (CC Docket No.
    90-571, type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of
    submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The
    label should also include the following phrase ("Disk Copy Not an
    Original.") Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings,
    preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must
    send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor,
    International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20037.

77. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
    information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
    1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, are due on or before 30 days after date of
    publication in the Federal Register. Written comments must be
    submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the
    proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60
    days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition
    to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
    information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy
    Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th
    Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
    [jboley@fcc.gov]{.underline} and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk
    Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    20503.

78. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
    during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information
    Center of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
    SW, Washington, DC 20554, and will be placed on the Commission's
    Internet Site. Copies of comments and reply comments are available
    through ITS, Inc. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large
    print, audio cassette and Braille) are available to persons with
    disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418‑0260,
    TTY (202) 418‑2555, or at mcontee@fcc.gov, or Ruth Dancey at (202)
    418-0305, TTY (202) 418-2970, or at rdancey@fcc.gov.

79. [Other requirements]{.underline}. Comments and reply comments must
    include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments
    raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply
    with section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the
    Commissions rules. We also 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. Comments and reply comments
    also must clearly identify the specific portion of this *Second
    Further Notice* to which a particular comment or set of comments is
    responsive. If a portion of a party\'s comments does not fall under
    a particular topic listed in the outline of this *Second Further
    Notic*e, such comments must be included in a clearly labelled
    section at the beginning or end of the filing.

80. [For further information contact]{.underline}: Pam Slipakoff
    at (202) 418-7705 (voice), (202) 418-0484 (TTY), or pslipako@fcc.gov
    (e-mail).

# ORDERING CLAUSES 

81. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
    47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91(a), 0.204, 0.291 and 1.3, that enforcement of the
    requirement that Telecommunications Relay Services must be capable
    of handling coin sent-paid calls, as required by 47 C.F.R. §
    64.604(a)(3), IS SUSPENDED pending the publication in the Federal
    Register of final rules adopted in this proceeding. This Order is
    effective upon release.

82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that common carriers providing telephone voice
    transmission services, and TRS providers, shall continue to make
    payphones accessible to TRS users pursuant to the terms of the
    Alternative Plan set forth in the *1997 Suspension Order.*

83. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 225, and
    303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    151, 152, 154, 303(r), the *Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* is hereby ADOPTED.

84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, including the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

#   {#section .unnumbered}

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 225 *et. seq.* TRS enables 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 deploy special technology and are 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
    outbound call to the TRS center - is functionally equivalent to
    receiving a \"dial tone.\" The caller then gives the number of the
    party 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 to a TTY
    user. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601(5), (7). Other types of relay
    services use the CA to interpret the signed communication of one of
    the parties (video relay services) or to facilitate communications
    for individuals with speech disabilities (speech-to-speech relay
    services).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(E).

[^3]: Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and
    Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990, *Report and Order and Request for Comments*, CC Docket No.
    90-571, 6 FCC Rcd 4657 (1991) (*1991 Report and Order* ). *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3). The Commission rejected subsequent petitions
    submitted by the industry to exempt coin sent-paid relay calls,
    noting that carriers had failed to meet the heavy burden of proving
    that the provision of this service was infeasible.
    Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
    *Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, CC Docket No. 90-571, 8 FCC Rcd
    1802-04 (1993) (*1993 Order on Reconsideration*).

[^4]: *See 1991 Report and Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4661 n.18.

[^5]: Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and
    Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, *Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 8385 (Com. Car. Bur.
    1993) (*1993 Suspension Order*); Telecommunications Services for
    Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans
    with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, *Order*, 10 FCC
    Rcd 12775 (Com. Car. Bur. 1995) (*1995 Interim Suspension Order*);
    Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC
    Docket No. 90-571, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 10927
    (Com. Car. Bur. 1995) (*Alternative Plan Order*). The suspension was
    extended seven times, and the most recent extension expires on May
    26, 2001. *See* *1993 Suspension Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 8385; *1995
    Interim Suspension Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 12775; *Alternative Plan
    Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 10927; Telecommunications Services for
    Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans
    with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, *Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 12,196 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997) (*1997 Suspension Order*);
    Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC
    Docket No. 90-571, *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 15453 (Com. Car. Bur. 1998)
    (*1998 Suspension Order*); Telecommunications Relay Services, and
    the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 90-571,
    *Order,* 15 FCC Rcd 6675 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999) (*1999 Suspension
    Order*); Telecommunications Relay Services, and the Americans with
    Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    15823 (Com. Car. Bur. 2000) (*2000 Suspension Order*).

