**Before the**

###### Federal Communications Commission

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

######### 

In the Matter of )

)

Telecommunications Relay Services ) CC Docket No. 98-67

and Speech-to-Speech Services for )

Individuals with Hearing and Speech )

Disabilities )

**REPORT AND ORDER AND**

**FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

###### Adopted: February 17, 2000 Released: March 6, 2000 

Comment Date: May 5, 2000

Reply Date: July 5, 2000

By the Commission: Commissioners Ness and Tristani issuing separate
statements.

###### TABLE OF CONTENTS

**I. REPORT AND ORDER**

A. INTRODUCTION 1

B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

C. DISCUSSION 11

**1. Scope of TRS 11**

**2. Competition in Intrastate Relay Services 34**

**3. Service Quality 38**

**4. Capability of Handling Any Type of Call 85**

**5. Treatment of Enhanced Services 86**

**6. Access to Emergency Services 99**

**7. Outreach 103**

**8. Enforcement and Certification 106**

**9. Advisory Committee 123**

**II. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

A. OVERVIEW 125

B. FURTHER RULES FOR TRS RELAY SERVICE 126

C. AVAILABILITY OF SS7 TO TRS CENTERS 127

D. OUTREACH 134

E. TECHNOLOGIES, FEATURES AND SERVICES 137

F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 147

**III. ORDERING CLAUSES 153**

**APPENDIX A: List of Parties**

**APPENDIX B: Final Rules**

**APPENDIX C: Final Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction
Analyses**

**APPENDIX D: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

I.  **REPORT AND ORDER**

**A. INTRODUCTION**

1.  With this Order, we amend the rules governing the delivery of
    telecommunications relay services to expand the kinds of relay
    services available to consumers and to improve the quality of relay
    services, based on our ten years of experience with
    Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) and changes in available
    technologies. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990 (ADA), which is codified at section 225 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), requires the
    Commission to ensure that TRS is available, to the extent possible
    and in the most efficient manner, to individuals with hearing and
    speech disabilities in the United States.[^1] Section 225 defines
    relay service to be a telephone transmission service that provides
    the ability for an individual with a hearing or speech disability to
    engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual
    in a manner functionally equivalent to someone without such a
    disability.[^2] Section 225 requires the Commission to ensure that
    interstate and intrastate relay services are available throughout
    the country and to establish regulations to ensure the quality of
    relay service.[^3] To fulfill this mandate, the Commission first
    issued rules in 1991.[^4] TRS has been available on a uniform,
    nationwide basis since July 26, 1993.[^5]

2.  TRS enables persons with hearing and speech disabilities to
    communicate by telephone with persons who may or may not have such
    disabilities.[^6] Today, TRS facilities have special equipment and
    are staffed by communications assistants (CAs) who relay
    conversations between people who use text telecommunications devices
    and people who communicate by voice. The caller can use a text
    telephone (TTY) to dial the telephone number of the local TRS
    center.[^7] For the TTY user, this first step - the inbound call to
    the TRS center - is functionally equivalent to receiving a dial
    tone. The CA in turn places an outbound voice call from the TRS
    center to the called party. The CA serves as the link in the
    conversation, converting all typed TTY messages from the TTY 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. This form of TTY-based TRS provides a valuable link between
    TTY users and users of conventional voice telephones. However,
    concerns about the quality of these TTY-based relay services have
    grown over the past ten years. Additionally, these relay services do
    not address the telecommunications needs of individuals with other
    types of communication disabilities. This Order is intended to
    improve the quality of traditional relay services and lead to the
    widespread establishment of new types of relay services. As a
    result, many Americans who currently have limited or no practical
    access to telecommunications networks will have service that is
    functionally equivalent to the access enjoyed by Americans without
    disabilities.

3.  While the statutory obligation to deliver relay services falls to
    common carriers, the law gives states a strong role by considering
    carriers to be in compliance with this obligation if they operate in
    a state that has a relay program certified as compliant by this
    Commission.[^8] All states have certified programs today. In
    general, a state administrator, or a statewide trade association of
    common carriers, contracts with a relay provider for relay services
    for their state. The costs of intrastate relay services are
    recovered from the state's intrastate TRS fund, to which all
    intrastate carriers contribute in some manner. Similarly, the costs
    of interstate relay service are recovered from the interstate TRS
    Fund, to which all interstate carriers contribute.

4.  TRS is required by statute to provide telecommunication services
    which are functionally equivalent to voice services to the extent
    possible. Functional equivalence is, by nature, a continuing goal
    that requires periodic reassessment. The ever-increasing
    availability of new services and the development of new technologies
    continually challenge us to determine what specific services and
    performance standards are necessary to ensure that TRS is
    functionally equivalent to voice telephone service. For example, the
    recent development of speech-to-speech (STS) relay services provides
    a telecommunications link for persons with speech disabilities, and
    video relay interpreting (VRI) facilitates telecommunications for
    individuals who use sign language.

5.  Telecommunications relay service is critical given the importance
    that telecommunications plays in a person's ability to participate
    in this information age. It provides telephone access to a
    significant number of Americans who, without it, might not be able
    to make or receive calls from others. According to the National
    Center for Health Statistics, more than 23 million people are deaf
    or have a hearing disability, and more than 2.7 million people have
    a speech disability.[^9]

6.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau 1992 Survey of Income and
    Program Participation, 10.9 million Americans have a functional
    limitation in \"\[h\]earing what is said in a normal conversation\"
    and 2.3 million have a functional limitation in \"\[h\]aving one\'s
    speech understood.\"[^10]

7.  TRS is a critical tool for employment. If people with hearing or
    speech disabilities cannot communicate by telephone, their ability
    to compete and succeed in today's job market is threatened. Being
    able to place a phone call to a prospective employer, to answer an
    advertisement for a job, to receive training, and to advance one\'s
    career through formal and informal networks depends largely on one's
    ability to communicate with many different individuals and
    entities.[^11] Improving the quality of TRS will enhance employment
    opportunities for people with hearing and speech disabilities and
    may contribute to a decrease in their unemployment rate. According
    to recent statistics on employment of persons with disabilities,
    there are significant differences between working-age Americans with
    hearing and speech disabilities and those without disabilities.[^12]
    While 82.1 percent of the general working age population (ages
    21-64) is employed, only 52.3 percent of all people with
    disabilities are employed.[^13] This figure includes persons who
    have difficulty performing functional activities, such as hearing or
    having their speech understood.[^14] Among those with severe
    disabilities,[^15] only 26.1 percent are employed.[^16]

8.  Today, we adopt rules that will greatly improve the quality of TRS.
    These rules fulfill section 225's mandate by increasing the
    availability and usefulness of the telecommunications system for
    Americans with speech and hearing disabilities.

**B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

9.  In January 1997, we released a *Notice of Inquiry (NOI)* on the
    quality of TRS service.[^17] Based on the record developed in the
    *NOI*, the Commission released a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
    (*Notice*)[^18] that proposed rules to enhance the quality of
    telecommunications relay service. In response, the Commission
    received numerous suggestions on ways to improve TRS. After
    considering the many comments received, by this Order, we:

-   find that the statutory definition of telecommunications relay
    services is not limited to relay services using a TTY, and includes
    STS, VRI and non-English language relay services;

-   require that common carriers provide STS and interstate Spanish
    relay services by March 1, 2001;

-   do not require VRI, but encourages it by permitting the recovery of
    the costs of both intrastate and interstate VRI calls from the
    interstate TRS Fund;

-   require that all relay services, whether mandatory or voluntary,
    funded by intrastate and interstate TRS Funds must comply with
    minimum service quality standards; and modifies the rules to
    accommodate STS and VRI service;

-   modify the speed of answer requirement so that consumers will reach
    a communications assistant more quickly;

-   impose a minimum typing speed of 60 wpm for CAs in order to speed
    the transmission of calls using TTYs;

-   amend the rules to minimize disruption during relay calls by
    establishing a minimum time that a CA must stay with a call;

-   amend the rules to permit an STS CA, at the request of the STS user,
    to retain information beyond the duration of a call in order to
    facilitate the completion of consecutive calls;

-   permit the STS CA to facilitate a call for a user with a speech
    disability so long as the CA does not interfere with the
    independence of the user, the user maintains control of the
    conversation, and the user does not object;

-   require that relay providers offer STS users the option to maintain
    at the relay center a list of frequently called names and telephone
    numbers;

-   establish that information gathered by relay providers on individual
    caller preferences and used to complete TRS calls is not customer
    proprietary network information (CPNI) under section 222 of the Act,
    must be transferred during a change in TRS provider and cannot be
    used for any purpose other than the handling of TRS calls;

-   require TRS providers to automatically and immediately transfer
    emergency calls to the appropriate 911 operator and relay the
    caller's number to the operator orally;

-   clarify that the existing rule requires outreach to all callers and
    for all forms of TRS;

-   conclude that section 225 by its terms does not prohibit us from
    requiring relay services to accommodate enhanced or information
    services;

-   require relay service to accommodate interactive menus and other
    recorded messages by requiring CAs to alert the user to the presence
    of a recorded message through a hot key on the CA's terminal, and to
    record recorded messages;

-   require relay service to include the ability to make pay-per-call
    calls;

-   require states to notify the Commission about substantive changes in
    their TRS programs within 60 days of when they occur;

-   require states and providers to submit to the Commission a contact
    person or office for filing consumer complaints, to be posted on the
    Commission's web site;

-   adopt the Commission's informal complaint process for TRS
    complaints; and

-   require state programs and interstate TRS providers to maintain a
    log of consumer complaints that allege a violation of the minimum
    standards and annually report to the FCC the number of complaints
    received.

###### In the *Further Notice*, we seek comment on:

-   the establishment of a national education campaign to increase
    awareness of TRS among all callers, not just those with
    disabilities;

-   whether there should be a separate, nationwide 800 number for STS
    relay service; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   whether TRS providers should have access to SS7 technology in order
    to better handle emergency calls, be compatible with Caller ID and
    more efficiently bill for and deliver relay services.

**C. DISCUSSION**

**1. Scope of TRS**

> **a. Definition**

10. [Background]{.underline}. Section 225 and the Commission\'s rules
    define telecommunications relay service as:

> \[t\]elephone transmission services that provide the ability for an
> individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage
> in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a
> manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual
> who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to
> communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such
> term includes services that enable two-way communication between an
> individual who uses a TDD \[text telephone device\] or other nonvoice
> terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device.[^19]

11. Until now, the Commission has found only services involving
    TTY-to-speech and speech-to-TTY to be TRS.[^20] We tentatively
    concluded in the *Notice* that telecommunications relay service
    includes any wire or radio communications service that enables
    persons with hearing or speech disabilities to use the
    communications network to communicate with others, and is not
    limited to services using TTYs.[^21]

12. [Discussion]{.underline}. We adopt our tentative conclusion that TRS
    is not limited to services using TTYs. Our tentative conclusion was
    unopposed by commenters. The language of the statute fully supports
    this interpretation.[^22] While the statute refers explicitly to
    text telephones, that reference is merely illustrative, and not
    exhaustive, of the kind of services that are included in TRS.[^23]
    The first sentence of section 225(a)(3) by its express terms applies
    broadly to any "communication by wire or radio." We do not believe
    that the second sentence, providing for inclusion of TTY services as
    TRS, fairly can be viewed as narrowing the generic definition set
    forth in the preceding sentence. Rather, the term "includes", by its
    very nature, indicates that any designations following that word are
    illustrative, rather than a comprehensive list of all types of
    TRS.[^24] Because the purpose of section 225 is to give people with
    hearing or speech disabilities access to the telephone network, and
    because Congress realized that to fully participate in society one
    must be able to call friends, family, businesses and employers,
    section 225 must be read to apply to any service that allows
    individuals with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate by
    wire or radio.[^25] While we do not establish a single, formal
    process for determining if new types of service fit the statutory
    definition of TRS, we do consider the individual services that are
    currently before us. As new services develop, parties may petition
    us for a determination as to whether a service falls within the
    definition of telecommunications relay service.

> **b. Speech-to-Speech Relay Service**

13. [Background]{.underline}. Speech-to-speech relay service, or STS,
    involves the use of specially trained CAs who understand the speech
    patterns of persons with speech disabilities and can repeat the
    words spoken. We tentatively concluded in the *Notice* that STS
    falls within the definition of TRS.[^26] We also tentatively
    concluded that all common carriers providing voice transmission
    services must ensure that STS services are available to callers with
    speech disabilities throughout their service areas within two years
    of the publication in the Federal Register of this *Report and
    Order*.[^27] The availability of STS gives persons with certain
    speech disabilities an efficient alternative to using a TTY, which
    requires the purchase and use of TTY hardware and which also can be
    a cumbersome form of conversation given the typing involved. We also
    noted that TRS providers would have an opportunity to formulate the
    most cost-effective basis on which STS service can be provided
    *(i.e.,* by coordinating or centralizing the service in regional
    speech-to-speech centers, rather than by attempting to provide
    independent services on a state-by-state basis).[^28]

14. [Discussion]{.underline}. We find that STS services fall within the
    scope of section 225\'s definition of \"telecommunications relay
    services\" as a telephone transmission service that enables an
    individual who has a speech disability to communicate by wire or
    radio in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of
    a person who does not have a speech disability to communicate using
    voice communication services by wire or radio.[^29] We adopt our
    tentative conclusion that all common carriers must provide STS relay
    services for callers with speech disabilities throughout their
    service areas. The majority of the commenters, including TRS
    providers, GTE, MCI, and Sprint, support this conclusion.[^30]

15. As one commenter notes, \"STS will help break the insularity
    barriers that confine members of the community of people with speech
    disabilities and offer them opportunities for education, employment,
    and other, more intangible benefits (freedom, joy, self-reliance)
    that are concomitant with independence.\"[^31] Further, as GTE
    asserts, STS services will aid those with hearing or speech
    disabilities that also have physical disabilities that make the use
    of a TTY difficult or impossible.[^32] In addition, we anticipate
    that the provision of STS will enhance the user\'s employment and
    educational opportunities and reduce the frustration experienced by
    individuals with speech disabilities when they cannot be understood
    on the phone and when others do not take time to communicate with
    them.[^33] As one party observes, \"STS provides an optional and
    effective communications bridge to employment options and
    opportunities for persons with speech disabilities who may
    experience significant disconnections and poor service response when
    placing calls via routine telephony.\"[^34]

16. A number of commenters writing during the comment period in early
    fall of 1998 support the Commission's proposal to implement STS two
    years after the publication of the rules in the Federal
    Register.[^35] Some commenters argue for a longer period.[^36] A
    number of commenters, however, believe that more than enough time
    has passed without an STS requirement and urge the Commission to
    require STS within six months, with due haste, or within one
    year.[^37] For example, one commenter notes that two years is too
    long, that vendors with STS capability should start providing STS
    within six months; and that where the vendor does not, the TRS
    provider should contract with another provider immediately.[^38]
    Given that more than two years have passed since we adopted the
    *Notice*, we agree with commenters that waiting another two years to
    require STS is unnecessary and would not result in bringing people
    with disabilities functionally equivalent service in an efficient
    manner. Implementation of STS does not require new equipment. We
    believe that one additional year will be adequate for providers to
    train personnel to deliver STS services. Parties claiming they need
    a ramp-up period can use the time prior to the deadline to ensure
    sufficient staffing is available in the STS centers. Ten states are
    already providing STS, and therefore presumably already have
    qualified personnel.[^39] Moreover, we expect, most STS service will
    be provided through regional centers, thus reducing the total number
    of qualified individuals necessary to handle the expected demand. We
    therefore require that STS be provided by March 1, 2001.

17. In response to some carriers' concerns that demand is too low to
    justify the service,[^40] we note that section 225 charges the
    Commission with ensuring that "interstate and intrastate
    telecommunications relay services are available to the extent
    possible. . . to hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in
    the United States." We believe that nationwide availability of STS
    is possible, and we are therefore obligated to require it. In
    addition, it will allow people with speech disabilities, an
    underserved segment of our society, to use telecommunication
    services independently, perhaps for the first time. We also believe
    that use of STS will increase with aggressive outreach efforts to
    the nation\'s 2.7 million citizens with speech disabilities.[^41]
    California indicates that the volume of its calls increased and the
    length of the calls decreased as users became more familiar and
    comfortable with the service.[^42]

18. We agree with those commenters who state that the significant
    benefits that STS service offers to people with severe speech
    disabilities, an insular community that has been, for the most part,
    denied access to the telephone network, greatly outweigh the costs
    of STS services.[^43] We agree with Sprint that no information has
    been presented that demonstrates that STS is too costly relative to
    the benefit derived from STS.[^44]

19. As suggested by numerous commenters, we encourage states to consider
    offering the service through regional or national centers. Maryland
    indicates that its STS calls, currently totaling less than 1% of TRS
    calls, are handled effectively through a regional center and that
    the creation of regional centers is the most cost effective method
    to provide STS.[^45] ASHA suggests that STS services should be
    provided in national or regional centers, accessible by a toll-free
    number, so that CAs can be \"concentrated and counseled\" by
    experts.[^46]

> **c. Video Relay Interpreting**

20. [Background]{.underline}. Video relay interpreting, or VRI, allows
    TRS users with hearing or speech disabilities to communicate with
    voice telephone users through video equipment installed at the
    user's premises and at the relay center. This video link allows a CA
    to view and interpret the caller's sign language and relay the
    conversation to a voice caller. In the *Notice*, we tentatively
    concluded that VRI should be considered a relay service within the
    meaning of section 225 and, therefore, that the costs of VRI should
    be recoverable.[^47] We also tentatively concluded that VRI should
    not be mandated by the Commission\'s TRS rules at this time but that
    we should continue to monitor the state of VRI technology.[^48]

21. [Discussion]{.underline}. We adopt our tentative conclusion that VRI
    is a telecommunications relay service because it provides the
    ability for individuals with hearing or speech disabilities "to
    communicate by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner
    that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who
    does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to
    communicate using voice communications services by wire or
    radio."[^49] While we do not require VRI at this time, as the
    service remains in its technological infancy, we adopt special
    funding arrangements for VRI service, where it is provided, by
    allowing the costs of all calls - both intrastate and interstate -
    to be reimbursed from the interstate TRS Fund, while we continue to
    evaluate the issues surrounding mandating VRI service.

22. While we disagree with those commenters who argue that we should
    require VRI,[^50] we agree with commenters who argue that VRI will
    make relay services functionally equivalent to conventional
    telephone services for individuals whose first language is American
    Sign Language.[^51] We do, however, share the concerns of those
    parties that argue that there are technological uncertainties that
    make a mandatory requirement for VRI premature.[^52] VRI is under
    development using a number of equipment configurations and there may
    be unresolved issues of compatibility between the relay center's
    equipment and the caller's equipment. VRI cannot be utilized by
    simply dialing a number from the telephone. One VRI equipment
    configuration, for example, involves the use of personal computer
    and videoconferencing equipment along with access to broadband
    transmission services. We are concerned that mandating VRI on a
    widespread basis at this early stage in its technological
    development could stymie experimentation with different
    technologies. We believe that allowing experimentation will result
    in better VRI, and therefore complies with the statutory mandate
    that TRS services are to be provided to \"the extent possible\" and
    in the \"most efficient manner.\"[^53] We believe that the approach
    we take here permits market forces, not the Commission, to determine
    the technology and equipment best suited for the provision of VRI,
    and allows for the development of new and improved technology.

23. We recognize the enormous potential VRI holds for consumers. In
    order to encourage this new technology, as is our statutory mandate,
    and in recognition of concerns about the costs of the service and
    the potentially inadequate supply of qualified interpreters,[^54] we
    intend to establish special funding arrangements for VRI to speed
    its development. During the development of this new relay service,
    we will permit recovery of costs associated with both intrastate and
    interstate calls from the interstate TRS Fund. Because there are
    relay centers currently providing VRI or planning to provide it in
    the near future,[^55] our approach has the potential to quickly give
    all consumers who can access it the benefit of video relay service.
    We also believe our approach will reduce costs and spur industry and
    consumer investment in the equipment and technologies necessary to
    use VRI, without burdening state relay programs or engendering any
    of the risks associated with mandating the use of equipment that has
    not been fully tested in the market place.[^56]

24. Given that demand for VRI will be low initially, because the service
    is in its infancy, we believe it makes sense to aggregate demand as
    much as possible to those centers interested in offering VRI. It is
    not efficient to have relay interpreters associated with one state
    or an interstate relay center with down time while there are people
    throughout the country who want to make calls through VRI but cannot
    because of the jurisdictional cost recovery rules.