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 225(b)(1), 225(d)(1).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(D).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(c) (1996); 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3); *1991 Report
    and Order*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4657.

[^9]: Petitions for reconsideration or clarification of the policies and
    rules adopted were filed by Ameritech Operating Companies
    (Ameritech), Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic), Bell
    South Corporation (BellSouth), GTE Service Corporation (GTE), and
    New England Telephone and Telegraph Company and New York Telephone
    Company (NYNEX).

[^10]: *1993 Order on Reconsideration*, 8 FCC Rcd at 1802-04.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: Prior to July 26, 1993, requests for suspension of enforcement of
    section 64.604(a)(3) were filed by American Public Communications
    Council (APCC), AT&T Corp. (AT&T), Ameritech, Bell Atlantic,
    BellSouth, Cincinnati Bell Telephone, GTE, NYNEX, Pacific Bell and
    Nevada Bell (Pacific Companies), Rochester Telephone Corporation,
    Southern New England Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone
    Company (SWBT), Sprint Corporation (Sprint), United States Telephone
    Association (USTA), United Telephone Companies and Central Telephone
    Companies, and US West. In addition, 51 entities, including states,
    the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, filed TRS certification
    applications pursuant to section 64.604 of the Commission\'s rules.
    47 C.F.R. § 64.604 (1996). All 51 entities filed requests for waiver
    or extension of time to comply with the coin sent-paid requirement.

[^13]: *1993 Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 8386.

[^14]: *Id.* at 8385-86.

[^15]: Petitions requesting suspension of the requirement that the TRS
    must be capable of handling coin sent-paid calls by July 26, 1995
    were filed by: AT&T; jointly by Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, GTE,
    NYNEX, Pacific Companies, SWBT and US West; the Indiana Telephone
    Relay Access Corporation for the Hearing and Speech Impaired
    (InTRAC); MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI), the Nebraska
    Public Service Commission (Nebraska PSC); Sprint; and USTA.

[^16]: Comments on the Petitions requesting suspensions of the
    requirement that the TRS must be capable of handling coin sent-paid
    calls by July 26, 1995 were filed by the APCC; AT&T; Hamilton
    Telephone Company (Hamilton); the Idaho Public Utilities Commission;
    and jointly, by the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), the
    National Center for Law and Deafness, and Telecommunications for the
    Deaf, Inc. (TDI). Reply comments were filed by AT&T; Bell Atlantic;
    BellSouth; GTE; MCI; NYNEX; Pacific Companies; Sprint; and SWBT.

[^17]: *1995 Interim Suspension Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 12775.

[^18]: *Alternative Plan Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 10927.

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(b)(1). ASCII employs an eight-bit code and can
    operate at any standard transmission baud rate including 300, 1200,
    2400, and higher. Because ASCII is faster, it is the preferred
    protocol for data transmission from TTYs over Baudot, which is a
    seven-bit code, containing only five information bits.

[^20]: *A**lternative Plan Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 10929-30. GTE estimated
    that the CSI solution could initially cost the industry between
    \$104 and \$111 million for the first year's operation, with
    recurring costs of between \$10 and \$20 million annually.
    Independent payphone providers estimated costs at \$20 million for
    all payphones nationwide.

[^21]: The Bureau stated that the two years were needed to introduce and
    gain experience with the Alternative Plan, to gather data on TRS and
    non-TRS payphone use, and to assess any new technical developments
    that could affect the provision of TRS coin sent-paid calls.
    *Alternative Plan Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 10927.

[^22]: *Id.*

[^23]: The TRS Industry Team members were originally the APCC, AT&T,
    Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, GTE, Hamilton, MCI, NYNEX,
    Pacific Companies, Sprint, SWBT, USTA, and US WEST.

[^24]: The *12-Month Report* was timely filed on August 26, 1996, 12
    months after the adoption of the *1995 Suspension Order*. *Twelve
    Month Report of the Petitioners on Alternate Plan for
    Telecommunications Relay Services Coin Sent-Paid Calls*, CC Docket
    No. 90-571 (Aug. 26, 1996) (*12-Month Report*).

[^25]: The consumer education programs included bill messages and
    inserts, informational brochures, posters, news releases, direct
    mail campaigns, radio and Internet messages, advertisements, call
    guide pages of telephone directories, and group presentations.
    *12-Month Report* at 3-4.

[^26]: *12-Month Report* at 5. The report did not specify with whom the
    complaints were registered or who handled them.