25. The statute permits this action. Section 225(d)(3) states that the
    Commission's regulations "shall *generally provide* that costs
    caused by interstate telecommunications relay services shall be
    recovered from all subscribers for every interstate service and
    costs caused by intrastate telecommunications relay services shall
    be recovered from the intrastate jurisdiction (emphasis
    added)."[^57] We believe the word "generally" gives to the
    Commission some discretion to fund intrastate service from the
    interstate jurisdiction. We believe that our action, intended as an
    interim arrangement, is an appropriate exercise of this discretion.
    First, VRI is necessary to provide many people with disabilities
    relay service that is functionally equivalent to voice
    communications*.* Second, this action is consistent with our
    statutory mandate to encourage the use of existing technology and
    not to discourage or impair the development of improved technology
    in the delivery of relay services.[^58] Third, it allows us to asses
    demand and let market forces determine the technologies of choice
    for delivery of VRI, while not depriving any consumer who is willing
    to invest in new technologies the ability to make any call, not just
    an interstate call. We believe that this temporary cost recovery
    scheme will help to ensure that any consumer who has invested in the
    necessary video equipment and broadband services will be able to use
    VRI to call his own doctor locally, as well as make long distance
    calls that may not be as critical to his well-being.

26. This funding scheme is a temporary arrangement. When VRI develops to
    the point where it can be required, as we expect it will, we intend
    to revert to the traditional cost recovery mechanism. We will not
    establish a particular date for that transition. Instead, we will
    continue to assess the availability of the service and its
    technological development and determine at some point in the future
    when it best can be funded in the traditional manner.

# 

> **d. Non-English Language Relay Services**

27. [Background]{.underline}. Non-English language relay services[^59]
    allow persons with hearing and speech disabilities who use languages
    other than English to communicate with voice telephone users in a
    shared language other than English, through a CA who is fluent in
    that language. In the *Notice*, we tentatively concluded that such
    services are \"telecommunications relay services\" as defined in
    section 225.

28. [Discussion]{.underline}. As is supported by a number of commenters,
    we find that any non-English language relay services which relay
    conversations in a shared language are telecommunications relay
    services, and therefore can be reimbursed from the relay funds**.**
    In addition, we will require interstate common carriers to provide
    interstate Spanish relay service by March 1, 2001.[^60]

29. Just as the voice telephone network allows for a Spanish speaking
    user to call a parent and speak in Spanish, TRS users should have
    the same functional equivalency. As this Commission has previously
    noted, Spanish is the most widely spoken non-English language in the
    United States. The number of Spanish speaking persons is
    significantly larger than any other non-English speaking population
    and is rapidly growing.[^61] We believe this warrants the
    availability of interstate Spanish relay service. Both intrastate
    and interstate Spanish relay service is available in 18 states that
    have recognized the need for Spanish language relay service. We
    decline to decide at this time whether other forms of non-English
    TRS will be mandated. While we are mandating only interstate Spanish
    relay service, we find that any non-English language relay service
    provided by an interstate relay provider is reimbursable from the
    interstate TRS Fund.

30. We are not requiring each state to offer intrastate Spanish, or any
    other non-English language, relay services. The need for non-English
    relay services varies greatly by state and is best left to the
    discretion of each state. We do, as recommended by commenters, urge
    states to continue to be sensitive to changes in local demographics
    that may warrant the addition of non-English relay services.[^62] We
    agree with the commenter who notes that, should states fail to act
    when the need arises, there will be an adverse effect on the
    personal and economic well-being of individuals who speak a language
    other than English, making employment and education more difficult
    for them to attain.[^63]

> **e. Cost Recovery**

31. [Background.]{.underline} Pursuant to our rules, the interstate TRS
    Fund is administered by the National Exchange Carrier Association
    (the Fund Administrator), with the advice of the Interstate TRS Fund
    Advisory Council. The Council has members representing TRS users,
    providers, interstate carriers, and members of the disability
    community. In the *Notice*, we tentatively concluded that the
    Interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council should develop guidelines for
    interstate cost-recovery for the changes to TRS adopted in response
    to this Order, within 6 months of the adoption of the Order. We
    asked commenters to discuss the issues that the Advisory Council
    should consider in formulating these guidelines and to provide
    specific language for guidelines in support of their
    recommendations.[^64]

32. [Discussion.]{.underline} As supported by commenters, we require the
    Fund Administrator and the interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council
    develop guidelines for cost-recovery based on this Order within six
    months of its publication in the Federal Register.[^65] The Fund
    Administrator and the Council should consider the comments regarding
    the guidelines raised in this rulemaking.[^66] The public will have
    an opportunity to comment on the guidelines before the Commission\'s
    final approval is given. To provide this opportunity for public
    comment, the Commission will place the proposed guidelines it
    receives on public notice.

**2. Competition in Intrastate Relay Services**

33. [Background]{.underline}. Our rules allow common carriers to provide
    TRS within their service areas \"individually, through a
    competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other
    carriers.\"[^67] Currently, most carriers and states comply with
    this rule by competitively selecting a relay provider through a
    request for proposal contracting process. The cost of the intrastate
    TRS service contract generally is recovered from all ratepayers in
    the state, either through an intrastate subscriber line surcharge or
    through the general ratemaking process. TRS users are required to
    use their state\'s chosen TRS provider for intrastate calling.
    Interstate TRS service is funded by a nationwide, interstate TRS
    Fund. Callers may make interstate calls through their state's
    provider or choose another TRS provider for interstate calls by
    dialing one of several national toll-free numbers.

34. In the *Notice*, we observed that many commenters representing TRS
    users urged the Commission to take steps to require or promote
    competition through multivendoring. Multivendoring would enable
    multiple vendors to receive compensation for providing TRS in the
    same jurisdiction as a means to improve TRS service quality.[^68]
    While our *Notice* did not propose requiring states or carriers to
    contract with more than one TRS provider, we invited comment on: (a)
    the Commission\'s jurisdiction to require intrastate
    multivendoring; (b) the relationship, if any, between the
    single-vendor model and perceived problems with intrastate TRS;
    and (c) the structuring of an intrastate multivendor environment.
    [^69]

35. [Discussion]{.underline}. We agree with commenters that competitive
    forces are generally the preferred way to improve service quality
    and bring new services to customers.[^70] Although using a single
    vendor may not automatically lead to poor service quality,[^71] we
    believe that giving consumers a choice among different TRS providers
    might well improve the quality of TRS service in different states.
    We note that nothing in the statute or the Commission's rules
    restricts the states to using only one relay provider. Recognizing
    that one purpose of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (\"1996
    Act\")[^72] is to facilitate the introduction of competition to
    telecommunications markets,[^73] we encourage states to consider
    whether the single- or the multi-vendoring model best meets their
    constituents\' particular needs.[^74]

36. We note that some states have unsuccessfully experimented with
    approaches to multivendoring. California, for example, contracted
    for relay service from the two lowest-cost TRS providers in the
    state. The lowest bidder was unable to provide acceptable relay
    service at the price agreed upon. After many consumer complaints,
    the state increased its payments to that provider in order to
    increase the quality of the relay service to minimum levels.[^75]
    Some parties have contended that the failure of California's
    approach to multivendoring demonstrates that multivendoring is not
    feasible in the TRS market. We are not convinced by these arguments.
    The failure of this experiment may instead have resulted from the
    PSC's acceptance of an unrealistically low bid, and its attempt to
    require other competitors to match the low bidder's rates. Thus, we
    encourage states to continue experimenting with ways to allow
    competitive forces to improve the quality of TRS service.

**3. Service Quality**

> **a. Minimum Standards Generally**

37. [Background]{.underline}. The Commission\'s rules currently provide
    mandatory minimum service quality standards for the provision of
    both interstate and intrastate TRS.[^76] In our *Notice*, we
    tentatively concluded that only services that are mandated by
    Commission regulation must comply with the Commission\'s minimum
    standards.[^77] In addition, we tentatively concluded that some
    relay services such as STS might have operational differences that
    make compliance with current Commission standards infeasible, or
    require different standards.[^78] Therefore, we requested an
    examination of the Commission\'s rules governing mandatory minimum
    standards for TRS, and sought comment upon whether any specific
    exceptions to those rules must be made for STS service, in light of
    the unique nature of the service.[^79]

38. [Discussion]{.underline}. We conclude that all relay services either
    mandated by the Commission or eligible for reimbursement from the
    interstate TRS Fund must comply with the mandatory minimum
    standards. We are persuaded by commenters who argue that it is
    appropriate to have national minimum standards whenever the
    interstate TRS Fund is being used to support the provision of a
    relay service.[^80] Subject to the exceptions laid out in this
    Order, the minimum standards, as amended in this Order, will apply
    to these relay services.

39. We agree with many commenters that not all of our existing standards
    will be appropriate for each type of relay service, and that the way
    certain services are provided will necessitate somewhat different
    rules for these different services .[^81] With respect to STS, VRI,
    and non-English relay service, we are adapting the existing minimum
    standards to the extent necessary, as discussed below, to make them
    appropriate for particular services. We will continue to address the
    applicability of the mandatory minimum standards to new offerings in
    the context of approving them as relay services.[^82]

40. We conclude that STS service will generally be subject to our
    mandatory minimum standards with the exception of the following
    standards: competent skills in typing and spelling for CAs;[^83]
    capability of communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any
    speed generally in use;[^84] and the transmission of conversations
    between TTY and voice callers in real time.[^85] These requirements
    cannot practicably be applied to STS because of the significant
    differences in the way this service is provided compared to
    TTY-based TRS.

41. We also conclude that VRI relay will generally be subject to our
    mandatory minimum standards with the exception of the following
    standards: competent skills in typing and spelling for CAs;[^86]
    capability of communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any
    speed generally in use;[^87] the transmission of conversations
    between TTY and voice callers in real time.[^88] These requirements
    cannot practicably be applied to VRI because of the significant
    differences in the way this service is provided compared to
    TTY-based TRS. And, because VRI will be offered on a voluntary
    basis, we will not require it to operate every day, 24 hours a
    day.[^89] Other changes to our rules are discussed below.

> **b. Communications Assistant**

42. [Background]{.underline}. The current rule defines a communications
    assistant as "\[a\] person who transliterates conversation from text
    to voice and from voice to text between two end users of TRS."[^90]
    In the *Notice*, we tentatively concluded that the current
    definition of Communications Assistant is too restrictive to
    encompass some of the activities that may be required of a CA
    involved in some TRS offerings.[^91] We proposed to amend the
    current definition by removing the words "from text to voice and
    from voice to text" while maintaining the remainder of the
    definition.[^92]

43. [Discussion]{.underline}. We adopt our proposal, supported by
    commenters, to remove the words \"from text to voice and from voice
    to text\" from the definition of CA. [^93] We also adopt Texas
    PUC\'s proposal to allow CAs to "transliterate," or interpret, a
    caller\'s use of American Sign Language, or ASL, to English. Thus,
    the new definition will read, \"\[a\] person who transliterates or
    interprets conversation between two end users of TRS.\" We believe
    this definition, which is supported by commenters,[^94] is broad
    enough to encompass the activities performed by an individual
    assisting in the provision of TRS that does not involve a TTY, such
    as STS or VRI.

44. We also note that this definition is consistent with section
    64.604(a) of our rules, which requires that CAs have competent
    skills in, among other things, interpretation of typewritten
    ASL.[^95] Our TRS rules define American Sign Language as a visual
    language based on hand shape, position, movement, and orientation of
    the hands in relation to each other and the body.[^96] ASL is not a
    written or text-based language and it is unique to the deaf
    community. When a message in ASL is converted to typed text, the
    words are typed in English, but the sentence structure (grammar,
    syntax, *etc*.) will be different than if someone fluent in spoken
    English had typed the same message.

45. We reiterate that our rules contemplate that, where a TTY user's
    message is in ASL, the CA will, upon request of the TTY user, repeat
    the message to the hearing person using standard spoken English, and
    the CA will repeat the hearing person's message by typing in ASL to
    the TTY user. Because the grammar and syntax of ASL are different
    from English, if this were not done, the hearing party may not
    understand the information as well as if it is presented in English,
    and vice versa. The communication would then not be functionally
    equivalent to voice communications, as required by the statute. This
    also resolves the question raised in the *Notice* as to whether a
    service involving the translation of ASL to English is a relay
    service.[^97]

> **c. Qualified Interpreter**

46. [Background]{.underline}. In the interest of ensuring effective
    communication for VRI users, we proposed to incorporate into our TRS
    rules the definition of "qualified interpreter," as used by the
    Department of Justice in its Title II and III regulations, and
    require the use of qualified interpreters in the delivery of VRI
    relay service.[^98] The Department of Justice defines "qualified
    interpreter" under its regulations as "an interpreter who is able to
    interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively
    and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary."[^99]

47. [Discussion]{.underline}. We adopt our proposal, supported by
    commenters, to apply the Department of Justice's definition of
    qualified interpreter to VRI.[^100] We amend our rules to require
    that VRI CAs be qualified interpreters. We believe that this
    requirement will protect users of VRI from encountering interpreters
    who do not have the skills necessary to effectively interpret a VRI
    call. We do not believe it wise to have each state determine its own
    minimum qualifications, without a federal minimum, as is suggested
    by Sprint.[^101] States are free to adopt stronger standards, but,
    as with other areas that affect service quality, we have an
    obligation to establish uniform, minimum standards. In addition, the
    federal standard will encourage efficient, national centers for the
    delivery of VRI.

> **d. Retention of a Record of a Call**

48. [Background.]{.underline} Section 225 requires the Commission to
    adopt rules that \"prohibit relay operators ...from keeping records
    of the content of any such conversation beyond the duration of the
    call.\"[^102] To implement that requirement, our current rules state
    that CAs are prohibited from keeping records of the content of any
    conversation beyond the duration of a call.[^103] Because the STS
    user often speaks slowly and with difficulty, commenters propose a
    modification to this rule to allow the STS CA to retain information
    in instances where a STS user wants to use the same information to
    make consecutive calls. For example, a person with a speech
    disability may want to use the relay service to call several
    different doctors to find out which doctor accepts a particular
    insurance plan. Under these circumstances, the caller may request
    that the CA retain the information the caller gave to the first
    called party in order to repeat it to the subsequent called parties.

49. [Discussion]{.underline}. We agree with commenters that an STS CA
    should be permitted to retain information from a particular call in
    order to facilitate the completion of consecutive calls at the
    request of the calling party.[^104] We therefore amend our rule
    accordingly. Though designed to protect the privacy of the parties,
    the unamended rule substantially reduced the efficiencies that could
    be attained in an STS call. Under the amended rule, the caller may
    ask the CA to retain a record of a call. Alternatively, upon
    realizing that the caller wants to convey the same information to
    several different numbers, the CA may ask the caller if he wants the
    CA to retain a record in order to repeat the same information in
    subsequent calls. The CA may retain the information only for as long
    as it takes to complete the subsequent calls.

50. We believe that this kind of situation is consistent with the
    statute because it can only be done at the caller's request. Without
    this amended rule, the user, who has difficulty speaking, would have
    to repeat the information several times, placing a burden on the
    caller, and also causing the calls to be longer than necessary. In
    addition, the period of record retention is limited, the
    confidentiality and privacy of the caller are maintained, and the
    choice to retain the record is made by the caller.

> **e. Frequently Called Numbers for STS Users**

51. Based on commenters' requests, we believe that an additional minimum
    standard is appropriate for STS. As suggested by commenters, we will
    require that relay providers offer STS users the option to maintain
    at the relay center a list of names and telephone numbers which the
    STS user frequently calls.[^105] STS CAs may have difficulty
    understanding the name and telephone number of the person that the
    STS user is calling and, unlike other utterances, this information
    has no context. Because the STS CA would have access to the STS
    user's list of frequently called names and phone numbers, the STS
    user could request that a call be placed to a particular person
    without having to state the telephone number. After the STS user
    names the called party, the STS CA shall repeat the name and state
    the telephone number of the called party to ensure that the STS CA
    places the call to the correct party and phone number. Consistent
    with our discussion of customer information, *supra*, this
    information shall be treated as customer profile information and
    therefore must be transferred to a new provider as necessary.

> **f. Confidentiality**

52. [Background.]{.underline} Section 225 requires the Commission to
    adopt rules that prohibit relay operators from disclosing the
    content of any relayed conversation. To that end, our current rules
    prohibit a CA from "disclosing the content of any relayed
    conversation regardless of content...even if to do so would be
    inconsistent with state or local law."[^106] In adopting this rule,
    the Commission noted that it "believe\[s\] that confidentiality is
    essential to \[relay\] service, and that users of TRS can have
    confidence in the basic privacy of their conversations." [^107] With
    respect to VRI, there are additional confidentiality concerns as the
    anonymity of the traditional TRS conversation is lost by the visual
    contact between the user and the interpreter.[^108] As a result,
    with VRI the probability that the interpreter will be able to
    identify or recognize the caller is much greater than in traditional
    TRS. Further, if the interpreter were placed in a position in which
    others could see her, the VRI user's private conversation could be
    seen by others.

53. [Discussion.]{.underline} We are persuaded by commenters that we
    must amend our rules to require VRI providers to take appropriate
    measures to ensure that the confidentiality of VRI users is
    maintained.[^109] This action is consistent with the statutory
    intent, evidenced in section 225(d)(1)(F), to preserve
    confidentiality, and with section 225's requirement of functionally
    equivalent communications. Further, as noted above, the Commission
    has previously recognized that confidentiality and privacy are
    essential to relay service.[^110] No commenters opposed this
    conclusion.

> **g. Verbatim Relay of Conversations**

54. [Background]{.underline}. Section 225 requires the Commission to
    adopt rules that "prohibit relay operators from intentionally
    altering a relayed conversation."[^111] Our current rules add an
    additional requirement that CAs must relay all conversations
    verbatim unless the relay user specifically requests
    summarization.[^112]

55. This requirement is intended to protect the user by ensuring that
    the message the user intends to convey is accurately conveyed to the
    other party. According to the State of California, which currently
    offers STS service, the STS CA works best if she facilitates the
    call rather than simply repeats the caller's message verbatim.[^113]
    This is an important distinction, and is necessary given the nature
    of the STS user's disability. For example, if an STS user repeats a
    word several times before going to the next word, the CA should have
    the flexibility to eliminate the repetition. Many STS users also
    suffer from short term memory loss, and effective CAs can remind
    users of information they have already relayed or remind a user to
    leave her number on the machine.

56. [Discussion.]{.underline} We are persuaded by commenters, who base
    their comments on experience with STS relay service, that the rule
    should be amended to permit the STS CA some flexibility in relaying
    the conversation. We will eliminate the requirement in our rules
    that the CA must relay the conversation "verbatim" for STS calls.
    This requirement is a barrier to effective STS relay service. CAs
    handling STS calls are nevertheless still prohibited from
    intentionally altering a relayed conversation.

57. This change will address the concerns of those commenters who point
    out that STS users may need some additional assistance from CAs to
    communicate their messages to called parties.[^114] Our new rule
    will give the CA the necessary flexibilty to accomplish the caller's
    goal when making the call, but will retain the statutory requirement
    that the CA not intentionally alter the meaning of the conversation.
    We find that, although the current requirement is intended to make
    the CA transparent, it is at odds with the best role of the CA.

> **h. Speed of Answer Requirements**

58. [Background]{.underline}. Our current TRS speed-of-answer
    requirement provides that 85% of all calls shall be answered within
    ten seconds, and that no more than 30 seconds may elapse between
    receipt of dialing information and the dialing of the requested
    number. In response to our concern that the rule did not result in
    adequate speed of answer times due to inconsistencies in its
    interpretation, we proposed to change the rule to require TRS
    providers to ensure that 85% of all calls are answered within ten
    seconds by a CA prepared to place the TRS call at that time.[^115]
    We further proposed to require that the calculation of whether a
    provider is in compliance with the 85%-10 second rule must be
    performed on at least a daily basis, and that the 10-second
    speed-of-answer time frame must begin when a call initially arrives
    at the TRS provider\'s network.[^116] We did not propose to require
    that all abandoned calls[^117] be counted in the speed of answer
    calculation, but did seek comment on how we could ensure that relay
    centers were properly staffed so that consumers' calls were not
    placed on hold waiting attention from a CA.

59. [Discussion.]{.underline} For a TRS user, reaching a CA to place a
    relay call is the equivalent of picking up a phone and getting a
    dial tone. Any interpretation of our rule that delays a customer's
    ability to place a call through the relay center clearly compromises
    the functional equivalence of relay service. We will modify our rule
    to minimize the circumstances under which customers experience
    delays in placing their calls through relay services.

60. While many commenters supported our proposal to modify the rule to
    require 85% of all calls to be answered in ten seconds by a CA
    prepared to handle the call at the time,[^118] others pointed out
    that this requirement would prohibit relay providers from capturing
    certain call setup information by automated processes which can, in
    fact, speed up the handling of calls.[^119] We did not intend to
    inhibit the use of automated call handling processes. We will modify
    our proposal to accommodate automated call handling and adopt a rule
    to require 85% of all calls to be answered in ten seconds by any
    method which results in the TRS caller's call immediately being
    placed, not put in a queue or on hold. This new rule replaces the
    requirement that no more than thirty seconds elapse between the
    receipt of dialing information and the dialing of the requested
    number, and replaces it with the requirement that the call must be
    immediately handled, whether by a CA or an automated process, but
    not placed in a call distribution queue.

61. We will also adopt the requirement that the 10-second limit begins
    at the time the call is delivered to the TRS center's network. The
    call is considered delivered to the TRS center's network when the
    relay center's equipment accepts the call from the LEC and the
    public switched network actually delivers the call to the TRS
    center. Any delays in the TRS center accepting the call from the
    local carrier will be captured in our call blocking standard
    discussed below.

62. A provider's compliance with the 85%-10 second rule will be measured
    on a daily basis. We disagree with Sprint and AT&T's argument that
    the measurement should be performed over a longer time frame to
    account for wide daily variations in traffic loads.[^120] The burden
    should be on relay services to manage staffing needs based on the
    fluctuations in traffic, not on consumers to tolerate delays in
    reaching a CA when traffic is high. Just like voice calls, TRS calls
    should be answered within a reasonable time period, regardless of
    the traffic load. We are not persuaded by KRSI's argument that it
    should not be measured daily because it does not now generate the
    calculation on a daily basis.[^121] Neither KRSI nor any other party
    claims that it cannot generate the needed data.

63. As we stated in the *Notice,* we continue to be concerned about the
    exclusion of abandoned calls -- calls answered by the relay center,
    but never reaching an CA -- from the "85-10" calculation. As no
    other solution was presented in the record, we will mandate that
    abandoned calls be included in the speed-of-answer calculation.
    While we continue to recognize that some calls will be abandoned by
    the caller for reasons that have nothing to do with the length of
    time it takes to reach a CA, we believe that the 85% minimum allows
    for those instances.[^122] Compliance with the 85% standard will be
    measured by taking all calls that are answered within ten seconds of
    reaching the relay center's network in such a way that the call is
    immediately handled and dividing it by all calls answered by the
    relay center. Excluding these abandoned calls in speed-of-answer
    reports can distort the record of a TRS provider\'s actual
    performance by reducing the total number of calls from which the
    average speed-of-answer is calculated, thus indicating that the TRS
    provider\'s average speed of answer meets the minimum standard, even
    though consumers are kept waiting.[^123]

64. We note that even with these changes, customers might still be
    unable to reach the relay center. The LEC may not be able to deliver
    the call to the TRS center because all of the telephone trunks
    between the LEC and the TRS center are busy. Also, the TRS center
    might not answer the call because all CAs are busy and the relay
    center's internal queue is full. We agree with California's DDTP
    that we should add another component to the speed-of-answer
    measurement that will address these sources of delay. We will
    require calculations of the percentage of calls \"blocked,\" or
    attempted by TRS users but never answered by the TRS center at all
    because of inadequate capacity into the facility, or staffing of the
    relay center. [^124] We amend our rules to require that relay
    centers be designed to a P.01 standard.[^125] This is a network
    design standard used to ensure that no more than 1% of calls at the
    busiest hour of the day are unable to be delivered to the relay
    center network due to inadequate facilities. In addition, we will
    require a minimum blockage standard, measured daily, of no greater
    than 1%. This call blockage rate shall be measured by dividing the
    number of blocked and not answered calls by the number of total call
    attempts. We believe that the blockage rate we adopt today provides
    an attainable, essential standard that will ensure that TRS
    providers meet the Commission\'s 85%-10 second requirement without
    preventing calls from reaching their network, or not answering
    calls. Failure to account for blocked and abandoned calls gives an
    incomplete assessment of service quality. We note that the data
    necessary to measure call attempt and blockage rates must be
    obtained from the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) that serves the TRS
    center. Therefore, our rule will require LECs to provide the call
    attempt rates and the rates of calls blocked between the LEC and the
    relay center to relay administrators and relay centers upon request.

65. These new rules on speed of answer will protect consumers from
    delays in placing calls through TRS services. These new measurements
    will ensure calls are received and answered by relay centers as
    quickly as possible, thereby giving TRS users functionally
    equivalent service. We believe this rule will result in more calls
    answered quickly than if we simply increase the percentage from 85%
    to 90% or 95%, as suggested by some commenters.[^126] Of course, as
    with our other mandatory minimum standards for TRS, state TRS
    authorities remain free to strengthen this minimum requirement at
    their discretion.

> **i. In-Call Replacement of Communication Assistants and Choice of
> Gender**

66. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Notice*, we tentatively concluded
    that we should amend our rules to require that a CA answering and
    placing a TRS call must stay with that call for at least ten minutes
    before an in-call CA transfer can take place. In particular, we
    asked commenters to discuss whether a ten-minute time period
    adequately balances the need to minimize call disruptions with the
    need to prevent CA fatigue, or whether the minimum period of call
    coverage by the same CA should be shorter (five minutes) or longer
    (fifteen minutes).[^127] We also sought comment on whether the
    proposed rule regarding CA transfers would conflict with any
    federal, state, or local labor laws or regulations.[^128] In
    addition, we tentatively concluded that we should not establish a
    rule to permit TRS users to request a specific CA gender during a CA
    transfer, although we strongly encouraged providers to offer this
    option.[^129]

67. [Discussion]{.underline}. We adopt our conclusion to require that a
    CA answering and placing a TTY TRS call must stay with the call for
    a minimum of ten minutes, as preferred by a majority of
    commenters.[^130] The ten-minute requirement reduces potential
    disruption and will make the call more functionally equivalent to
    voice telephone calls. Several TRS providers, however, oppose this
    requirement,[^131] arguing that if adopted, this requirement will
    mean that CAs cannot start the handling of calls during the last ten
    minutes of their shifts and that the next shift will have to report
    ten minutes earlier.[^132] AT&T contends that this requirement is
    not supported by the record or public policy and will interfere with
    the providers\' ability to \"deploy their CA work forces so as to
    properly serve their customers\' call volumes.\"[^133] We disagree.
    CAs answering calls during the last ten minutes of their shifts
    often will be able to complete those calls before their shifts end,
    or very shortly thereafter.

68. The record shows that most TTY TRS calls last for less than ten
    minutes.[^134] We do not believe that a shorter,[^135] or
    longer,[^136] time limit is necessary, at this time. A shorter time
    limit, we believe, would not adequately address our concerns of
    in-call transfers that occur within the first few minutes of a TRS
    call, and a longer time limit might pose concerns of CA
    fatigue.[^137] We do not find it necessary to adopt KRSI\'s
    recommendation to limit the percentage of calls during the day that
    have a change in CAs within 10 minutes because we are requiring a
    minimum of 10 minutes.[^138]

69. With respect to STS relay, we believe that it is appropriate to have
    a longer limit. Commenters report that changing CAs can be
    particularly disruptive to users with speech disabilities.[^139]
    Commenters point out that, during the initial stages of a call,
    there is a "settling-in" time wherein the caller and the CA get
    accustomed to each other.[^140] During this time, callers with
    speech disabilities develop greater assurance that the CA will
    understand them.[^141] Rotation of a CA during an STS call disrupts
    this assurance, and may even cause the user to speak less
    clearly.[^142] For these reasons, we find that STS CAs must stay
    with a call for at least fifteen minutes.

70. We also amend our rules to require that TRS providers make best
    efforts to accommodate a TRS user's desired CA gender. When a call
    is initiated, or during a transfer, TRS providers must attempt to
    accommodate a TRS user request for a specific CA gender. We believe
    this is necessary in order to have functionally equivalent
    communications because voice users know the gender of the party they
    are conversing with, and TRS users should have the same
    treatment.[^143]

> **j. Minimum Typing Speed**

71. [Background]{.underline}. Currently, our rules require CAs to have
    \"competent skills in typing, grammar, spelling, interpretation of
    typewritten ASL, and familiarity with hearing and speech disability
    cultures, language and etiquette.\"[^144] Although we were very
    concerned about allegations of variance in TRS quality, we
    tentatively concluded in the *Notice* that a federal rule imposing a
    minimum typing speed for CAs was not appropriate.[^145] We based
    this tentative conclusion on the concern that a federal standard
    could constrain the labor pool for CAs. We invited comments on
    whether TRS providers are experiencing any labor shortages or
    difficulties in hiring and retaining competent CAs, and the extent
    to and manner in which TRS providers currently screen and test
    potential CAs for typing competency.[^146] Finally, we agreed with
    comments to the *NOI* made by many parties that new technologies,
    such as enhanced TTY protocols and enhanced computer software, could
    greatly increase TRS transmission times and, consequently, CA typing
    speeds would increase as well. We sought comment on the extent to
    which TRS users and TRS providers have adopted such
    technologies.[^147]

72. [Discussion]{.underline}. We are convinced by the comments that a
    federal rule requiring a minimum typing speed is necessary. It is
    not possible for a call with a low typing speed to be functionally
    equivalent to a voice call. We agree with California's Deaf and
    Disabled Telecommunications Program that slow operator typing is
    frustrating to users, which causes hang-ups leading to higher costs
    for ratepayers because of the added length of the call and the
    increase in multiple calls.[^148] We are persuaded by consumers'
    overwhelming support for a minimum standard,[^149] as well as the
    fact that no commenter provided evidence that there is, or would be,
    a shortage of qualified CAs. In addition, as commenters note, there
    are technological solutions that are now available that can increase
    the speed of the transmission.[^150]

73. We amend our rules to require that CAs transmit words at a minimum
    speed equivalent to typing 60 words per minute (wpm). This speed
    need not be met only by typing, but letters, numbers and characters
    must be entered for transmission at 60 wpm regardless of the
    technology used. To satisfy this rule, TRS providers can employ CAs
    who type 60 wpm, or they can employ technology such as speech
    recognition or auto-correct software to otherwise transmit words at
    a speed equivalent to 60 wpm. Commenters suggest typing speeds
    ranging from 60 to 100 wpm.[^151] We find that 60 wpm is appropriate
    given that the vast majority of the relay calls initiated by TTY
    users, including users of TTY software on personal computers, are
    transmitted in baudot, which transmits at a top speed of 45.5 baud,
    or about 60 words per minute. We will require that the typing speed
    be tested on an oral-to-type test of a CA's typing speed, rather
    than a text-to-type test. We agree with commenters that this will
    accurately reflect the skill necessary for relay service.[^152] This
    new rule will reduce the total length of calls and the number of
    hang-ups, leading to more functionally equivalent service.

> **k. Clear and Articulate Voice Communication**

74. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we tentatively concluded
    that clear and articulate voice communication is an essential skill
    for any CA and is essential to the concept of functional
    equivalency. We sought comment on whether to amend our rules to
    address the need for clear and articulate voice communication by CAs
    and, in particular, how to evaluate the clarity and articulation of
    a CA\'s voice communications.[^153]

75. [Discussion]{.underline}. Clear and articulate voice communication
    is an essential skill for any CA, and is essential to the concept of
    \"functional equivalency.\" We fully expect CAs to provide clear
    articulation and ease of understanding. We do not, however, adopt
    measurable standards for clear and articulate voice communication at
    this time. We find that the record provides evidence that it would
    be difficult to establish standards in this area because of the
    subjective nature of such a standard.[^154] For example, the
    presence of an accent or a certain manner of speaking, which to one
    listener renders the speaker inarticulate, may not render the
    speaker inarticulate to another listener. We also decline, as
    suggested by ASHA, to require the CA to be able to relay the message
    without repetition at least 80% of the time.[^155] The equipment,
    not the CA, could be the cause of a garbled message because of line
    noise or other network interference. We will revisit this issue if
    we find that clear articulation and ease of understanding are not
    being provided.

> **l. Treatment of TRS Customer Information**

76. [Background]{.underline}. TRS is generally offered through relay
    providers operating under an exclusive contract with a state or
    other authority to provide statewide TRS for a specified period of
    time, *e.g.*, three to five years. To deliver efficient relay
    service, relay providers generally develop databases of information
    on frequent relay customer's preferences, such as the TRS user's
    interexchange carrier of choice and whether the customer uses the
    voice or hearing carry-over features[^156] This information, often
    referred to as \"caller profiles,\" is used by the TRS provider to
    deliver more efficient and individualized service to TRS
    users.[^157]

77. States have experienced difficulty ensuring a smooth transition
    between providers during a change in TRS vendor when the outgoing
    vendor refuses to transfer the caller profiles to the new vendor.
    Outgoing TRS providers have asserted that the information is either
    customer proprietary network information (CPNI), the sharing of
    which is restricted under section 222 of the Communications Act, or
    is proprietary. They object to providing the database to the
    incoming TRS provider.[^158] If a new vendor cannot receive the
    caller profile information from the old vendor, however, customers
    experience significant disruption of service. Callers must rebuild
    the profile with the new vendor, and risk billing and other
    problems. In addition, the new vendor must spend time and resources
    to obtain the customer profile information from the TRS users. We
    acknowledged in the *Notice* that section 225 requires the
    Commission to ensure that TRS "is available, to the extent possible
    and *in the most efficient manner*, to persons with hearing or
    speech disabilities in the United States."[^159] We asked parties to
    comment on the use of caller profiles, including whether outgoing
    vendors should transfer the profile to a new TRS vendor to provide
    TRS in the \"most efficient manner\" as required by the statute. We
    also asked whether the restrictions on the use of CPNI found in
    section 222 of the Communictions Act apply to these profiles.[^160]

78. [Discussion]{.underline}. We find that section 222's CPNI
    requirements do not apply to these customer profiles. Section 222
    applies to telecommunications carriers.[^161]Whether TRS providers
    are telecommunications carriers under the Act depends on whether TRS
    is considered a telecommunications service. The Act defines a
    telecommunications carrier as "... any provider of
    telecommunications services.... A telecommunications carrier shall
    be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent
    that it is engaged in telecommunications services...."[^162] An
    entity is engaged in telecommunications services if it offers
    "telecommunications" for a fee directly to the public.[^163]
    Telecommunications is defined as "... the transmission, between or
    among points specified by the user, of information of the user's
    choosing, *without change in the form or content of the information
    as sent and received* (emphasis added)."[^164]

79. TRS provides individuals with hearing or speech disabilities the
    ability to engage in communications using the telecommunications
    network. The Act defines telecommunications relay services as:

> \... telephone transmission services that *provide the ability* for an
> individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to
> *engage in communication* by wire or radio with a hearing individual
> in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an
> individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment
> to communicate using voice communications services by wire or
> radio.[^165]

80. Although TRS provides a form of telephone transmission service, its
    purpose is to provide individuals with hearing or speech
    disabilities the ability to communicate by wire or radio with
    hearing individuals through a change in the form of the information
    or message, most commonly from text to voice, thus facilitating a
    desired communication. Indeed, it is the sender's need for
    assistance in so changing the form of the information to be
    communicated that underlies the purpose of the relay service. For
    this very reason, TRS cannot be considered "telecommunications"
    under the definition in section 3(43), because that section excludes
    transmissions that "change the form or content of the information as
    sent or received." Because TRS providers do not provide
    telecommunications services, they are not telecommunications
    carriers, and section 222 does not apply.

81. We conclude that transferring this data is essential to fulfilling
    our statutory mandate to ensure that TRS is available "in the most
    efficient manner." The transfer of TRS user profile information
    between TRS providers does not violate TRS user privacy
    expectations, because the user has agreed to give the data to the
    TRS provider. In addition, the reason for giving this data to the
    TRS provider remains even if there is a change in TRS providers.
    Both the transferor and transferee fall under the same
    confidentiality requirements and thus no privacy concerns are
    raised. We require, therefore, that all future state contracts shall
    provide for a transfer of this information. When entering new
    contracts, states must include language that requires that TRS
    customer profile data be transferred from an outgoing TRS vendor to
    the incoming TRS vendor.[^166] Such data must be transferred in
    usable form at least 60 days prior to the provider\'s last day of
    service, in order to ensure minimum disruptions to customers\'
    calls.[^167]

82. We find that the data may not be used for any purpose other than the
    provision of TRS. While we find that the profile information should
    be transferred during a change in vendor, we agree with commenters
    that argue that the confidentiality of customer profile information
    is of paramount importance to TRS users.[^168] We agree that
    unfettered access to TRS user information would violate the
    reasonable privacy expectations of the TRS user. To safeguard
    against abuse, we adopt NAD/CAN and TDI's suggestion and require
    that TRS customer profile information shall not be used for any
    purpose other than to connect the TRS user, for whom the profile
    exists, with the called parties desired by that TRS user.[^169] We
    require that TRS customer profile information shall not be sold,
    distributed, shared, or revealed in any way by the relay center or
    its employees, unless compelled to do so by lawful order or in
    compliance with our requirement regarding a change in vendor.

83. We will not adopt the recommendation of KRSI and Mr. Stoltz to
    require TRS providers to obtain signed approvals from customers to
    allow the outgoing TRS provider to transfer the customer profile
    information to the incoming TRS provider.[^170] Such a requirement
    is not generally supported by TRS users and would unnecessarily
    disrupt customers each time the vendor is changed. Our approach
    maintains privacy by requiring that both the old and new vendors are
    similarly restricted and cannot use the information for any purpose
    other than as an aid in the provision of TRS.

**4. Capability of Handling Any Type of Call**

84. Our current rules require TRS to be capable "of handling any type of
    call normally provided by common carriers and the burden of proving
    the infeasibility of handling any type of call will be placed on the
    carriers."[^171] Our rules also require that "TRS users shall pay
    rates no greater than the rates paid for functionally equivalent
    voice communication services ...."[^172] In spite of these
    provisions, TRS users continue to have trouble placing relay calls
    when using wireless service, using their long distance carrier of
    choice when making relay calls, and receiving the benefits of
    special pricing plans for both wireless and wireline phone calls
    when using relay service. Some of these problems appear to be due to
    carriers' failure to enter into the necessary billing and other
    arrangements with TRS providers.[^173] Carriers are obligated under
    our rules to take the action necessary for TRS providers to handle
    any type of call under equal pricing plans or to demonstrate the
    infeasibility of handling certain calls. TRS users must be able to
    place all wireless and wireline calls that have not otherwise been
    proven infeasible, and may not be charged rates that are any greater
    than rates paid for functionally equivalent voice communication
    services for those calls. We need not create a new rule to address
    this situation because our rules already establish this
    obligation.[^174] We remind carriers that the Commission may
    consider enforcement action, including forfeitures, should this
    obligation not be met.[^175]

**5. Treatment of Enhanced Services**

85. [Background]{.underline}. Throughout this rulemaking, many
    commenters have requested requiring relay service to accommodate
    subscription features and services, such as Caller ID, as well as
    features and services that TRS users typically may encounter, such
    as interactive menu systems.[^176] In the *Notice*, we tentatively
    concluded that our jurisdiction under section 225 does not permit us
    to mandate access to such services. We asked for comment on how to
    approach two specific services raised by commenters: interactive
    menu systems and pay-per-call services.[^177]

86. We also tentatively concluded that, although we do not have
    jurisdiction to require access to such services, we do have
    authority to establish rules to govern the way in which CAs handle
    recorded messages that require user interaction or input.[^178] The
    current rules require CAs to relay all conversation verbatim unless
    the relay user specifically requests summarization.[^179] We
    proposed to amend our rules to allow CAs, when encountering an
    interactive or recorded message during a TRS call, to use a "hot
    key" to alert the TRS user to the presence of a recorded
    message.[^180] We stated that the CA should be permitted to inquire
    as to whether the TRS user wishes the CA to summarize the message or
    to listen for specific information. We sought comment on this
    proposed rule.[^181]

87. [Discussion.]{.underline} Upon further analysis, we conclude that
    section 225 does not prohibit us from requiring relay services to
    accommodate enhanced or information services. We find that section
    225 does not limit relay service to telecommunications services, but
    rather, to the contrary, expressly reaches enhanced or information
    services. In fact, section 225 specifically defines TRS as a service
    that "provides the ability for an individual who has a hearing
    impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire
    or radio ... in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the
    ability of an individual who does not have \[such an\]... impairment
    to communicate using voice communication services by wire or
    radio**."** Communication by wire and radio encompasses both
    telecommunications and information or enhanced services. Both
    "communication by wire" and "communication by radio" are broad terms
    defined in section 3 of the Communications Act.[^182] They are not
    limited to telecommunications services, but include "the
    transmission ...of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of
    all kinds...including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus,
    and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and
    delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission."[^183]
    This latter definition sweeps broadly and extends to information
    services, as defined in section 3(2) of the Act.