[^27]: The *18-Month Report* was due on February 26, 1997, 18 months
    after adoption of the *1995 Suspension Order*. The report was filed
    on March 12, 1997, after the TRS Industry Team received approval
    from the Network Services Division of the Common Carrier Bureau for
    an extension of time until this date*. Eighteen Month Report of the
    Petitioners on Alternate Plan for Telecommunications Relay Services
    Coin Sent-Paid Calls*, CC Docket No. 90-571 (Mar 12, 1997)
    (*18-Month Report*); Telecommunications Relay Services and the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, *Order*, CC Docket No.
    90-571, 12 FCC Rcd 3523 (1997).

[^28]: Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
    Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
    *Report and Order*, CC Docket 96-128, 11 FCC Rcd 20541 (1996) (*1996
    Payphone Order*); *Order on Reconsideration,* 11 FCC Rcd 21233
    (*1996) (1996 Payphone Order Reconsideration), remanded in part sub
    nom.* Illinois Public Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC and United
    States, C.A. No 96-1394 (D.C. Cir. July 1, 1997) (collectively *1996
    Payphone Orders*).

[^29]: The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements,
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* CC Docket 92-105, 7 FCC Rcd 3004
    (1992); The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
    Arrangements, *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, CC Docket 92-105, 12 FCC Rcd 5572 (1997).

[^30]: *18-Month Report* at 8-9.

[^31]: *Id.* at 8.

[^32]: *Id.* at 8-9.

[^33]: Comment Sought on Eighteen Month Report for Telecommunications
    Relay Services Coin Sent-Paid Calls, *Public Notice* No. 74032 (rel.
    May 9, 1997). On June 2, 1997, comments were filed by APCC, AT&T,
    Ameritech, CAN, GTE, NAD, jointly by SWBT and the Pacific Companies
    (SWBT and Pacific Companies Joint Comments), USTA, and University
    Legal Services‑Protection and Advocacy (ULS-P&A). INTELLICALL, INC.
    (Intellicall) filed late comments on June 3, 1997.

[^34]: NAD Ex Parte Letter (June 20, 1997) (filed on behalf of CAN, NAD,
    and TDI ); MCI Ex Parte Letter (June 19, 1997) (filed on behalf of
    AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and USTA).

[^35]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments at 2; GTE Comments at 3; SWBT and
    Pacific Companies Joint Comments at 3; USTA Comments at 4. The
    Pacific Companies, and AT&T agreed that the CSI platform was not an
    acceptable solution because it could reduce the quality of the
    telephone service provided to all TRS users.

[^36]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Comments at 2; GTE Comments at 3; SWBT and
    Pacific Companies Joint Comments at 3; USTA Comments at 4. AT&T and
    USTA noted in particular that implementing the CSI platform would
    prevent TRS consumers from using the 711 code for access to TRS.

[^37]: AT&T Comments at 2; GTE Comments at 3 (*citing 18-month Report*
    at 10-11).

[^38]: GTE Comments at 3 (citing *18-Month Report* at 11-14). Under the
    *1996 Payphone Orders*, the Commission deregulated payphone
    operators\' rates and, consequently, rates for local calls from
    payphones will vary within a state. *1996 Payphone Order,* 11 FCC
    Rcd 20541; *1996 Payphone* *Order on Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd
    21233. The *18-Month Report* states that although the CSI platform
    can indicate through tones what coins have been placed in the
    payphone, the CSI cannot determine if the coins deposited are
    sufficient to cover a particular payphone\'s charges for a local
    call. *18-Month Report* at 12-13.

[^39]: Ameritech Comments at 1-2; APCC Comments at 2; GTE Comments at 2,
    4; SWBT and Pacific Companies Joint Comments at 3; USTA Comments at
    1, 5.

[^40]: AT&T Comments at 3. GTE agrees with AT&T that the ability to
    provide coin sent-paid access to TRS centers does not exist at this
    time. GTE adds that it is unclear what technological solutions will
    be developed that can resolve the impediments in processing coin
    sent-paid calls. GTE Comments at 3.

[^41]: APCC Comments at 2 (*citing* 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1)).

[^42]: SWBT and Pacific Companies Joint Comments at 2.

[^43]: The TRS Fund is a shared funding mechanism for recovering the
    costs of providing interstate TRS. Every carrier with interstate
    service revenues contributes to the TRS Fund. The amount contributed
    is the product of the carrier\'s gross interstate revenues for the
    previous year and a contribution factor determined annually by the
    Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 64.604 (1996).