88. Moreover, we find that an interpretation of TRS that fails to follow
    the literal meaning of the statute would be contrary to its stated
    purpose. As explained below, a more limited reading that excludes
    information services would restrict us from ensuring that TRS is
    provided in a manner functionally equivalent to that provided users
    of voice telecommunications services, as the definition requires.
    Thus, a narrow interpretation would curtail delivery of relay
    services, rather than facilitate them, as Congress has expressly
    directed us to do in section 225(b)(1)(requiring us to ensure that
    "relay services are available, to the extent possible and in the
    most efficient manner..."). Thus, we find that by reading the
    statute consistent with its literal meaning, we further the express
    statutory purpose.

89. Notwithstanding our initial cautionary note in the *Notice* where we
    questioned the plain meaning of this definitional provision because
    of language in a House Report, upon further review we conclude that
    in fact the legislative history supports our reading of the statute.
    As commenters have explained, an exchange on the House floor after
    the House Report was issued persuasively demonstrates the intent of
    the drafters to reach audiotext services at a later date when
    "future technology can make these services available utilizing a
    relay service."[^184] This colloquy was intended to clarify that the
    inclusion of limiting language in the House Report was only intended
    to preclude relay of audiotext services to the extent not then
    technologically possible. We therefore disagree with the few parties
    who claimed, without substantiation, that the statute should be
    interpreted more narrowly.[^185]

90. Not only is the definition of TRS broad, but as noted, section 225
    requires the Commission to ensure that interstate and intrastate
    relay services are available "to the extent possible."[^186] This
    provision requires us to evaluate the state of technology available
    to provide relay services, and determine what is possible. As
    technology improves, relay service and its standard offerings should
    also improve. In sum, given the clear statutory language defining
    TRS, the purpose of the provision, and its legislative history, we
    reject our earlier tentative position. Below we will address several
    improvements consumers have requested.

91. [Interactive Menus and Voice Mail.]{.underline} We are convinced by
    the record that today relay service does not provide consumers with
    a hearing or speech disability the ability to engage in
    communication by wire or radio in a manner that is functionally
    equivalent to those consumers without such a disability when the
    communication encounters an interactive menu.[^187] We are
    concerned, as are many TRS users, that individuals with disabilities
    are being excluded from access to these ubiquitous
    technologies.[^188] In order to provide TRS that is functionally
    equivalent to telecommunications service provided to voice users, we
    must interpret our duty under section 225 to include the authority
    to require access through TRS to interactive menus. Interactive menu
    systems and recorded messages are increasingly used by businesses
    and services. They present substantial barriers to TRS users because
    the speed at which information is provided is too fast to allow the
    TRS user to respond within the system response time. As a result,
    TRS users are either unable to make calls that encounter interactive
    menus or other recorded messages or must frequently place a
    succession of calls to leave a message with, or access the
    information provided by, such systems.[^189]

92. The technologies to make these calls functionally equivalent are
    still being developed, and are required under Section 255 of the
    Act.[^190] Section 255 requires telecommunication providers and
    manufacturers to make their services and products accessible to
    people with disabilities, if readily achievable. Until we determine
    that such technology is fully deployed, we require that certain
    features be available to all relay users for the handling of these
    calls.

93. First, we will adopt our proposal, supported by commenters, to
    require CAs to alert the user to the presence of a recorded message
    through a \"hot key\" on the CA's terminal.[^191] The hot key would
    send text from the CA to the consumer's TTY indicating that a
    recording or interactive menu has been encountered. The consumer can
    respond by typing back instructions on how he or she wishes to
    proceed. Commenters correctly point out that our current rules
    permit the consumer to ask the CA to summarize a message.[^192]
    Because some relay facilities may be technically incapable of
    receiving "interrupt" messages, a caller using a TTY who does not
    request summarization before the CA begins typing a lengthy recorded
    message would have no choice but to receive the entire recorded
    message verbatim. Our amendment gives these TTY users an opportunity
    to request summarization. We encourage relay providers to consider
    whether a user's preference to summarize messages should be included
    in the user's customer profile.

94. Second, we adopt the suggestion of some commenters that we require
    relay centers to record these recorded messages, which could be
    retained for the length of the call.[^193] This will allow the CA to
    record the message at the relay center and rewind the message as
    needed to complete relaying of the message to the TRS user. Because
    the CA would have a recording of the lengthy message, the CA would
    be able to finish relaying the message to the TRS user without
    having to redial the requested telephone number to hear the message
    time and again as she types it to the TRS user.[^194]

95. Finally, oftentimes, consumers are unable to complete calls to
    interactive menus without repeating those calls. We agree with
    consumers who argue that the statute prohibits consumers from being
    charged for repeated calls.[^195] The statute and our current rules
    state that users of telecommunications relay services should pay
    rates no greater than the rates paid for functionally equivalent
    voice communication services.[^196] Because voice callers can expect
    to complete their interaction with an interactive menu system in one
    call, relay users shall not be charged for additional calls needed
    to complete their interactions with recorded messages or interactive
    menu systems. We anticipate that TRS providers will include these
    added costs of completing these interactions in their overall costs
    of providing relay service, for reimbursement from the state and
    interstate TRS Funds.

96. A few commenters suggested requiring access to a live operator in
    lieu of a menu or recorded message.[^197] Section 225, however, does
    not give us any express authority over the entities employing menus
    and recorded messages. As noted above, however, we do expect that
    these features will become increasingly available as equipment
    manufacturers and service providers comply with our rules recently
    issued under section 255 of the Communications Act.

97. [Pay-Per-Call Services.]{.underline} Commenters have also asked us
    to require that pay-per-call services be offered through TRS.[^198]
    The record clearly indicates that it is technically feasible for
    relay centers to accommodate calls to pay-per-call services.[^199]
    Pay-per-call services are services that are accessible through use
    of a 900 number.[^200] The record shows that some relay providers
    already offer pay-per-call services,[^201] so we require relay
    service to offer pay-per-call as another component of functional
    equivalency.

**6. Access to Emergency Services**

98. [Background.]{.underline} While Department of Justice regulations
    require state and local government entities to make emergency
    services directly accessible to TTY users,[^202] some individuals
    with hearing and speech disabilities continue to contact emergency
    services via a TRS center. Our current rules provide that emergency
    calls should be handled in the same manner as any other TRS
    call.[^203] In the *Notice*, we expressed our concern that the
    current handling of emergency calls may jeopardize public safety,
    and we noted that TRS users should be informed as to how emergency
    calls will be handled.[^204] We asked TRS providers for a
    description of their current operating procedures for incoming
    emergency calls, and sought comment on whether TRS centers should be
    required to pass a caller\'s Automatic Number Identification (ANI)
    information to an emergency services operator, and how \"emergency
    calls\" should be defined for the purposes of TRS.[^205]

99. [Discussion]{.underline}. Notwithstanding the requirement that 911
    operators are prepared to handle TTY calls directly, we have a
    separate obligation to make relay calls to 911 functionally
    equivalent to a direct call to 911. When a caller uses relay to call
    911, the objective should be to provide the appropriate 911 operator
    with the information she needs to process the call as quickly as
    possible. Based on the record, we find there are two ways that the
    handling of emergency calls by relay centers can improve. First,
    calls must be directed as quickly as possible to the correct Public
    Safety Answering Point, or PSAP.[^206] Second, the caller's
    telephone number, used by the PSAP to determine the location of the
    caller, must get to the PSAP quickly and in a format the PSAP can
    use. One relay provider has developed a solution that quickly
    connects callers to the appropriate PSAP by matching a caller's
    phone number with the appropriate PSAP electronically and
    transferring the call to the PSAP with two key strokes.[^207] This
    solution appears to be the best solution currently available,[^208]
    and appears to be possible for all relay providers to institute, as
    no party argued that it could not be done. Many parties supported
    this kind of connection for emergency calls.[^209] We will require
    providers to provide this kind of immediate connection to 911. Any
    other resolution will unnecessarily delay the call.[^210] When a
    voice caller dials 911, his phone number is automatically
    transmitted to the appropriate PSAP.

100. Second, as requested by commenters, we will require that CAs pass
     along the caller's telephone number to the PSAP orally even when
     the caller disconnects before being connected to emergency
     services.[^211] With a voice caller, a PSAP will automatically
     receive the caller's telephone number even if the call is
     disconnected, and the PSAP will normally return the call if the
     caller hangs up or if the call is disconnected. We believe our
     requirement is necessary to ensure functionally equivalent service
     and will allow the PSAP to follow its normal procedures for a call
     that disconnects before being handled by an operator.[^212] We
     would prefer to require that callers' telephone numbers
     automatically be relayed to the 911 operator from the relay
     operator, as suggested by many commenters,[^213] but believe it
     would be premature to do so as no provider has demonstrated that
     capability and several have raised questions about its
     feasibility.[^214] We will address some of the technical issues
     that would make this possible in our *Further Notice.*

101. With respect to a definition of emergency call, parties offered
     numerous suggestions.[^215] We agree, however, with those
     commenters who argue that no definition of emergency is necessary,
     and that the TRS operator should simply be instructed to refer
     calls to emergency services when appropriate.[^216] We believe that
     this approach is reasonable and recognizes that at times there may
     need to be a judgment made about when the caller is in distress and
     in need of emergency assistance.[^217]

**7. Outreach**

102. Our current rule states that carriers, "through publication in
     their directories, periodic bill inserts, placement of TRS
     instructions in telephone directories, through directory assistance
     services, and incorporation of TTY numbers in telephone
     directories, shall assure that callers in their service areas are
     aware of the availability and use of TRS.\"[^218] Despite the
     Commission\'s decision in the *Notice* that we would not seek
     comment on outreach activities, several parties provided lengthy
     comments on the need for more effective outreach activities and
     strongly encouraged the Commission to propose rules concerning the
     effectiveness of information and outreach programs.[^219]

103. We are convinced by the comments that this rule has not effectively
     ensured that callers are aware of TRS, and that the lack of
     awareness adversely affects the quality of TRS. Several parties
     contend that TRS users find it difficult to communicate with
     callers who are unaware of the existence of TRS. Callers using a
     relay service experience an alarming number of hang-ups by people
     receiving the TRS call who are not familiar with, and do not
     understand, the service.[^220] Commenters state that many
     employment opportunities are not extended to individuals with
     hearing disabilities because employers are uncomfortable using, or
     are unwilling to use, TRS for normal business transactions.[^221]

104. While we have not given public notice sufficient to change the
     rules in this Order, we will propose further changes for comment.
     We clarify that the current rule obligates carriers to assure that
     "callers" in their service areas are aware of TRS.[^222] The term
     \"callers" refers to the general public, not just consumers with
     speech and hearing disabilities. It is crucial for everyone to be
     aware of the availability of TRS for it to offer the functional
     equivalence required by the statute. As Congress has stated, TRS
     was designed to help bridge the gap between people with hearing and
     speech disabilities and people without such disabilities with
     respect to telecommunications services. The lack of public
     awareness prevents TRS from achieving this Congressionally mandated
     objective. We also note that, as we have determined that TRS
     includes services other than traditional TTY-based relay service,
     outreach efforts should now include information about these relay
     services as well.

**8. Enforcement and Certification**

> **a. Substantive Changes to Certified TRS Programs**

105. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Notice*, we proposed to improve
     Commission oversight of certified state TRS programs. First, we
     tentatively concluded that states must notify the Commission of
     substantive changes in their state TRS program within sixty days of
     the effective date of the change and file documentation
     demonstrating that the state TRS program remains in compliance with
     the Commission\'s mandatory minimum standards.[^223]

106. [Discussion]{.underline}. We adopt our tentative conclusion to
     require that states notify the Commission, in writing, about
     substantive changes in their TRS programs within 60 days of when
     they occur, as is supported by most parties.[^224] Such
     notification shall include a summary of the action taken, the
     reason for the change, and a certification that the state TRS
     program continues to meet federal minimum standards after
     implementing the substantive change. Substantive changes include
     but are not limited to: change in state vendor, change in a state
     TRS program to allow a multiple vendor environment, and changes in
     state rules related to any of the federal minimum standards for
     TRS. We would also consider a major change in technology used by a
     state program to be a substantive change.[^225]

107. The record indicates that most parties support our proposals to
     strengthen the Commission\'s oversight and enforcement of standards
     regarding the state TRS programs, and we disagree with commenters
     who say that the Commission already has adequate oversight of state
     TRS programs under its current rules.[^226] States make changes to
     their TRS programs throughout the five year certification period.
     Providing the Commission notice of substantive changes will help
     ensure that such changes do not affect the state TRS programs'
     compliance with Commission rules. This minimal notification
     requirement will ensure that current information relating to TRS
     programs is available and will also ensure that state TRS programs
     continue to provide high quality TRS throughout the five-year
     certification period. In addition, informing the Commission of
     changes will help the Commission -- and other relay administrators
     and consumers -- be informed of developments in relay services as
     they occur throughout the nation.[^227]

108. We do not believe that this notification requirement will require
     states to make burdensome filings, or that such filings will affect
     their \"ability and willingness\" to make such changes to their TRS
     programs, or modify their programs to meet specific state
     needs.[^228] First, we require notification only for changes that
     are \"substantial,\" which suggests that these changes will not
     occur often. Second, the filing should be brief because state relay
     administrators need only explain the change they have made and
     certify continued compliance with the federal minimum standards.

> **b. Information on Complaint Procedures**

109. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Notice*, we tentatively concluded
     that we should amend our rules to require that, as a condition of
     certification, a state TRS program must demonstrate that its
     program makes available to TRS users informational materials on
     state and Commission complaint procedures sufficient for users to
     know the proper procedures for filing complaints.[^229]

110. [Discussion.]{.underline} We will adopt our tentative conclusion,
     supported by commenters, that state TRS programs must make
     available to TRS users information on state and Commission
     complaint procedures.[^230] We will adopt a rule to require such
     efforts as a minimum standard.

111. We will also require, as suggested by several parties, that states
     provide contact information to the Commission, which will be posted
     on the Commission's web site.[^231] We agree that providing an
     Internet reference would enable customers to easily find the
     appropriate forum for filing their complaints.[^232] We, therefore,
     require that state TRS administrators, by June 30, 2000, submit the
     name and address of a contact person or office for filing consumer
     complaints about intrastate TRS service to the Consumer Information
     Bureau, Disability Rights Office, 445 12^th^ Street SW, Suite
     6-A207, Washington, DC, 20554. The state complaint contacts will be
     on file at our reference center located at Commission headquarters
     and will be posted on the Internet at the Commission\'s web site at
     http://www.fcc.gov. Each state\'s contact information shall
     include, at a minimum: the name and address of the state office
     that receives complaints, grievances, inquiries and suggestions,
     along with the relevant voice and TTY telephone number(s), fax
     number, e-mail address, and physical address to which
     correspondence should be sent. It should also include information
     on the relay provider and how to contact the provider directly.

112. We also require that interstate relay providers submit to the
     Commission, by June 30, 2000, the name and address of a contact
     person or office to receive input and inquiries regarding
     interstate TRS service. The Commission also will post this
     information on the Internet. We require that similar information be
     on file for all relay providers having state TRS contracts.

113. We remind relay users that the statute requires that complaints
     about intrastate service be filed first with the state.[^233]
     Having state contact information and state complaint procedures on
     file at the Commission and on the Commission\'s web site will help
     disseminate information that enables TRS users to direct their
     complaints or suggestions on how to improve the quality of TRS to
     the proper forum.

> **c. Complaint Procedures**

114. [Background]{.underline}. Section 225(g) directs the Commission to
     refer complaints about intrastate TRS to those states which have
     certified TRS programs; states have 180 days to resolve the
     complaints, unless a shorter time is prescribed by state law.[^234]
     Other complaints filed with the Commission, either about interstate
     TRS or about intrastate TRS in states without a certified program,
     must be resolved by the Commission within 180 days of their
     filing.[^235] In 1991, the Commission promulgated rules prescribing
     the manner in which complaints will be either referred to a state
     as required under section 225(g) or, if exclusively within our
     jurisdiction, resolved by the Commission.[^236] In the *Notice,* we
     requested comment on whether modifications to our complaint rules
     are needed to better serve the needs of TRS users.[^237]

115. [Discussion]{.underline}. The record indicates that there is
     considerable consumer dissatisfaction with the speed and
     effectiveness of both state and federal complaint processes.[^238]
     With respect to federal complaint processes, we agree with
     commenters that the existing formal process is simply too unwieldy
     for most consumers.

116. In other areas where we experience complaints from consumers, we
     have adopted processes that make it easy for consumers to file
     complaints and for defendant companies to move expeditiously to
     resolve them. For example, our rules governing the procedures to be
     followed when complaints are filed pursuant to section 255 of the
     Act[^239] give consumers the option of filing complaints
     "informally."[^240] The principal objective of the informal
     mechanism is to afford consumers and affected companies
     non-adversarial opportunities to resolve issues or concerns without
     expending the time, effort and money typically associated with our
     formal ajudicatory proceedings. We believe that our section 255
     rules can serve as a useful model for TRS complaints. Therefore we
     will incorporate this "consumer friendly" model into our TRS rules.
     We retain our existing TRS complaint procedures as an option for
     consumers desiring formal adjudication of a complaint.

117. The new rules will make it easy for consumers to lodge complaints
     and facilitate cooperative efforts between consumers and TRS
     providers to resolve them quickly without extensive involvement by
     the Commission. At the same time, the rules position Commission
     staff to be pro-active in handling complaints that raise
     troublesome compliance questions or which otherwise may not be
     susceptible to informal resolution by the parties. [^241] For
     example, Commission staff will have the authority to require a
     response to an informal complaint in less than thirty days if
     warranted under the circumstances of a complaint. In addition, the
     staff may, in its discretion, require a TRS provider to appear
     before it, via telephone conference or in person, to bring and give
     evidence relevant to a complaint. Finally, if the nature or number
     of complaints against a particular TRS provider evinces an
     underlying compliance problem, the staff may initiate on its own
     motion, or recommend to the Commission if appropriate, prompt and
     decisive enforcement actions.[^242]

118. With respect to state complaint processes, Section 225 contemplates
     that intrastate complaints filed under that section will be
     resolved by the state within 180 days after the complaint is filed.
     We believe that, regardless of whether a complaint is filed with
     the state relay administrator, a state PUC, the relay provider, or
     with any other state entity, the consumer\'s complaint should be
     resolved within 180 days of the date it is filed with a state
     entity. Where a relay complaint is filed with a provider,
     administrator, or other entity that is not the state entity
     designated to handle relay complaints, the entity receiving such
     complaint shall forward such complaints they receive from consumers
     to the appropriate state entity. The state entity designated to
     resolve complaints should develop a means by which, regardless of
     which state entity receives the complaint, the complaint is
     resolved within 180 days. This should address consumers\' comments
     that complaints are neither being resolved nor being forwarded to
     the appropriate state agency,[^243] because the designated entity
     will have an interest in ensuring that the party receiving the
     complaint resolves it promptly.

> **d. Improving the Monitoring of Service Quality**

119. [Background.]{.underline} We asked commenters to discuss whether we
     should adopt specific guidelines to assess whether a state TRS
     program provides \"adequate procedures and remedies for enforcing
     the requirements of the state program\" as is required by the
     statue.[^244]

120. [Discussion.]{.underline} We agree with parties that requiring
     state applicants for TRS certification and interstate TRS providers
     to maintain a log of consumer complaints that allege a violation of
     the federal minimum standards would substantially help the
     Commission monitor the service quality of the relay programs.
     [^245] We will adopt such a requirement. The logs must include all
     complaints alleging a breach of TRS rules, whether they were filed
     with the TRS provider or the State, and must be retained until the
     next application for certification is granted. The log shall
     include, at a minimum, the date that the complaint was lodged, the
     nature of the complaint, the date of resolution and how it was
     resolved. If state TRS programs and providers are in compliance
     with federal minimum standards, maintaining the log should not be
     burdensome.[^246] In addition, we will require that summaries of
     these logs indicating the number of complaints received must be
     submitted annually to the Consumer Information Bureau, Disability
     Rights Office, 445 12^th^ Street SW, Washington, DC, 20554, and at
     the time of certification.

121. This information will provide an early warning system to the
     Commission of possible service quality problems during the
     five-year certification period. In addition, it will allow the
     Commission to determine whether the state has appropriately
     addressed consumer complaints during the certification
     process.[^247] It will also enable the Commission to spot national
     trends that may lend themselves to coordinated solutions. Finally,
     the information will be available to enable states to communicate
     with one another to learn how other states have resolved certain
     complaints.

**9. Advisory Committee**

122. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Notice*, the Commission stated
     that a number of parties had recommended in their comments to the
     *NOI* that we consider establishing an advisory committee to
     monitor TRS quality issues, or expand the role of the Interstate
     TRS Fund Advisory Council to allow that body to consider also TRS
     quality issues in addition to funding issues.[^248] We recognized
     the importance of efforts to ensure the quality of TRS, but
     specifically declined to propose creation of an advisory
     committee.[^249]

123. [Discussion]{.underline}. We recognize the importance of obtaining
     feedback from TRS users in order to realize our statutory
     obligations. We recognize the need for facilitating ongoing
     dialogue with consumers, state relay administrators, and relay
     providers. We will be exploring various possibilities for
     establishing such a dialogue, including the possibility of
     establishing an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory
     Committee Act.[^250]

**II. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**A. OVERVIEW**

124. As part of our ongoing efforts to evaluate technology and the needs
     of the disability community, we raise additional issues here for
     further review. There are emerging and existing technologies that
     we have not yet fully evaluated for inclusion in relay service.

**B. FURTHER RULES FOR TRS RELAY SERVICE**

125. Some commenters have suggested that STS relay service should have
     its own separate national 800 number that contains as many
     identical digits as possible. [^251] Commenters suggest that this
     is particularly important for STS relay because many people with
     speech disabilities have memory problems and, consequently, find it
     easier to say one number over again than to say different numbers.
     We ask for comment on whether a separate nationwide access number
     for STS relay service is desirable. We have set aside 711 for use
     with TRS, and are now moving towards implementing 711
     nationwide.[^252] We ask whether nationwide access to relay
     services through 711 can meet this need. We also ask parties for
     any other proposals that would make TRS more functionally
     equivalent for TRS users. We ask parties who suggest additional
     rules to provide specific language.

**C. AVAILABILITY OF SS7 TO TRS CENTERS**

126. There are several areas where relay provider access to information
     normally only available to common carriers may significantly
     improve the quality of relay services. Information such as the
     presubscribed carrier and the originating number are normally
     passed along from carrier to carrier with the call through
     Signaling System 7 (SS7) technology. If relay providers had access
     to this information, they may be able to provide Caller ID,
     improved access to 911, and eliminate the need to collect some of
     information collected manually today through caller profiles.
     Currently our rules do not allow entities other than common
     carriers to purchase SS7 service. TRS centers, therefore, do not
     receive information normally transferred through the out-of-band
     signaling SS7 provides. Specifically, 47 C.F.R. §64.1600(f) defines
     SS7 service as "a *carrier to carrier* out-of-band signaling
     network used for call routing, billing, and management \[italics
     added\]."[^253] We seek comment on whether 47 C.F.R. §64.1600
     should be amended to include TRS providers as lawful recipients and
     users of SS7 data. We also seek comment on whether the Commission
     has jurisdiction to allow TRS centers access to SS7 technology.

127. In the accompanying *Report and Order*, we describe the process
     used by TRS centers to manually collect information about their
     callers in order to efficiently handle calls. CAs create and
     maintain personal profiles on TRS users so that CAs can correctly
     and efficiently handle the call. Some of the information regularly
     collected overlaps a caller's subscriber list information which is
     included in SS7 data.[^254] TRS providers' current practice of
     building databases manually by interviewing each TRS user does not
     appear to be the most efficient manner of providing TRS.[^255]
     Accordingly, we seek comment on making available to TRS centers SS7
     technology to allow the same information that is transferred from
     one common carrier to another, to be transferred from common
     carrier to TRS provider, and from TRS provider to common carrier.
     In doing so, we seek to obviate the need for TRS centers to
     manually collect the overlapping information that normally resides
     in the public switched telephone network. The transmission of SS7
     will not obviate the need to collect all caller information
     specific to making a TRS call, such as a user's preference for
     voice carryover, but we tentatively conclude that use of SS7 will
     render provision of relay service more functionally equivalent to
     service provided to voice users. We ask parties to provide comments
     on these issues.

128. We tentatively conclude that access to SS7 will resolve problems
     described by several commenters between relay and Caller ID
     service.[^256] For TRS calls, if the called party is a Caller ID
     customer, the displayed Caller ID is sometimes a number for the TRS
     center itself, sometimes the number of the calling party, and
     sometimes unavailable. The called party may not recognize the
     incoming telephone number and decline to answer the call. If the
     called party knew the identity of the calling party, or knew that
     the call was from a TRS center, he or she may be more likely to
     answer the call. We seek comment on whether the problem could be
     addressed by allowing TRS centers to receive SS7 data.

129. Alternatively, we ask whether a signal could be devised that would
     indicate that an incoming call is either from a TRS user or from
     the TRS center. Each TRS call actually involves two telephone
     calls: the call from the TRS user to the TRS center, and the call
     from the TRS center to the party with whom the TRS user wishes to
     communicate. The user\'s telephone number is delivered to the TRS
     center during the first leg of the call. With existing TRS centers,
     for the second leg of the call, the trunk from the TRS center to
     the LEC switch is either a PBX-like trunk or a Feature Group D
     trunk. If a PBX-like trunk is used, the called party\'s Caller ID
     display will generally show the telephone number of the TRS center
     telephone trunk that carried the call unless the TRS center makes
     the number unavailable. If Feature Group D trunking is used
     instead, according to the Interexchange Carrier Compatibility
     Forum, TRS centers send information to the network that clearly
     indicates that the call is from a TRS center. Although the
     telephone number of the TRS center cannot generally be determined
     from the information, the call may still be identified as being a
     TRS call. Since the TRS center\'s phone number is not included, it
     cannot be delivered to the destination phone\'s Caller ID box.
     However, since the network is able to identify the second leg of
     the call as originating from a relay center, it may be possible to
     deliver a \"dummy\" telephone number to the Caller ID box. We
     tentatively conclude that delivery of either the TRS center\'s
     number or a standard TRS number, such as 711, for Caller ID on
     incoming TRS calls is technically feasible. Deaf or hard of hearing
     individuals rely on TRS to call people who use voice telephones.
     Voice telephone users who have Caller ID devices, however,
     frequently do not answer an incoming TRS call, because they mistake
     it for a telemarketing call, since the source of either type of
     call often is not displayed on the Caller ID display screen. Until
     this issue is finally resolved, we strongly encourage carriers and
     providers to do all that is possible to implement this solution.

130. If parties disagree with our tentative conclusion, we ask them to
     propose an alternative solution. We also ask parties to comment on
     whether moving from Feature Group D to SS7 signaling is necessary
     or desirable to implement this or an alternative solution. Finally,
     since the same ANI signaling information is frequently used by both
     billing systems and Caller ID systems, we ask whether it would be
     possible to implement this or an alternative solution.

131. In addition, we ask for comment on the impact of the Reveal and
     Anonymous Call Rejection (ACR) features on TTY-to-TTY calls. The
     Commission staff is in receipt of information that these features
     block TTY calls, where the called party has a TTY attached to his
     or her line and also subscribes to Reveal and ACR. The calling TTY
     signal is blocked even where the calling party\'s line does not
     block Caller ID information. In addition, we ask for comment on
     whether access to SS7 technology will allow relay providers to
     transfer emergency calls, with the originating number, to 911
     operators. Finally, we ask for comment on what new services and
     features SS7 could make available to TRS users and TRS centers.

132. If SS7 technology is not the choice of all TRS centers, we ask for
     comment on the relative advantages and disadvantages of using
     Feature Group D Automatic Number Identification (ANI) and Private
     Branch Exchange (PBX) trunk signaling. We request specific comment
     on what new services and features Feature Group D ANI and PBX trunk
     signaling could make available to TRS users and TRS centers. We
     also ask for comment regarding the cost of implementing SS7 by TRS
     centers, and whether or not Local Exchange Carriers (LECs),
     Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) and Commercial Mobile Radio Service
     (CMRS) carriers would incur additional costs if they had to
     transmit SS7 data to TRS centers. Parties should also comment
     regarding the cost to TRS centers, LECs, IXCs and CMRS carriers
     that would be incurred if they were to interface with a TRS center
     using an alternative to SS7. Finally, we ask for comment on whether
     additional regulations in this area are necessary to provide
     functionally equivalent service to TRS users, or whether the goal
     can be achieved in a less regulatory manner.

**D. OUTREACH**

133. We tentatively conclude that TRS service would be improved with a
     nationwide awareness campaign that would reach the groups suggested
     by commenters - all potential TRS users,[^257] consumers with
     disabilities,[^258] senior citizens who have lost their hearing
     late in life,[^259] potential STS users,[^260] and the general
     public. We seek comment on the suggestion made by a number of
     commenters that the outreach effort be supported by the interstate
     TRS Fund and that the interstate TRS Fund administrator administer
     the funding for educational outreach programs.[^261] We further
     propose to amend the mission of the Intersate TRS Fund Advisory
     Council to include establishing guidelines and a procedure to fund
     a coordinated national outreach campaign. We base this
     recommendation on the success of Maryland's apparently effective
     advertising campaign, which included television advertisements.
     Maryland asserts that as a result of its campaign, public awareness
     is at an all-time high, telephone inquiries to the state\'s
     Maryland Relay customer service department for information
     regarding relay have risen dramatically, and call volumes to the
     relay center have increased.[^262] We propose that the campaign
     address all types of relay services and be based on the experience
     of the Maryland Department of Management and Budget efforts.[^263]
     We propose that the Advisory Council develop its plan with input
     from all stakeholders.

134. We believe this proposal will be more cost-effective than
     individual plans developed by each state, as some commenters
     suggest.[^264] We would not expect this plan to be implemented in
     isolation from the state relay programs, however. A good plan may
     well have different emphasis in different states or regions, but we
     believe it can be efficiently developed and coordinated nationally.

135. Finally, we request comment on whether we should require a state's
     certification program to include, and budget for, outreach efforts.

**E. TECHNOLOGIES, FEATURES AND SERVICES**

136. The language in section 225(d)(2) requires us to ensure that rules
     prescribed to implement section 225 encourage, consistent with
     section 7(a) of the Act, the use of existing technology and do not
     discourage or impair the development of improved technology.[^265]
     In keeping with the statute, our rules specify that no TRS
     provision set forth in the Commission\'s rules is intended to
     discourage or impair the development of improved technology that
     fosters the availability of telecommunications to persons with
     disabilities. In addition, as noted above, the functionally
     equivalent standard is a continuing goal which requires periodic
     reassessment. Commenters argue strenuously that the services and
     features offered by the relay system must keep up with changes and
     improvements in technologies and service offerings available to
     nondisabled users.[^266]

137. In response to the *Notice*, consumers urged the Commission to
     require a number of relay features as part of its minimum technical
     standards, asserting that they are technically feasible and would
     further efforts to provide functionally equivalent service.[^267]
     We seek comment on these and similar features which would enable
     consumers with disabilities to communicate through the relay
     service. We seek comment on equipment configurations, the extent to
     which these features are available or can be offered immediately
     through TRS, and any other relevant technical or economic factors,
     including any limitations that currently exist and how to transcend
     them. A number of these features and services are already offered
     in some states. We seek comment on what services states are
     providing and how they are providing them. These features include
     two-line VCO,[^268] voice to text (VTT),[^269] two line HCO,
     reverse VCO, reverse HCO, VCO to TTY, VCO to VCO, HCO to TTY, and
     HCO to HCO. We also seek comment on features such as call
     release,[^270] automatic call forwarding,[^271] interrupt
     capability,[^272] answering machine retrieval, extended community
     call blocking, pay per use feature blocks, call waiting, return
     call and call back, three way calling, speed dialing, distinctive
     ring, and repeat dialing. We tentatively conclude that these
     various features and services are capable of being provided to
     relay users and that they must be provided in order for TRS to
     remain functionally equivalent. We seek comment on this tentative
     conclusion and are especially interested in hearing from relay
     providers. We note that our rules require that TRS be capable of
     handling any type of call normally provided by common carriers and
     that the burden of proving the infeasibility of handling any type
     of call will be placed on the carrier. We hope to receive specific
     information as to how to make these services and features available
     to TRS users. Parties that disagree with our tentative conclusion
     that these services must be made available should explain their
     position in detail, providing technical and specific explanations
     as to the infeasibility of providing any of these features. We also
     seek comment on improved transmission speed,[^273] wireless
     messaging services,[^274] use of the World Wide Web for voice
     communications, internet telephony, and any other technologies or
     changes to technology that may improve relay services or should be
     available via TRS.

138. Some parties filed comments urging the Commission to address the
     issue of enhanced protocol, such as the V.18 protocol
     standard[^275], suggesting that, with the standard, improved
     interconnectivity between TTYs and digital wireless devices is
     technically feasible.[^276] Since initial guidelines for TRS were
     established by the Commission, new transmission protocols for TTY
     have evolved. Although 45.45 bps Baudot is still the dominant
     protocol and the one present in all TTYs, Bell 103 ASCII, V-series
     ASCII protocols, and proprietary protocols are also used in TTY
     products. Many TRS centers support all of the open protocols, and
     some support TurboCode by Ultratec, which is a proprietary
     protocol.

139. In addition, international and domestic standards have been written
     since the initial guidelines were established. ITU-T V.18 is an
     interworking procedure between data communications equipment and
     the text telephones used throughout the world. It is intended to
     unify the various protocols under one standard and to provide a
     bridge between TTYs and digital communications equipment. We also
     ask parties to describe the extent that V.18 currently exists in
     the marketplace.

140. A draft standard for domestic FSK modems (Baudot at 45.45 bps) is
     now undergoing balloting within the Telecommunications Industry
     Association TR-30 committee.

141. All of these technologies and standards are intended for analog
     telecommunications environments. Telecommunications is evolving
     into digital technologies. In preparation for the evolution of
     telecommunications devices from analog to digital, standards have
     been written for basic text communication. For example, ITU-T T.140
     specifies a plain text chat protocol with an international
     character set as the basis for TTY-type chat in a digital
     telecommunications environment. It has to date not been implemented
     in the nation's telecommunications marketplace.

142. To date, the Commission has left decisions about technology for
     relay platforms to the discretion of the relay provider, as long as
     both Baudot and ASCII are supported "at any speed generally in
     use."[^277]

143. In order to assure that TRS is meeting the statutory obligation to
     use existing technology, we seek comment on V.18 and TTY protocols.
     Specifically, we ask whether TTY users who have digital
     telecommunications services and equipment can access TRS through
     direct digital connections, or must they use analog devices through
     digital telecommunications services. We seek comment on how
     industry is prepared to address the transition from analog to
     digital terminals and services. We also seek comment on how digital
     services will be supported and what will the implications be for
     relay services. We also seek comment on whether industry standards,
     such as T.140, are being considered or used in planning for digital
     service delivery.

144. We ask for input on the advantages or disadvantages to TRS users of
     implementing V.18 in a TRS environment. We also seek comment on the
     effect of V.18 implementation in such required services as VCO.

145. The Commission is also interested in comments as to the advantages
     and disadvantages of V.18 to TRS providers, and additionally, if
     there are advantages in using V.18 to other segments of the
     telecommunications industry, such as the wireless industry, for
     improving their interface to TRS.

**F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

146. [*Ex Parte* Presentations]{.underline}. This matter shall be
     treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with
     the Commission's *ex parte* rules.[^278] Persons making oral *ex
     parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
     presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the
     presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.
     More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
     arguments presented is generally required.[^279]

147. [Comment Filing Procedures: General Requirements]{.underline}.
     Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and
     1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§1.415 and 1.419,
     interested parties may file comments on or before May 5, 2000, and
     reply comments on or before July 5, 2000. 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,* 63 Fed. Reg. 24, 121 (1998). 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. In completing
     the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
     Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
     rulemaking number, which in this instance is CC Docket No. 98-67.
     Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail.
     To get 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.

148. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
     copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the Commission's
     Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal
     Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Room TW A325,
     Washington, D.C. 20554.

149. [Comment Filing Procedures: 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 Commission's rules.[^280] 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. All parties are encouraged to utilize
     a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission.

150. Parties who choose to file paper should submit their comments on
     diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to Arlene Alexander,
     Consumer Information Bureau, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 4-B452,
     Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch
     diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word for
     Windows or 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 docket number), type of pleading (comment
     or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the
     electronic file on the diskette.

151. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or by
     paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in
     this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International
     Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington,
     D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for
     public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC
     Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554.

**III. ORDERING CLAUSES**

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

153. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments to sections 64.601
     through 64.605 of the Commission\'s rules as set forth in Appendix
     B ARE ADOPTED, effective thirty days from the date of publication
     in the Federal Register. The action contained herein has been
     analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
     found to impose new or modified reporting and/or recordkeeping
     requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation of these new
     or modified reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements will be
     subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMD) as
     prescribed by the Act, and will go into effect upon announcement in
     the Federal Register of OMB approval.

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

155. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and 4(j),
     201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications Act as amended, 47
     U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218 and 225, this
     NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IS ADOPTED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A: List of Parties**

**Comments**

1.  Access to Independence and Mobility (AIM)

2.  Advisory Commission

3.  American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)

4.  Ameritech

5.  Andrews, Joan

6.  Association of Tech Art Projects (ATAP)

7.  AT&T Corp. (AT&T)

8.  Bell Atlantic

9.  Blackstone, Sarah, Ph.D.

10. California Public Utilities Commission (CAPUC)

11. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)

12. Coco, David

13. Connors, Tom, Ph.D.

14. Davis, Sally F.

15. Dunbar, Bob

16. Eulenberg, John B., Ph.D.

17. Fairman, LuRetta, M.Div.

18. Fleming, Bruce, BSE

19. Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC)

20. Goldstein, Augusta

21. Gregory, Stephen A.

22. GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

23. Gurdin, Barry J., Ph.D.

24. Heppner, Cheryl A.

25. Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)

26. Kansas Relay Service, Inc. (KRSI)

27. Ladew, Rebecca

28. LaPointe, Leo A.

29. MacInnes, J. Roderick

30. Maryland Department of Budget and Management (Maryland)

31. Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership (MATP)

32. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI)

33. Missouri Assistive Technology Council and Project

34. National Association of the Deaf and the Consumer Action Network
    (NAD/CAN)

35. National Catholic Office for the Deaf (NCOD)

36. New York State Education Department (NYSED)

37. North Carolina Association of the Deaf, Inc.

38. Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing
    Persons (NVRC)

39. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PA PUC)

40. President\'s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
    (President's Committee)

41. Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board (the Board)

42. Ratcliff, Ann, Ph.D.

43. Segalman, Bob, Ph.D.

44. Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc. (SHHH)

45. Shipley, Donna

46. Sonnenstrahl, Alfred

47. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell
    (SBC)

48. Sprint Corporation (Sprint)

49. Stoltz, James H.

50. Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI)

51. Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications
    (TX-ACSEC)

52. Texas Public Utility Commission (Texas PUC)

53. Ultratec, Inc.

54. United Cerebral Palsy Associations (UCPA)

55. University Legal Services (ULS)

56. USA Deaf Sports Federation (Federation)

**Reply Comments**

1.  Aber, Robert M.

2.  Ashly, Colleen

3.  Association of Public-Safety Communications and the National
    Emergency Number Association (APCO and NENA)

4.  AT&T

5.  Behnke, Kirk

6.  Buell, Stephanie

7.  Ching, Winston

8.  Council of Organizational Representatives on National Issues
    Concerning People Who

Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (COR)

9.  Curtis, Cindy

10. Damon Brooks Associates

11. D.C. Association of Deaf Citizens (DCADC)

12. Duboiz, Robert

13. Fairman, LuRetta, M.Div.

14. Fleming, Bruce

15. Goldstein, Augusta

16. Gregory, Stephen A.

17. GTE

18. Gurdin, Barry J., Ph.D.

19. Hoye, Pamela K.

20. Interstate TRS Advisory Council

21. Keller, Katherine

22. Keltz, Lynn

23. Kemp, John D.

24. Kilbanow, David W.

25. Ladew, Rebecca

26. LaPointe, Leo A.

27. Laughlin, Lisa M.

28. Leigh, Tom

29. MCI

30. Miller, Craig E.

31. Miller, Lisa A.

32. Moore, Kate

33. NAD/CAN

34. Nelson, David J.

35. North Carolina Division of Services for the Deaf and the Hard of
    Hearing

36. NVRC

37. PA PUC

38. Pray, Jackie E., Ph.D.

39. Segalman, Bob, Ph.D.

40. Slay, Robert

41. SBC

42. Sprint

43. TDI

44. Travers, Mitchell D.

45. Treece, Phyllis

46. Treece-Sinclair, Les

47. Treece-Sinclair, Pamela

48. Tri-County GLAD

49. United Cerebral Palsy of Pennsylvania

50. Varnado-Evans, Mary

51. Viera, Judith A.

52. Wisconsin Office for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (WDHH)

53. Wynd Communications Corporation (Wynd)

54. Young, Sarah

**Ex Parte Comments**

1.  Benziger, Thomas

2.  LaPointe, Leo

3.  Maryland Department of Budget & Management

4.  Maryland Public Service Commission

5.  Minnesota Relay Services

6.  Segalman, Bob, Ph.D.

7.  Sonnenstrahl, Alfred

8.  Sprint

9.  Telecommunications Relay Services Coalition

10. Wisconsin Department of Administration

# APPENDIX B: Final Rules

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

# PART 64 -- MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

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

## AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. § 154, 47 U.S.C. § 225

2.  Sections 64.601 -- 64.605 are revised to read as follows:

§ 64.601 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, the following definitions apply:

\(1\) *American Sign Language (ASL)*. A visual language based on hand
shape, position, movement, and orientation of the hands in relation to
each other and the body.