[^44]: APCC Comments at 2; Ameritech Comments at 2; GTE Comments at 3.

[^45]: CAN Comments at 3; NAD Comments at 3.

[^46]: CAN Comments at 3; NAD Comments at 3. CAN supported an additional
    one-year suspension.

[^47]: CAN Comments at 3; NAD Comments at 3; ULS-P&A Comments at 2.

[^48]: CAN Comments at 2; NAD Comments at 2; ULS-P&A Comments at 1.

[^49]: NAD Comments at 2.

[^50]: CAN Comments at 3; NAD Comments at 3. NAD suggested that the Team
    submit the report to the Commission within nine months of the
    *18-Month Report*.

[^51]: *1997 Suspension Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 12196.

[^52]: *Id*. at 12203-04.

[^53]: Meetings to which the TRS Industry Team were directed to send one
    or more representatives included Alexander Graham Bell Association
    Convention; Association for Late Deafened Adults (ALDA) Convention;
    NAD\'s Convention; Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH)
    Convention; TDI Convention; and states\' deaf association
    conventions.

[^54]: *1997 Suspension Order*, 62 Fed. Reg. 47152.

[^55]: *1998 Suspension Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 15453.

[^56]: *1999* *Suspension* Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6675; *2000 Suspension
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 15823.

[^57]: *2000 Suspension Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 15823.

[^58]: Letter to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, from Mike Del
    Casino, Regulation Division Manager, AT&T, on behalf of the Industry
    Team (Dec. 2, 1998) (1998 Industry Team Ex Parte).

[^59]: *See 1997 Suspension Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12203 n.38 (meetings
    included: Alexander Graham Bell Association Convention; ALDA
    Convention; NAD\'s Biennial Conference; SHHH Convention; TDI
    Convention; and states\' deaf association conventions).

[^60]: The Industry Team that attended these various meetings was
    comprised of TRS providers, local exchange companies, long distance
    companies, the APCC, the National Association of State Relay
    Administrators (NASRA), and USTA. 1998 Industry Team Ex Parte at 3.

[^61]: Ex Parte, CAN Response to Telecommunications Relay Service
    Coin-Sent Paid Industry Team Activity Report, CC Docket No. 90-571
    (April 27, 1999) (CAN Ex Parte); Ex Parte, Alfred Sonnenstrahl,
    Response to TRS Coin Sent-paid Industry Team Activity Report (May 3,
    1999) (Sonnenstrahl Ex Parte).

[^62]: CAN Ex Parte at 5; Sonnenstrahl Ex Parte at 3.

[^63]: CAN Ex Parte at 7; Sonnenstrahl Ex Parte at 5.

[^64]: 47 U.S.C. §225(a)(3).

[^65]: *See e.g*., CAN Comments at 3; GTE Comments at 3; ULPA Comments
    at 2; USTA Comments at 4.

[^66]: The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements,
    CC Docket No. 92-105*, Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 15188
    (2000) (*N11 Second Report and Order*).

[^67]: AT&T Comments at 2. *See also* GTE Comments at 5; SWBT and
    Pacific Companies Joint Comments at 2.

[^68]: *18-Month Report* at 16; *see also* GTE Comments at 4-5. APCC
    also has conducted a study of independent payphones that revealed a
    2.48 percent decline in coin sent-paid calls for the period January
    1996 to December 1996; Team Supplement Information (May 12, 1997).

[^69]: *See infra* paras. 28-29

[^70]: GTE Comments at 5.

[^71]: *See infra* paras. 35-36.

[^72]: CAN Comments at 3.

[^73]: *Id.*

[^74]: We note that local calling areas for intrastate calls are, in
    most cases, determined by state regulatory agencies and not the
    Commission. If a caller places a call to a location outside the
    local calling area, even if the distance between the caller and the
    called party is short, that caller will incur toll charges, whether
    or not the call is a TRS or a traditional payphone call.

[^75]: USTA states that most carriers have not chosen to offer a prepaid
    card at or below the coin call rate. USTA Comments at 3. We are
    aware of only one carrier, Hamilton, that has elected to offer its
    prepaid card at or below the coin call rate.

[^76]: Section 225 of the Act requires that \"common carriers providing
    voice transmission services shall. . . provide . . .
    telecommunications relay services, individually, through designees,
    through a competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other
    carriers.\" 47 U.S.C. § 225(c).