\(2\) *ASCII*. An acronym for American Standard Code for Information
Interexchange which employs an eight bit code and can operate at any
standard transmission baud rate including 300, 1200, 2400, and higher.

\(3\) *Baudot*. A seven bit code, only five of which are information
bits. Baudot is used by some text telephones to communicate with each
other at a 45.5 baud rate.

\(4\) *Common carrier or carrier*. Any common carrier engaged in
interstate communication by wire or radio as defined in section 3(h) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and any common
carrier engaged in intrastate communication by wire or radio,
notwithstanding sections 2(b) and 221(b) of the Act.

\(5\) *Communications assistant (CA)*. A person who transliterates or
interprets conversation between two end users of TRS. CA supersedes the
term \"TDD operator.\"

\(6\) *Hearing carry over (HCO)*. A reduced form of TRS where the person
with the speech disability is able to listen to the other end user and,
in reply, the CA speaks the text as typed by the person with the speech
disability. The CA does not type any conversation.

\(7\) *Telecommunications relay services (TRS)*. Telephone transmission
services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing or
speech disability to engage in communication by wire or radio with a
hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the
ability of an individual who does not have a hearing or speech
disability to communicate using voice communication services by wire or
radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication
between an individual who uses a text telephone or other nonvoice
terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device,
speech-to-speech services, video relay interpreting services and
non-English relay services. TRS supersedes the terms \"dual party relay
system,\" \"message relay services, \"and \"TDD Relay.\"

\(8\) *Text telephone (TTY)*. A machine that employs graphic
communication in the transmission of coded signals through a wire or
radio communication system. TTY supersedes the term \"TDD\" or
\"telecommunications device for the deaf,\" and TT.

\(9\) *Voice carry over (VCO)*. A reduced form of TRS where the person
with the hearing disability is able to speak directly to the other end
user. The CA types the response back to the person with the hearing
disability. The CA does not voice the conversation.

\(10\) *Speech-to-speech relay service (STS).* A telecommunications
relay service that allows people with speech disabilities to communicate
with voice telephone users through the use of specially trained CAs who
understand the speech patterns of persons with disabilities and can
repeat the words spoken by that person.

\(11\) *Video relay interpreting service (VRI).* A telecommunications
relay service that allows people with hearing or speech disabilities who
use sign language to communicate with voice telephone users through
video equipment. The video link allows the CA to view and interpret the
party's signed conversation and relay the conversation back and forth
with a voice caller.

\(12\) *Non-English language relay service.* A telecommunications relay
service that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities who use
languages other than English to communicate with voice telephone users
in a shared language other than English, through a CA who is fluent in
that language.

\(13\) *Qualified interpreter*. An interpreter who is able to interpret
effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and
expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary.

§ 64.602 Jurisdiction.

Any violation of this subpart by any common carrier engaged in
intrastate communication shall be subject to the same remedies,
penalties, and procedures as are applicable to a violation of the Act by
a common carrier engaged in interstate communication.

§ 64.603 Provision of Services.

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

\(a\) With respect to intrastate telecommunications relay services in
any state that does not have a certified program under § 64.605 and with
respect to interstate telecommunications relay services, if such common
carrier (or other entity through which the carrier is providing such
relay services) is in compliance with § 64.604; or

\(b\) With respect to intrastate telecommunications relay services in
any state that has a certified program under § 64.605 for such state, if
such common carrier (or other entity through which the carrier is
providing such relay services) is in compliance with the program
certified under § 64.605 for such state.

§ 64.604 Mandatory Minimum Standards.

(a) *Operational standards.*

\(1\) *Communications assistant (CA)*. TRS providers are responsible for
requiring that CAs be sufficiently trained to effectively meet the
specialized communications needs of individuals with hearing and speech
disabilities; and that CAs have competent skills in typing, grammar,
spelling, interpretation of typewritten ASL, and familiarity with
hearing and speech disability cultures, languages and etiquette. CAs
must possess clear and articulate voice communications. CAs must provide
a typing speed of a minimum of 60 words per minute. Technological aids
may be used to reach the required typing speed. Providers must give
oral-to-type tests of CA speed. TRS providers are responsible for
requiring that VRI CAs are qualified interpreters. A "qualified
interpreter" is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and
impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary
specialized vocabulary.

(2*) Confidentiality and conversation content.* (i) Except as authorized
by section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605, CAs are
prohibited from disclosing the content of any relayed conversation
regardless of content, and with a limited exception for STS CAs, from
keeping records of the content of any conversation beyond the duration
of a call, even if to do so would be inconsistent with state or local
law. STS CAs may retain information from a particular call in order to
facilitate the completion of consecutive calls, at the request of the
user. The caller may request the STS CA to retain such information, or
the CA may ask the caller if he wants the CA to repeat the same
information during subsequent calls. The CA may retain the information
only for as long as it takes to complete the subsequent calls. (ii) CAs
are prohibited from intentionally altering a relayed conversation and,
to the extent that it is not inconsistent with federal, state or local
law regarding use of telephone company facilities for illegal purposes,
must relay all conversation verbatim unless the relay user specifically
requests summarization, or if the user requests interpretation of an ASL
call. An STS CA may facilitate the call of an STS user with a speech
disability so long as the CA does not interfere with the independence of
the user, the user maintains control of the conversation, and the user
does not object. Appropriate measures must be taken by relay providers
to ensure that confidentiality of VRI users is maintained.

\(3\) *Types of calls.* Consistent with the obligations of common
carrier operators, CAs are prohibited from refusing single or sequential
calls or limiting the length of calls utilizing relay services. TRS
shall be capable of handling any type of call normally provided by
common carriers and the burden of proving the infeasibility of handling
any type of call will be placed on the carriers. Providers of TRS are
permitted to decline to complete a call because credit authorization is
denied.

\(4\) *Handling of emergency calls.* Providers must use a system for
incoming emergency calls that, at a minimum, automatically and
immediately provides the nearest Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)
with the caller's telephone number. In addition, a CA must pass along
the caller's telephone number to the PSAP when a caller disconnects
before being connected to emergency services.

\(5\) *In-call replacement of CAs.* CAs answering and placing a
TTY-based TRS or VRI call must stay with the call for a minimum of ten
minutes. CAs answering and placing an STS call must stay with the call
for a minimum of fifteen minutes.

\(6\) *CA gender preferences.* TRS providers must make best efforts to
accommodate a TRS user's requested CA gender when a call is initiated
and, if a transfer occurs, at the time the call is transferred to
another CA.

\(7\) *STS called numbers.* Relay providers must offer STS users the
option to maintain at the relay center a list of names and telephone
numbers which the STS user calls. When the STS user requests one of
these names, the CA must repeat the name and state the telephone number
to the STS user. This information must be transferred to any new STS
provider.

\(b\) *Technical standards.*

\(1\) *ASCII and Baudot.* TRS shall be capable of communicating with
ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed generally in use.

\(2\) *Speed of answer.* TRS shall include adequate staffing to provide
callers with efficient access under projected calling volumes, so that
the probability of a busy response due to CA unavailability shall be
functionally equivalent to what a voice caller would experience in
attempting to reach a party through the voice telephone network. TRS
shall, except during network failure, answer 85% of all calls within 10
seconds by any method which results in the caller's call immediately
being placed, not put in a queue or on hold. The ten seconds begins at
the time the call is delivered to the TRS center's network. The call is
considered delivered when the relay center's equipment accepts the call
from the local exchange carrier and the public switched network actually
delivers the call to the TRS center. Abandoned calls shall be included
in the speed-of-answer calculation. A provider's compliance with this
rule shall be measured on a daily basis. The system shall be designed to
a P.01 standard. A LEC shall provide the call attempt rates and the
rates of calls blocked between the LEC and the relay center to relay
administrators and relay centers upon request.

\(3\) *Equal access to interexchange carriers.* TRS users shall have
access to their chosen interexchange carrier through the TRS, and to all
other operator services, to the same extent that such access is provided
to voice users.

\(4\) *TRS facilities.* TRS shall operate every day, 24 hours a day. TRS
shall have redundancy features functionally equivalent to the equipment
in normal central offices, including uninterruptible power for emergency
use. TRS shall transmit conversations between TTY and voice callers in
real time. Adequate network facilities shall be used in conjunction with
TRS so that under projected calling volume the probability of a busy
response due to loop trunk congestion shall be functionally equivalent
to what a voice caller would experience in attempting to reach a party
through the voice telephone network. Relay services that are not
mandated by this Commission are not required to be provided every day,
24 hours a day.

\(5\) *Technology*. No regulation set forth in this subpart is intended
to discourage or impair the development of improved technology that
fosters the availability of telecommunications to person with
disabilities. VCO and HCO technology are required to be standard
features of TRS.

\(6\) *Voice mail and interactive menus*. CAs must alert the TRS user to
the presence of a recorded message and interactive menu through a hot
key on the CA's terminal. The hot key will send text from the CA to the
consumer's TTY indicating that a recording or interactive menu has been
encountered. Relay providers shall electronically capture recorded
messages and retain them for the length of the call. Relay providers may
not impose any charges for additional calls which must be made by the
relay user in order to complete calls involving recorded or interactive
messages. Relay services shall be capable of handling pay-per-call
calls.

\(c\) *Functional standards.*

\(1\) *Consumer complaint logs.* (i) States must maintain a log of
consumer complaints including all complaints about TRS in the state,
whether filed with the TRS provider or the State, and must retain the
log until the next application for certification is granted. The log
shall include, at a minimum, the date the complaint was filed, the
nature of the complaint, the date of resolution, and an explanation of
the resolution. (ii) Summaries of logs must be submitted annually to the
Commission and at the time of certification.

\(2\) *Contact persons.* (i) States must submit to the Commission a
contact person or office for TRS consumer information and complaints
about intrastate TRS. This submission must include, at a minimum, the
name and address of the state office that receives complaints,
grievances, inquiries and suggestions, voice and TTY telephone numbers,
fax number, e-mail address, and physical address to which correspondence
should be sent. (ii) Providers of interstate TRS must submit to the
Commission a contact person or office for TRS consumer information and
complaints about the provider's service. This submission must include,
at a minimum, the name and address of the office that receives
complaints, grievances, inquiries and suggestions, voice and TTY
telephone numbers, fax number, e-mail address, and physical address to
which correspondence should be sent.

\(3\) *Public access to information.* Carriers, through publication in
their directories, periodic billing inserts, placement of TRS
instructions in telephone directories, through directory assistance
services, and incorporation of TTY numbers in telephone directories,
shall assure that callers in their service areas are aware of the
availability and use of all forms of TRS. Efforts to educate the public
about TRS should extend to all segments of the public, including
individuals who are hard of hearing, speech disabled, and senior
citizens as well as members of the general population.

\(4\) *Rates.* TRS users shall pay rates no greater than the rates paid
for functionally equivalent voice communication services with respect to
such factors as the duration of the call, the time of day, and the
distance from the point of origination to the point of termination.

\(5\) *Jurisdictional separation of costs.*

\(i\) *General*. Where appropriate, costs of providing TRS shall be
separated in accordance with the jurisdictional separation procedures
and standards set forth in the Commission\'s regulations adopted
pursuant to § 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

\(ii\) *Cost recovery*. Costs caused by interstate TRS shall be
recovered from all subscribers for every interstate service, utilizing a
shared-funding cost recovery mechanism. Except as noted below with
respect to VRI, costs caused by intrastate TRS shall be recovered from
the intrastate jurisdiction. In a state that has a certified program
under § 64.605, the state agency providing TRS shall, through the
state\'s regulatory agency, permit a common carrier to recover costs
incurred in providing TRS by a method consistent with the requirements
of this section. Costs caused by the provision of interstate and
intrastate VRI shall be recovered from all subscribers for every
interstate service, utilizing a shared-funding cost recovery mechanism.

\(iii\) *Telecommunications Relay Services Fund*. Effective July 26,
1993, an Interstate Cost Recovery Plan, hereinafter referred to as the
TRS Fund, shall be administered by an entity selected by the Commission
(administrator). The initial administrator, for an interim period, will
be the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.

\(A\) *Contributions.* Every carrier providing interstate
telecommunications services shall contribute to the TRS Fund on the
basis of interstate end-user telecommunications revenues as described
herein. Contributions shall be made by all carriers who provide
interstate services, including, but not limited to, cellular telephone
and paging, mobile radio, operator services, personal communications
service (PCS), access (including subscriber line charges), alternative
access and special access, packet-switched, WATS, 800, 900, message
telephone service (MTS), private line, telex, telegraph, video,
satellite, intraLATA, international and resale services.

\(B\) *Contribution computations.* Contributors\' contribution to the
TRS fund shall be the product of their subject revenues for the prior
calendar year and a contribution factor determined annually by the
Commission. The contribution factor shall be based on the ratio between
expected TRS Fund expenses to interstate end-user telecommunications
revenues. In the event that contributions exceed TRS payments and
administrative costs, the contribution factor for the following year
will be adjusted by an appropriate amount, taking into consideration
projected cost and usage changes. In the event that contributions are
inadequate, the fund administrator may request authority from the
Commission to borrow funds commercially, with such debt secured by
future years' contributions. Each subject carrier must contribute at
least \$25 per year. Carriers whose annual contributions total less than
\$1,200 must pay the entire contribution at the beginning of the
contribution period. Service providers whose contributions total \$1,200
or more may divide their contributions into equal monthly payments.
Carriers shall complete and submit, and contributions shall be based on,
a "Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet" (as published by the
Commission in the Federal Register). The worksheet shall be certified to
by an officer of the contributor, and subject to verification by the
Commission or the administrator at the discretion of the Commission.
Contributors\' statements in the worksheet shall be subject to the
provisions of § 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The
fund administrator may bill contributors a separate assessment for
reasonable administrative expenses and interest resulting from improper
filing or overdue contributions. The Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau
may waive, reduce, modify or eliminate contributor reporting
requirements that prove unnecessary and require additional reporting
requirements that the Bureau deems necessary to the sound and efficient
administration of the TRS Fund.

\(C\) *Data collection from TRS Providers*. TRS providers shall provide
the administrator with true and adequate data necessary to determine TRS
fund revenue requirements and payments. TRS providers shall provide the
administrator with the following: total TRS minutes of use, total
interstate TRS minutes of use, total TRS operating expenses and total
TRS investment in general accordance with Part 32 of the Communications
Act, and other historical or projected information reasonably requested
by the administrator for purposes of computing payments and revenue
requirements. The administrator and the Commission shall have the
authority to examine, verify and audit data received from TRS providers
as necessary to assure the accuracy and integrity of fund payments.

\(D\) The TRS Fund will be subject to a yearly audit performed by an
independent certified accounting firm or the Commission, or both.

\(E\) *Payments to TRS Providers*. TRS Fund payments shall be
distributed to TRS providers based on formulas approved or modified by
the Commission. The administrator shall file schedules of payment
formulas with the Commission. Such formulas shall be designed to
compensate TRS providers for reasonable costs of providing interstate
TRS, and shall be subject to Commission approval. Such formulas shall be
based on total monthly interstate TRS minutes of use. TRS minutes of use
for purposes of interstate cost recovery under the TRS Fund are defined
as the minutes of use for completed interstate TRS calls placed through
the TRS center beginning after call set-up and concluding after the last
message call unit. In addition to the data required under paragraph
(c)(5)(iii)(C) of this section, all TRS providers, including providers
who are not interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, or
certified state relay providers, must submit reports of interstate TRS
minutes of use to the administrator in order to receive payments. The
administrator shall establish procedures to verify payment claims, and
may suspend or delay payments to a TRS provider if the TRS provider
fails to provide adequate verification of payment upon reasonable
request, or if directed by the Commission to do so. The TRS Fund
administrator shall make payments only to eligible TRS providers
operating pursuant to the mandatory minimum standards as required in §
64.604, and after disbursements to the administrator for reasonable
expenses incurred by it in connection with TRS Fund administration. TRS
providers receiving payments shall file a form prescribed by the
administrator. The administrator shall fashion a form that is consistent
with Parts 32 and 36 procedures reasonably tailored to meet the needs of
TRS providers. The Commission shall have authority to audit providers
and have access to all data, including carrier specific data, collected
by the fund administrator. The fund administrator shall have authority
to audit TRS providers reporting data to the administrator. The formulas
should appropriately compensate interstate providers for the provision
of VRI, whether intrastate or interstate.

\(F\) TRS providers eligible for receiving payments from the TRS Fund
are:

\(1\) TRS facilities operated under contract with and/or by certified
state TRS programs pursuant to § 64.605; or

\(2\) TRS facilities owned by or operated under contract with a common
carrier providing interstate services operated pursuant to § 64.604; or

\(3\) Interstate common carriers offering TRS pursuant to § 64.604.

\(G\) Any eligible TRS provider as defined in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) (F)
of this section shall notify the administrator of its intent to
participate in the TRS Fund thirty (30) days prior to submitting reports
of TRS interstate minutes of use in order to receive payment settlements
for interstate TRS, and failure to file may exclude the TRS provider
from eligibility for the year.

\(H\) *Administrator reporting, monitoring, and filing requirements.*
The administrator shall perform all filing and reporting functions
required under paragraphs (c)(5)(iii) (A) through (J) of this section.
TRS payment formulas and revenue requirements shall be filed with the
Commission on May 1 of each year, to be effective for a one-year period
beginning the following July 1. The administrator shall report annually
to the Commission an itemization of monthly administrative costs which
shall consist of all expenses, receipts, and payments associated with
the administration of TRS Fund. The administrator is required to keep
the TRS Fund separate from all other funds administered by the
administrator, shall file a cost allocation manual (CAM), and shall
provide the Commission full access to all data collected pursuant to the
administration of the TRS Fund. The administrator shall establish a
non-paid, voluntary advisory committee of persons from the hearing and
speech disability community, TRS users (voice and text telephone),
interstate service providers, state representatives, and TRS providers,
which will meet at reasonable intervals (at least semi-annually) in
order to monitor TRS cost recovery matters. Each group shall select its
own representative to the committee. The administrator\'s annual report
shall include a discussion of advisory committee deliberations.

\(I\) *Information filed with the administrator.* The administrator
shall keep all data obtained from contributors and TRS providers
confidential and shall not disclose such data in company-specific form
unless directed to do so by the Commission. Subject to any restrictions
imposed by the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, the TRS Fund
administrator may share data obtained from carriers with the
administrators of the universal support mechanisms (*See* 47 C.F.R. §
54.701), the North American Numbering Plan administration cost recovery
(*See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.16), and the long-term local number portability
cost recovery (*See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.32). The TRS Fund administrator
shall keep confidential all data obtained from other administrators. The
administrator shall not use such data except for purposes of
administering the TRS Fund, calculating the regulatory fees of
interstate common carriers, and aggregating such fee payments for
submission to the Commission. The Commission shall have access to all
data reported to the administrator, and authority to audit TRS
providers. Contributors may make requests for Commission nondisclosure
of company-specific revenue information under § 0.459 of this Chapter by
so indicating on the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet at the time
that the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all
decisions regarding nondisclosure of company-specific information.

\(J\) The administrator\'s performance and this plan shall be reviewed
by the Commission after two years.

\(K\) All parties providing services or contributions or receiving
payments under this section are subject to the enforcement provisions
specified in the Communications Act, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and the Commission\'s rules.

\(6\) *Complaints*.

\(i\) *Referral of complaint.* If a complaint to the Commission alleges
a violation of this subpart with respect to intrastate TRS within a
state and certification of the program of such state under § 64.605 is
in effect, the Commission shall refer such complaint to such state
expeditiously.

\(ii\) Intrastate complaints shall be resolved by the state within 180
days after the complaint is first filed with a state entity, regardless
of whether it is filed with the state relay administrator, a state PUC,
the relay provider, or with any other state entity.

\(iii\) *Jurisdiction of Commission.* After referring a complaint to a
state entity under paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section, or if a
complaint is filed directly with a state entity, the Commission shall
exercise jurisdiction over such complaint only if:

\(A\) Final action under such state program has not been taken within:

\(1\) 180 days after the complaint is filed with such state entity; or

\(2\) A shorter period as prescribed by the regulations of such state;
or

\(B\) The Commission determines that such state program is no longer
qualified for certification under § 64.605.

\(iv\) The Commission shall resolve within 180 days after the complaint
is filed with the Commission any interstate TRS complaint alleging a
violation of section 225 of the Act or any complaint involving
intrastate relay services in states without a certified program. The
Commission shall resolve intrastate complaints over which it exercises
jurisdiction under paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section within 180 days.

*(v) Complaint Procedures*. Complaints against TRS providers for alleged
violations of this subpart may be either informal or formal.

\(A\) *Informal Complaints*.

\(1\) Form. An informal complaint may be transmitted to the Consumer
Information Bureau by any reasonable means, such as letter, facsimile
transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), Internet e-mail, or some other
method that would best accommodate a complainant's hearing or speech
disability.

\(2\) Content. An informal complaint shall include the name and address
of the complainant; the name and address of the TRS provider against
whom the complaint is made; a statement of facts supporting the
complainant's allegation that the TRS provided it has violated or is
violating § 225 of the Act and/or requirements under the Commission's
rules; the specific relief or satisfaction sought by the complainant;
and the complainant's preferred format or method of response to the
complaint by the Commission and the defendant TRS provider (such as
letter, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), Internet
e-mail, or some other method that would best accommodate the
complainant's hearing or speech disability).

\(3\) Service; designation of agents. The Commission shall promptly
forward any complaint meeting the requirements of this subsection to the
TRS provider named in the complaint. Such TRS provider shall be called
upon to satisfy or answer the complaint within the time specified by the
Commission. Every TRS provider shall file with the Commission a
statement designating an agent or agents whose principal responsibility
will be to receive all complaints, inquiries, orders, decisions, and
notices and other pronouncements forwarded by the Commission. Such
designation shall include a name or department designation, business
address, telephone number (voice and TTY), facsimile number and, if
available, internet e-mail address.

\(B\) *Review and disposition of informal complaints.*

\(1\) Where it appears from the TRS provider's answer, or from other
communications with the parties, that an informal complaint has been
satisfied, the Commission may, in its discretion, consider the matter
closed without response to the complainant or defendant. In all other
cases, the Commission shall inform the parties of its review and
disposition of a complaint filed under this subpart. Where practicable,
this information shall be transmitted to the complainant and defendant
in the manner requested by the complainant *(e.g.,* letter, facsmile
transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY) or Internet e-mail.

\(2\) A complainant unsatisfied with the defendant's response to the
informal complaint and the staff's decision to terminate action on the
informal complaint may file a formal complaint with the Commission
pursuant to subsection (v)(C) below.

\(C\) *Formal Complaints.* A formal complaint shall be in writing,
addressed to the Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau,
Telecommunications Consumer Division, Washington, D.C. 20554 and shall
contain:

\(1\) The name and address of the complainant,

\(2\) The name and address of the defendant against whom the complaint
is made,

\(3\) A complete statement of the facts, including supporting data,
where available, showing that such defendant did or omitted to do
anything in contravention of this subpart, and

\(4\) The relief sought.

\(D\) *Amended complaints.* An amended complaint setting forth
transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the filing
of the original complaint and which relate to the original cause of
action may be filed with the Commission.

\(E\) *Number of copies.* An original and two copies of all pleadings
shall be filed.

\(F\) *Service*.

\(1\) Except where a complaint is referred to a state pursuant to
§64.604(c)(6)(i), or where a complaint is filed directly with a state
entity, the Commission will serve on the named party a copy of any
complaint or amended complaint filed with it, together with a notice of
the filing of the complaint. Such notice shall call upon the defendant
to satisfy or answer the complaint in writing within the time specified
in said notice of complaint.

\(2\) All subsequent pleadings and briefs shall be served by the filing
party on all other parties to the proceeding in accordance with the
requirements of § 1.47 of this chapter. Proof of such service shall also
be made in accordance with the requirements of said section.

\(G\) *Answers to complaints and amended complaints.* Any party upon
whom a copy of a complaint or amended complaint is served under this
subpart shall serve an answer within the time specified by the
Commission in its notice of complaint. The answer shall advise the
parties and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of the
defense and shall respond specifically to all material allegations of
the complaint. In cases involving allegations of harm, the answer shall
indicate what action has been taken or is proposed to be taken to stop
the occurrence of such harm. Collateral or immaterial issues shall be
avoided in answers and every effort should be made to narrow the issues.
Matters alleged as affirmative defenses shall be separately stated and
numbered. Any defendant failing to file and serve an answer within the
time and in the manner prescribed may be deemed in default.

\(H\) *Replies to answers or amended answers.* Within 10 days after
service of an answer or an amended answer, a complainant may file and
serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in such
answer or amended answer and shall not contain new matter. Failure to
reply will not be deemed an admission of any allegation contained in
such answer or amended answer.

\(I\) *Defective pleadings.* Any pleading filed in a complaint
proceeding that is not in substantial conformity with the requirements
of the applicable rules in this subpart may be dismissed.

*(7) Treatment of TRS customer information*. All future contracts
between the TRS administrator and the TRS vendor shall provide for the
transfer of TRS customer profile data from the outgoing TRS vendor to
the incoming TRS vendor. Such data must be disclosed in usable form at
least 60 days prior to the provider's last day of service provision.
Such data may not be used for any purpose other than to connect the TRS
user with the called parties desired by that TRS user. Such information
shall not be sold, distributed, shared or revealed in any other way by
the relay center or its employees, unless compelled to do so by lawful
order.

§ 64.605 State Certification.

\(a\) *State documentation*. Any state, through its office of the
governor or other delegated executive office empowered to provide TRS,
desiring to establish a state program under this section shall submit,
not later than October 1, 1992, documentation to the Commission
addressed to the Federal Communications Commission, Chief, Common
Carrier Bureau, TRS Certification Program, Washington, DC 20554, and
captioned \"TRS State Certification Application.\" All documentation
shall be submitted in narrative form, shall clearly describe the state
program for implementing intrastate TRS, and the procedures and remedies
for enforcing any requirements imposed by the state program. The
Commission shall give public notice of states filing for certification
including notification in the Federal Register.

\(b\) *Requirements for certification.* After review of state
documentation, the Commission shall certify, by letter, or order, the
state program if the Commission determines that the state certification
documentation:

\(1\) Establishes that the state program meets or exceeds all
operational, technical, and functional minimum standards contained in §
64.604;

\(2\) Establishes that the state program makes available adequate
procedures and remedies for enforcing the requirements of the state
program, including that it makes available to TRS users informational
materials on state and Commission complaint procedures sufficient for
users to know the proper procedures for filing complaints; and

\(3\) Where a state program exceeds the mandatory minimum standards
contained in § 64.604, the state establishes that its program in no way
conflicts with federal law.

\(c\) *Certification period*. State certification shall remain in effect
for five years. One year prior to expiration of certification, a state
may apply for renewal of its certification by filing documentation as
prescribed by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

\(d\) *Method of funding*. Except as provided in § 64.604, the
Commission shall not refuse to certify a state program based solely on
the method such state will implement for funding intrastate TRS, but
funding mechanisms, if labeled, shall be labeled in a manner that
promote national understanding of TRS and do not offend the public.

\(e\) *Suspension or revocation of certification.* The Commission may
suspend or revoke such certification if, after notice and opportunity
for hearing, the Commission determines that such certification is no
longer warranted. In a state whose program has been suspended or
revoked, the Commission shall take such steps as may be necessary,
consistent with this subpart, to ensure continuity of TRS. The
Commission may, on its own motion, require a certified state program to
submit documentation demonstrating ongoing compliance with the
Commission's minimum standards if, for example, the Commission receives
evidence that a state program may not be in compliance with the minimum
standards.

\(f\) *Notification of substantive change*. States must notify the
Commission of substantive changes in their TRS programs within 60 days
of when they occur, and must certify that the state TRS program
continues to meet federal minimum standards after implementing the
substantive change.

**APPENDIX C: Final Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction
Analyses**

#  A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

157\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^281] an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
*Notice* in this docket.[^282] The Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the *Notice*, including comment on the IRFA.
This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
the RFA.[^283]

### A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

158\. This rulemaking proceeding was initiated in order to improve the
level and quality of service provided through TRS for the benefit of the
community of TRS users. The Commission's goal was to improve the overall
effectiveness of the TRS program, and to improve the Commission's
oversight of certified state TRS programs and its ability to compel
compliance with the federal mandatory minimum standards for TRS.

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

159\. None.

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

160\. 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.[^284] The Regulatory
Flexibility Act defines the term "small entity" as having the same
meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
business concern" under section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^285] 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).[^286]

161\. 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 the Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS).[^287]

162\. [TRS Providers]{.underline}. 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.[^288] The SBA defines such establishments to be small
businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^289] According
to our most recent data,[^290] 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.

> D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other
> Compliance Requirements

163\. [Reporting and Recordkeeping]{.underline}: This Report and Order
involves several reporting requirements. First, it requires that
certified states notify the Commission of substantive changes in their
state TRS program within 60 days of the effective date of the
change.[^291] Second, states are required to file documentation
demonstrating that the state TRS program remains in compliance with the
Commission's mandatory minimum standards following the substantive
change.[^292] Third, the Report and Order requires TRS administrators to
submit the name and address of a contact person or office for filing
consumer complaints about intrastate TRS service to the Commission by
June 30, 2000.[^293] Finally, on an annual basis, beginning May 1, 2001,
and upon the Commission's request, states are required to file a copy of
their TRS complaint logs.[^294]

164\. [Other Compliance Requirements]{.underline}: The rules adopted in
this Report and Order require that all common carriers providing voice
transmission services must ensure that STS services are available to
callers with speech disabilities throughout their service areas within
one year of the publication in the Federal Register of this *Report and
Order*.[^295] These rules will affect certified states. The rules also
require that TRS calls be answered more promptly,[^296] that a minimum
typing speed be implemented,[^297] and that communications assistants
stay with a TTY TRS call for a minimum of ten minutes.[^298] These rules
will affect TRS providers.

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

165\. 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: (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.

166\. The proposals in the *Notice*, and the comments the Commission
sought regarding them, are part of the Commission's analysis of its role
with respect to the implementation and operation of nationwide TRS for
persons with hearing and speech disabilities. The guiding principal
shaping our final conclusions is Congress' direction that TRS keeps pace
with advancing technology and that the Commission's rules do not
discourage the implementation of technological advances or improvements.
Large interexchange carriers and incumbent local exchange carriers
provide the majority of TRS service, and we believe that the number of
small entities impacted by our conclusions would be potentially very
small. With respect to the amendments to the Commission's rules
governing TRS, by statute, common carriers providing voice transmission
services who are subject to the TRS rules, including small entities, may
comply with their obligations individually, through designees, through a
competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers.[^299]
For these reasons, we conclude that the rule amendments will have a
minimal impact on small entities.

167\. [Report to Congress]{.underline}: The Commission will send a copy
of this *Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent
to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801 (a)(1)(A). In addition, the
Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order*, including FRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
A copy of the *Report and Order*, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will
also be published in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

**B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act**

168\. As required by the Paperwork Reduction of 1995, the *Notice*
invited the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained
in the *Notice*.[^300] The changes to our information collection
requirements on which we sought comment in the *Notice* included the
requirement that, except during network failure, TRS shall answer 85% of
all calls by a CA prepared to place the TRS call, within 10 seconds of
the time the incoming call reaches the TRS provider's network, and no
more than 30 seconds shall elapse between receipt of dialing information
and the dialing of the requested number. This calculation is required to
be performed daily.

169\. OMB's comment on this requirement urges us to explore the use of
alternative means, including statistical sampling or periodic
performance monitoring, to ensure that the ten second answering portion
of the requirement is met, rather than require TRS operators to
calculate response times as set forth in 47 C.F.R. section 64.604(b)(2).
Because of the nature of the requirement that the calculation measures,
we feel that statistical sampling or periodic performance monitoring
will be inappropriate and inadequate. This requirement has been
misinterpreted and misapplied by some TRS providers and our modification
seeks to decrease the likelihood that the misinterpretation continues.
We note that the speed-of-answer requirement is an existing rule and
that, in this *Report and Order*, we simply modify that rule to further
minimize delays in placing TRS calls. The new rule now forecloses the
possibility that the TRS call will be placed in a distribution queue, by
requiring that a TRS call be handled immediately, whether by CA or an
automated process.

170\. In addition, OMB states that we must demonstrate that calculating
the speed-of-answer on a daily basis has some practical utility to
justify the burden it imposes. As set forth in this *Report and Order*,
our main goal is to make the TRS calling experience functionally
equivalent to the experience of voice callers. By modifying our
speed-of-answer requirement to result in the TRS call being placed more
quickly, we feel we meet that goal. As the *Report and Order* explains,
reaching a CA ready to place the relay call is equivalent to getting a
dial tone when picking up the phone. Thus, this portion of the call is
the first crucial step to making the TRS calling experience functionally
equivalent to placing a voice call and should be demonstrated daily.

# 

# 

# 

**APPENDIX D: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

**I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

171\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^301] 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 *Further Notice*. 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 *Further Notice*. The Commission will send a copy of the *Further
Notice*, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the
*Further Notice* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

172\. The Commission is issuing this *Further* *Notice* to seek public
comment on technological advances that could improve the level and
quality of service provided through TRS for the benefit of the community
of TRS users. In doing so, the Commission hopes to enhance the quality
of TRS, and broaden the potential universe of TRS users consistent with
Congress' direction at 47 U.S.C. § 225 (d)(2) to the Commission to
ensure that its regulations encourage the use of existing technology and
not discourage or impair the development of improved technology.
Specifically, the *Notice* proposes to require minimum mandatory
standards specific to nationwide speech-to-speech (STS) service for
persons with severe speech disabilities. The *Further Notice* also seeks
comment on outreach programs, the accessibility of emergency services to
TRS, and whether SS7 services should be made available to TRS centers.
The intent of these proposed rules is to improve the overall
effectiveness of the TRS program, and to improve the Commission's
oversight of certified state TRS programs and its ability to compel
compliance with the federal mandatory minimum standards for TRS.

##  B. Legal Basis

173\. The authority for actions proposed in this *Further Notice* may be
found in sections 1, 4(I) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i),
154(j), 201-205, 218 and 225.

> C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
> the Proposed Rules Will Apply

174\. 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.[^302] The Regulatory
Flexibility Act defines the term "small entity" as having the same
meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
business concern" under section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^303] 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).[^304]

175\. 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 the Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS).[^305]

176\. [TRS Providers]{.underline}. 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.[^306] The SBA defines such establishments to be small
businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^307] According
to our most recent data,[^308] 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.

> D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
> Compliance Requirements

177\. This *Further Notice* imposes no requirement to file any
information with the Federal Communications Commission.

> **E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
> Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

178\. 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: (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.

179\. The proposals in the *Further* *Notice*, and the comments the
Commission seeks regarding them, are part of the Commission's analysis
of its role with respect to the implementation and operation of
nationwide TRS for persons with hearing and speech disabilities. The
guiding principal shaping these proposals is Congress' direction to the
Commission to ensure that TRS keeps pace with advancing technology and
that the Commission's rules do not discourage the implementation of
technological advances or improvements. The majority of TRS service is
provided by large interexchange carriers and incumbent local exchange
carriers, and we believe that the number of small entities impacted by
these proposals would be potentially very small. With respect to
proposed amendments to the Commission's rules governing TRS, by statute,
common carriers providing voice transmission services who are subject to
the TRS rules, including small entities, may comply with their
obligations individually, through designees, through competitively
selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers.[^309] For this
reason, the Commission expects that the proposed rule amendments will
have minimal impact on small entities. We tentatively conclude that our
proposals in the *Further Notice* would impose minimum burdens on small
entities. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.

# Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

180\. None.

# Separate Statement of

# Commissioner Susan Ness 

# *Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities. CC Docket No. 98-67.* 

# 

We are in the midst of a telecommunications revolution that is reshaping
our economy and society. In this day and age, access to
telecommunications services becomes even more essential. Today's order
is an important step to help ensure access to quality telecommunications
services not only for the millions of Americans with hearing and speech
disabilities, but also for people without disabilities who communicate
with these citizens.

I write separately to voice my strong support for creation of a
disabilities advisory committee that would include TRS users, TRS
providers, carriers, manufacturers, state and local governments, and
other interested parties. The Commission benefits greatly from the
expertise of committees established to advise us on such specialized
issues as numbering, public safety, technological innovations, and
issues of concern to state and local governments.

I believe the Commission would also gain tremendously from the input of
a committee of experts that could advise us on technological advances
and the impact of such technologies on services for those with
disabilities. Moreover, an advisory committee could serve as a
clearinghouse for relay concerns and could provide an ongoing dialogue
to resolve issues before regulatory action becomes necessary.

Congress recognized the importance of an advisory committee over a
decade ago when it enacted requirements for telecommunications relay
services as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Senate
Committee Report states:

> Given the unique and specialized needs of the population that will be
> utilizing telecommunications relay services, the FCC should pay
> particular attention to input from representatives of the hearing and
> speech impaired community. It is recommended that this input be
> obtained in a formal manner such as through an advisory committee that
> would represent not only telecommunications relay service consumers
> but also carriers and other interested parties.[^310]

I urge the Commission to move forward as expeditiously as possible to
establish a disabilities advisory committee.

# 

# Separate Statement of

# Commissioner Gloria Tristani

# *Re: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities. CC Docket No. 98-67.* 

I applaud today's decision, which is another significant step towards
ensuring that all Americans have meaningful access to telecommunications
services. Without quality Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), the
millions of Americans with hearing and speech disabilities would be left
on the sidelines, unable to access the telecommunications services and
equipment that are so central to the ability to communicate and to
participate in today's information-driven society.

The Commission has benefited from seven years of experience since TRS
became available on a uniform, nationwide basis. By amending the rules
governing the delivery of TRS, we expand the kinds of relay services
available to consumers to keep pace with rapid technological change in
the telecommunications industry. And to keep pace with the rapid
demographic change in this country, we recognize that non-English
language relay services are "telecommunications relay services" as
defined by the Act, which can be reimbursed from relay funds. Joining
the 18 states that make intrastate and interstate Spanish relay services
available to date, we require interstate common carriers to provide
interstate Spanish relay service within one year.

Other amendments adopted today will improve the quality of TRS services,
ensuring that those with hearing and speech disabilities are able to
communicate by wire in a manner "functionally equivalent" to those
without such disabilities, as required by the law. I am confident that
these rule changes will substantially improve the quality of life for
all Americans with hearing and speech disabilities. But we must remain
vigilant. As the issues raised in the Notice reflect, steady
technological and societal changes compel us to reexamine regularly our
decisions regarding what services and performance standards are
necessary to ensure that TRS is functionally equivalent to voice
telephone service. I look forward to a continuing dialogue on these
issues.

[^1]: Pub. L. No. 101‑336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 366‑69 (1990) (adding
    section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
    § 225).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^3]: *Id.* at § 225(b).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; Telecommunications Services for Individuals
    with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with
    Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket No. 90-571, Report and Order and
    Request for Comments, 6 FCC Rcd 4657 (1991)(*First Report and
    Order*).

[^5]: Under section 225, common carriers providing telephone voice
    transmission services were required to begin providing TRS,
    throughout the areas they served, as of July 26, 1993. *See* 47
    U.S.C. § 225(c). Prior to this time, some states offered relay
    services, but the services offered differed from state to state, and
    were subject to many limitations. *See* Strauss, Title IV ‑
    Telecommunications, in Implementing the Americans with Disabilities
    Act at 156‑158 (Gostin & Beyer ed. 1993).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601 (5), (7).

[^7]: Individual states have their own TRS access numbers (usually
    toll‑free numbers). In addition, some state TRS programs have
    separate numbers for voice and TTY access. Some states provide
    access to TRS through an abbreviated dialing arrangement by dialing
    711. In addition to dialing their state TRS access numbers for both
    inter- and intrastate relay calls, TRS users may also dial a
    toll-free number to reach alternative providers of interstate
    service.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 225 (a), (c).

[^9]: "Prevalence of selected chronic conditions: United States,
    1990-1992." National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health
    Stat. 10(194), 1997.

[^10]: President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
    Comments at 4.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]: *Id.* "Severe disability" is defined by the U.S. Census survey to
    mean someone who is unable to perform one or more activities of
    daily living, or has one or more specific impairments, and may
    include persons with one or more specific impairments such as
    inability to speak or hear.

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: Telecommunications Relay Services, the Americans with
    Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC
    Docket No. 90-571, *Notice* *of Inquiry*, 12 FCC Rcd 1152
    (1997)(*NOI*).

[^18]: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No.
    98-67, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 13 FCC Rcd 14187
    (1998)(*Notice*).

[^19]: 47 U.S.C § 225(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(7).

[^20]: The Commission's rules currently contain minimum standards only
    for TTY-based TRS. *See* Section 64.604 of the Commission's rules,
    47 C.F.R. § 64.604 ("Mandatory minimum standards").

[^21]: *See Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14193.