[^77]: AT&T Corp. v. BellSouth Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 8515, 8534, para. 38 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999) (*AT&T
    v. BellSouth*). A similar analogy was made by Judge Greene when
    addressing calling cards that provide access to local and
    long-distance service charged to a customer's local service bill.
    Judge Greene said, "\[c\]alling cards are today ubiquitous billing
    mechanisms. They provide a convenient method for calls made away
    from the customers usual telephone, an increasingly common
    occurrence." *United States v. Western Electric Co., Inc.,* 698 F.
    Supp. 348, 353 (D.C. 1988).

[^78]: *AT&T v. BellSouth*, 14 FCC Rcd at 8534, para. 40.

[^79]: Because AT&T is the only carrier that offers the coin call
    service from \"dumb\" payphones, carriers set their calling card
    rates at or below AT&T\'s tariff for coin call services. \"Dumb\"
    payphones rely on central office controls to collect and return
    coins or perform other control functions. In contrast, \"smart\"
    payphones can rate calls or collect or return coins because
    intelligence resides within the payphone unit. US West\'s Comparably
    Efficient Interconnection Plan for Payphone Services, *Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd 4837 n.15 (1997).

[^80]: Note, however, that TRS centers would be required to continue
    accepting both calling and prepaid cards from TRS users.

[^81]: NAD Comments at 3.

[^82]: USTA Comments at 3.

[^83]: CAN Comments at 3.

[^84]: *See* *supra* para. 19.

[^85]: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Service
    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 (2000) (*Improved TRS Order*).

[^86]: *Improved TRS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5191, para. 96.

[^87]: *Id*. at 5194-95, paras. 104-105.

[^88]: *N11 Second Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 15215-18, paras.
    58-64.

[^89]: *Id*. at para. 61. *See also*, 47 C.F.R. § 64.603(4).

[^90]: *See supra* para. 19.

[^91]: *See supra* para. 22.

[^92]: Although carriers are not directly reimbursed from the TRS Fund
    for consumer education programs such as publishing instructions on
    accessing the TRS from a payphone, TRS providers can report the
    consumer education programs \"costs\" to National Exchange Carrier
    Association, Inc. in their annual cost data filing. Such costs can
    be built into the per‑minute reimbursement rate for interstate TRS.
    The higher the costs, the higher the average payment rate.
    Consequently, carriers are indirectly reimbursed for their consumer
    educational programs.

[^93]: *See* supra para. 19.

[^94]: GTE Comments at 6.

[^95]: *Id*.

[^96]: *Improved TRS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5194-95, paras. 103-105; *N11
    Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15214-15, paras. 56-57.

[^97]: *See supra* paras. 9-12.

[^98]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(2).

[^99]: In the *Alternative Plan Order*, the Bureau did not require
    carriers to continue efforts to develop a technical solution that
    would enable TRS users to place coin sent-paid calls. *Alternative
    Plan Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 10931. At that time, the Bureau found
    that carriers had made a concerted effort to find a solution for two
    years without success, and that the Bureau could not expect that
    carriers would develop a technical solution in the near future.
    *Id.* Instead, the Bureau required carriers to continue to evaluate
    and monitor technological developments, TRS numbering assignments,
    and network changes, that might increase the technical feasibility
    or reduce the cost of providing TRS coin sent-paid service and to
    address technical developments in the *18-Month Report. Id.*

[^100]: FCC Announces Appointment of Membership, Meeting Date, and
    Agenda for the First Meeting of the Consumer/Disability
    Telecommunications Advisory Committee, *Public Notice*, DA 01-517
    (rel. Mar. 2, 2001). The Consumer/Disability Telecommunications
    Advisory Committee is makes recommendations to the Commission
    regarding consumer and disability issues within the jurisdiction of
    the Commission in order to facilitate the participation of
    consumers, including people with debilitates and underserved
    populations, in the proceedings before the Commission.

[^101]: 47 U.S.C. § 276(a)(1) (Supp. 1997).

[^102]: *See supra* note 42.

[^103]: 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, 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).

[^104]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^105]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^106]: 5 U.S.C. § 632.

[^107]: Telecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2.

[^108]: Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^109]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    Code 4813.

[^110]: This is recent data from the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, which administers the interstate TRS Fund.

[^111]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^112]: Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau,
    Industry Analysis Division, *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table
    19.3 (March 2000).

[^113]: *1992 Census, supra*, at Firm Size 1-123.

[^114]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^115]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^116]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (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
    Provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket, 96-98,
    *First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16144-45 (1996).