[^22]: *See* AIM Comments at 1; Dr. Blackstone Comments at 1; CPUC
    Comments at 2; Ms. Davis Comments at 1; Mr. Fleming Comments at 1;
    Ms. Ladew Comments at 1; MCI Comments at 2; the President\'s
    Committee Comments at 4; Dr. Ratcliff Comments at 1; Ms. Shipley
    Comments at 1; ULS Comments at 1; COR Reply at 4; TDI Reply at 4;
    Mr. Travers Reply at 1; Wynd Reply at 1. *But see* SBC Comments at 4
    (questions the Commission\'s expansion of TRS to include a category
    for \"improved\" services; claims this is not supported by the Act
    or regulations).

[^23]: *See* Dr. Blackstone Comments at 1; Mr. Fleming Comments at 1;
    Ms. Ladew Comments at 1; Dr. Ratcliff Comments at 1; Dr. Segalman
    Comments at 1; Ms. Keller Reply at 1-2. In the *Notice*, the
    Commission asked that comments and reply comments from the public be
    filed by July 20, 1998 and September 14, 1998, respectively. As a
    member of the public, Dr. Segalman filed comments on July 19, 1998
    and reply comments on September 5, 1998. From January 1 through June
    of 1999, Dr. Segalman served the Commission as a part-time detailee
    under the provisions of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (5
    U.S.C. § 3371, *et seq*.). During that period, he advised the Common
    Carrier Bureau on technical and training issues related to STS
    relay.

[^24]: Webster defines "includes" as "to take in or comprise as part of
    a whole." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991.

[^25]: *See* University Legal Services (ULS) Comments at 2.

[^26]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14193.

[^27]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^28]: *Id.*

[^29]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14196.

[^30]: *See* AIM Comments at 1; American Speech-Language-Hearing
    Association (ASHA) Comments at 2; Dr. Blackstone Comments at 1; CPUC
    Comments at 2; Ms. Davis Comments at 1; Ms. Fairman Comments at 1;
    Mr. Fleming Comments at 1; GTE Comments at 4; Dr. Gurdin Comments at
    1; Ms. Ladew Comments at 1; Maryland Comments at 2; MCI Comments at
    3; Missouri Comments at 2; National Association of the Deaf and the
    Consumer Action Network (NAD/CAN) Comments at 4; NCOD Comments at 1;
    NVRC Comments at 1; the President\'s Committee Comments at 5; Dr.
    Ratcliff Comments at 1; Dr. Segalman Comments at 1; Ms. Shipley
    Comments at 1; Sprint Comments at 5; Mr. Stoltz Comments at 2;
    Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI) Comments at 9-10; Self
    Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc. (SHHH) Comments at 2-3; UCPA
    Comments at 2; ULS Comments at 3-4; Mr. Behnke Reply at 1; COR Reply
    at 6; Ms. Curtis Reply at 1; Mr. Goldstein Reply at 1; Ms. Hoye
    Reply at 1; Mr. Kemp Reply at 1; Mr. Klibanow Reply at 1; Ms.
    Laughlin Reply at 1; Mr. Miller Reply at 1; Ms. Moore Reply at 1;
    Dr. Pray Reply at 1; Mr. Slay Reply at 1; Ms. Treece Reply at 1; Mr.
    Treece-Sinclair Reply at 1; Tri-County GLAD Reply at 1; UCPP Reply
    at 1.

[^31]: *See* Ms. Keller Reply at 4.

[^32]: *See* GTE Comments at 4.

[^33]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14196-97; ULS Comments at 3-4.

[^34]: *See* President\'s Committee Comments at 6.

[^35]: COR Comments at 6; TDI Comments at 6.

[^36]: *See* Ameritech Comments at 3-4 (extend deadline to three years;
    FPSC Comments at 2 (implementation should coincide with current
    contract renewal dates); GTE Comments at 6 (schedule implementation
    based on states\' ability to provide funding); SBC Comments at 5 (if
    mandatory STS, extend implementation to at least five years).

[^37]: *See* Ms. Andrews Comments at 2 (implement with \"due haste\");
    Mr. Nelson Reply at 2 (require within six months); Sprint Reply at 4
    (reduce implementation to one year).

[^38]: David Nelson Reply Comments at 1-2.

[^39]: States currently offering STS include Arizona, California,
    Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina,
    Washington and Wisconsin. States that plan to offer STS in the near
    future include North Carolina and Texas.

[^40]: *See* AT&T Comments at 4-5; Bell Atlantic Comments at 3-4; IPUC
    Comments at 4-5; SBC Reply at 3.

[^41]: *See* TDI Reply at 5.

[^42]: *See* CPUC's DDTP Comments at 2.

[^43]: *See* AIM Comments at 1; Ms. Keller Reply at 4.

[^44]: *See* Sprint Reply at 2.

[^45]: *See* Maryland Comments at 2-3.

[^46]: *See* ASHA Comments at 6.

[^47]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14201.

[^48]: *Id.* at 14200.

[^49]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^50]: *See* the Federation Comments at 2; MATP Comments at 2 (should
    require VRI in two year plan proposed for STS); NAD/CAN Comments at
    5-8 (VRI should be phased in, rather than immediately deployed);
    NVRC Comments at 1 (support phasing in of VRI immediately and
    supporting it 24 hours per day); TDI Comments at 6-7; Mr. Nelson
    Reply at 2 (mandate VRI within two years).

[^51]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 5 (citing NOI Reply Comments of NAD at
    7 (citing Comments of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company at 5-6;
    GTE at 9-10; Kansas Relay Service, Inc. at 4; MCI at 4)).

[^52]: *See*, *e.g.*, Ameritech Comments at 4, GTE Comments at 7; Sprint
    Comments at 9.

[^53]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^54]: *See*, *e.g.*, Ameritech Comments at 4, GTE Comments at 7; Sprint
    Comments at 9.

[^55]: David Nelson Reply Comments at 2.

[^56]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 7.

[^57]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3).

[^58]: *Id.* at § 225(c)(2).

[^59]: We referred to these as multilingual relay services (MRS) in the
    *Notice*.

[^60]: *See*, *e.g.*, UCPA Comments at 2 (Commission should mandate
    multilingual relay service while giving TRS administrators the
    authority to decide the various languages offered depending on state
    needs and population demographics).

[^61]: In the Matter of Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video
    Programming, Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 19973, 20015
    (1998) .

[^62]: *See* Ms. Andrews Comments at 2.

[^63]: *Id.*

[^64]: *See* 13 FCC Rcd at 14194.

[^65]: *See* Ms. Andrews Comments at 1; AIM Comments at 1; Dr.
    Blackstone Comments at 1; Ms. Fairman Comments at 1; the Federation
    Comments at 2; Mr. Fleming Comments at 1; FPSC Comments at 2; Mr.
    Gregory Comments at 6; Ms. Ladew Comments at 1; MCI Comments at 3;
    NCOD Comments at 1; NVRC Comments at 1; the President\'s Committee
    Comments at 5; Dr. Ratcliff Comments at 1; Dr. Segalman Comments at
    1; Sprint Comments at 5; Mr. Stolz Comments at 2 (conditioning his
    support upon protection against the funding of voluntary projects
    that may not be in the best interest of improved TRS service); Texas
    PUC Comments at 3; COR Reply at 5; Mr. Travers Reply at 2.

[^66]: *See* AIM Comments at 1.

[^67]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.603.

[^68]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14212 (citing AGC Comments at 2; ALDA
    Comments at 1-2; AOAC Comments at 2; DCADC-VAD Comments at 1-2; NAD
    Comments at 2; NVRC Comments at 2; SHHH Comments at 2).

[^69]: *Id.* at 14213.

[^70]: *See*, *e.g.*, AIM Comments at 2; Federation Comments at 5; NVRC
    Comments at 3; Mr. Sonnenstrahl Comments at 4-5; UCPA Comments at 3;
    Mr. Ching Reply at 5; DADC Reply Comments at 2.

[^71]: Texas PUC Comments at 15 (reporting that no degradation of TRS
    service quality has been caused by its use of the single-vendor
    model).

[^72]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 96 (1996) (codified at 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 151 et seq.).

[^73]: Through the 1996 Act, Congress sought to establish a
    \"pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework\" for the
    United States telecommunications industry. *See* Jt. Statement of
    Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1996).

[^74]: KRSI Comments at 12; Mr. Nelson Reply Comments at 5; Mr. Stoltz
    Comments at 5. All these parties assert the decision of how many
    intrastate vendors should serve a state is a matter for state
    determination.

[^75]: CAPUC Comments at 4-5.

[^76]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604.

[^77]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14194.

[^78]: *Id.*

[^79]: *Id.*

[^80]: NAD Comments at 8.

[^81]: *See* Dr. Blackstone Comments at 1; Ms. Fairman Comments at 1;
    Mr. Fleming Comments at 1-2; KRSI Comments at 4; Ms. Ladew Comments
    at 1-2; NAD/CAN Comments at 4; Dr. Ratcliff Comments at 1; SBC
    Comments at 4-5; Dr. Segalman Comments at 1-2; UCPA Comments at 3-4.

[^82]: Some commenters recommend that states relax the service quality
    standards during the first six months of offering STS to develop
    call demand information from which to forecast staffing needs. After
    the six-month period, they argue that providers should be able to
    meet the average speed of answer and blockage requirements of
    conventional TRS. *See* CPUC\'s Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications
    Program (DDPT) Comments at 3. We disagree. We believe that it is
    appropriate to implement minimum standards for STS at this time.

[^83]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a).

[^84]: *Id.* at § 64.604(b).

[^85]: *Id.* at § 64.604(b)(4).

[^86]: *Id.* at § 64.604(a).

[^87]: *Id.* at § 64.604(b).

[^88]: *Id.* at § 64.604(b)(4).

[^89]: *Id.*

[^90]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(5). According to Webster, to transliterate is
    to "represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet." CAs
    are required to relay all conversation verbatim unless the relay
    user specifically requests summarization. 47 C.F.R. §
    64.604(a)(2)("Confidentiality and Conversation Content").

[^91]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14194.

[^92]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14195.

[^93]: *See* ASHA Comments at 4-5; Missouri Comments at 2-3.

[^94]: *See* AIM Comments at 1; Sprint Comments at 7; Mr. Stolz Comments
    at 2.

[^95]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a).

[^96]: *Id.* at § 64.601(1).

[^97]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14202.

[^98]: *Id.* at 14201.

[^99]: 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

[^100]: *See* ASHA Comments at 5; AIM Comments at 1; NAD/CAN Comments at
    8 (citing *Notice* at paras. 34 and 17); Mr. Stoltz Comments at 3;
    COR Reply at 8; the Federation Comments at 2; TDI Reply at 7; ULS
    Comments at 4.

[^101]: *See* Sprint Comments at 9.

[^102]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(F).

[^103]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(2).

[^104]: Dr. Sarah Blackstone Comments at 4; Bruce Fleming, BSE, Comments
    at 4; LuRetta Fairman Comments at 3; Rebecca Ladew Comments at 4.

[^105]: *See*, *e.g.*, Rebecca Ladew Comments at 6.

[^106]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604 (a)(2).

[^107]: See First Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 4659.

[^108]: *See* ULS Comments at 4-5.

[^109]: *See* AIM Comments at 1; Ameritech Comments at 4-5; the
    Federation Comments at 2; Texas PUC Comments at 8; ULS Comments at
    4; COR Reply at 8; TDI Reply at 7.

[^110]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(2), (a)(3); *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14201.

[^111]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(G).

[^112]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(2).

[^113]: DDTP Report to the CPUC at 3; Dr. Segalman Comments at 3.

[^114]: *See* Dr. Sarah Blackstone Comments at 3; LuRetta Fairman
    Comments at 2- 3; Bruce Fleming, BSE, Comments at 3; Rebecca Ladew
    Comments at 3; Dr. Segalman Comments at 3.

[^115]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14207.

[^116]: *Id.*

[^117]: Abandoned calls are those calls answered by a relay center, but
    never handled by a CA because the customer hangs up.

[^118]: *See* AIM Comments at 2; Ameritech Comments at 7; Bell Atlantic
    Comments at 6; Mr. Gregory Comments at 14; KRSI Comments at 8; MCI
    Comments at 6; NAD/CAN Comments at 14-15; NCOD Comments at 1; SBC
    Comments at 9; Mr. Stoltz Comments at 3; TDI Comments at 12; Texas
    PUC Comments at 11; ULS Comments at 6; COR Reply at 12.

[^119]: *See* AT&T Comments at 10; GTE Comments at 10; Sprint Comments
    at 11-12.

[^120]: *See* AT&T Comments at 11; Sprint Reply at 7.

[^121]: *See* KRSI Comments at 8.

[^122]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14208.

[^123]: ^?^ For example, if a provider receives a total of 1000 TRS
    calls a day, and 750 of those calls were answered within 10 seconds
    or less, the provider\'s speed-of-answer rate would be 75% and below
    the required minimum standard. But if 200 of those calls were
    abandoned by the caller before a CA came on-line to handle the call,
    and the provider were allowed to exclude these 200 abandoned calls
    from its speed-of-answer calculation (without knowing whether the
    calls were abandoned by the TRS user because no response was
    obtained from the TRS center within 10 seconds), then the provider
    could report an answer rate of 94% (750/800).

[^124]: *See* CPUC\'s DDPT Comments at 9.

[^125]: P.01 is defined as follows: \"The Grade of Service for a
    telephone system. The digits following the P, *i.e.,* nn, indicate
    the number of calls per hundred that are or can be blocked by the
    system. It is a goal or a measure of an event. In this example, P01
    (also spelled P.01) means one call in a hundred (*i.e.,* one divided
    by 100) can be blocked, so the system is designed to meet this
    criterion.\" Newton, Harry, Newton\'s Telecom Dictionary, Flatiron
    Publishing, New York, N.Y. (14th. ed. 1998), at p. 525. As it is
    used in the context of TRS quality, however, \"P.01\" requires that
    the network be designed to block only one call in one hundred,
    during the busy hour. For an explanation of traffic engineering
    techniques and quality standards to accommodate the busy hour, *See*
    Bates, Regis J., and Gregory, Donald, Voice and Data Communications
    Handbook, McGraw-Hill Company, New York (Signature Ed. 1997), at ch.
    8.

[^126]: *See* Ms. Andrews Comments at 2 (increase requirement to a
    minimum of 90% of TRS calls); the Federation Comments at 3 (proposed
    requirement is nowhere near being functionally equivalent); FPSC
    Comments at 8 (increase requirement to a minimum of 90% of TRS
    calls); SHHH Comments at 7 (standard should be 95% within 10
    seconds); NVRC Reply at 2 (phase in standard that would reduce
    speed-of-answer time to three seconds or less).

[^127]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14211.

[^128]: *See* *Id.* at 14211-12.

[^129]: *See* *Id.* at 14212.

[^130]: *See* AIM Comments at 2; Ms. Andrews Comments at 4; NAD/CAN
    Comments at 19; SHHH Comments at 10; Mr. Sonnenstrahl Comments at 4;
    Mr. Stoltz Comments at 5; TDI Comments at 16; COR Reply at 14; Mr.
    Nelson Reply at 5.

[^131]: *See* Ameritech Comments at 9-10; AT&T Comments at 13; GTE
    Comments at 12; KRSI Comments at 10; SBC Comments at 10; SBC Reply
    at 5.

[^132]: *See* AT&T Comments at 12.

[^133]: *Id.*

[^134]: *See* GTE Comments at 12; NVRC Comments at 3.

[^135]: *See* Ameritech Comments at 10; GTE Comments at 12.

[^136]: *See* the Federation Comments at 4-5; NVRC Comments at 3; ULS
    Comments at 8; Ms. Keller Reply at 11; Mr. Nelson Reply at 5.

[^137]: In the future, CA fatigue might not be an issue because of
    advances in the use of technology.

[^138]: *See* KRSI Comments at 10-11.

[^139]: DDTP Comments at 4; Dr. Segalman Comments at 8-9.

[^140]: Dr. Sarah Blackstone Comments at 7-8; LuRetta Fairman Comments
    at 6; Bruce Fleming Comments at 8; Rebecca Ladew Comments at 8.

[^141]: *Id.*

[^142]: Dr. Segalman Comments at 9.

[^143]: NAD/CAN Comments at 19.

[^144]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(1).

[^145]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14210.

[^146]: *Id.*

[^147]: *Id.*

[^148]: DDTP's Report to the CPUC at 10.

[^149]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 17 (set at highest speed currently
    required by any of the 50 certified relay programs); NVRC Comments
    at 3 (suggesting 65 wpm); ULS Comments at 7 (suggesting 100 wpm);
    COR Reply at 13 (require highest typing speed required by states);
    DSDHH Reply Comments at 10 (at least 60 wpm); Mr. Nelson Reply at 4
    (suggesting 65 wpm).

[^150]: Al Sonnenstrahl Comments at 4; SHHH Comments at 8; TDI Comments
    at 14; Ultratec Comments at 20.

[^151]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 17 (set at highest speed currently
    required by any of the 50 certified relay programs); NVRC Comments
    at 3 (suggesting 65 wpm); ULS Comments at 7 (suggesting 100 wpm);
    COR Reply at 13 (require highest typing speed required by states);
    DSDHH Reply at 10 (at least 60 wpm); Mr. Nelson Reply at 4
    (suggesting 65 wpm).

[^152]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 15-19; TDI Comments at 14; COR Reply
    at 13.

[^153]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14210.

[^154]: *See* Ameritech Comments at 9; Sprint Comments at 13. *But see*
    the Federation Comments at 4 (rules should address clear and
    articulate voice communication); ULS Comments at 7 (TRS providers
    should ensure, prior to hiring and subsequently through monitoring,
    that CAs clearly articulate their speech so that it is easily
    understandable by the general population).

[^155]: *See* ASHA Comments at 5.

[^156]: "Voice carryover\" is a modified form of TRS in which a person
    with a hearing disability is able to speak directly to the other end
    user, and the CA types back the response of the other end user. 47
    C.F.R. § 64.601(9). \"Hearing carryover\" is a modified form of TRS
    where a person with a speech disability is able to listen to the
    other end user, and, in reply, the CA speaks the text as typed by
    the person with the speech disability. *Id.* § 64.601(6). TRS
    providers are required by the Commission\'s rules to offer VCO and
    HCO. *Id.* § 64.604(b)(5).

[^157]: Other data typically included in the customer profile includes a
    customer's blocking preferences, speed dial numbers, long distance
    carrier of choice, and specific instructions to follow on every
    call. Ex Parte Comments of the Wisconsin Department of
    Administration, filed November 16, 1999, at 1-2.

[^158]: Sprint Comments at 13.

[^159]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1) (emphasis added).

[^160]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14215.

[^161]: 47 U.S.C. § 222(a) ("Every telecommunications carrier has a
    duty.....").

[^162]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(44).

[^163]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(46).

[^164]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(43).

[^165]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^166]: The requirements in our TRS rules also apply to any carrier
    within a state that does not have a TRS program that has been
    certified by the Commission under 47 U.S.C. §
    225(f)("Certification"). *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(c).

[^167]: Ex Parte Comments of the Wisconsin Department of Administration,
    filed November 16, 1999, at 3.

[^168]: AIM Comments at 2; COR Reply at 15; KRSI Comments at 13; NAD/CAN
    Comments at 22; Mr. Stoltz Comments at 5-6; TDI Comments at 18-19.

[^169]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 22; TDI Comments at 18-19.

[^170]: KRSI Comments at 13; Mr. Stoltz Comments at 6.

[^171]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3).

[^172]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(3).

[^173]: *See* Letter from Felecia L. Greer, Executive Secretary,
    Maryland Public Service Commission dated Sept. 22, 1999 (directing
    Qwest Communications Corp. to provide access to its services through
    the TRS within sixty days).

[^174]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3).

[^175]: Common Carrier Bureau Reminds All Common Carriers of their
    Obligation to Provide Access to Their Telecommunications Services
    via Telecommunications Relay Services, *Public Notice*, DA 99-1871,
    rel. Sept. 14, 1999.

[^176]: *See*, *e.g.*, NAD/CAN Comments at 26-27; NCOD Comments at 1;
    DSDHH Reply Comments at 8.

[^177]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14205.

[^178]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225 (a)(3), (b)(1), (d)(1).

[^179]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(2).

[^180]: A "hot key" is part of some relay software programs that allows
    the CA to program certain phrases (*i.e.,* "ringing" or "number
    busy") into a sequence in order to transmit these phrases to the
    user without typing the entire phrase. Thus, a CA can type an entire
    phrase or message in one or two keystrokes on the TTY rather than by
    typing every word of each letter of an entire phrase or message. The
    TTY user can then respond with a request that the CA summarize -- or
    not summarize -- the message being relayed.

[^181]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14205-6.

[^182]: 47 U.S.C. § 153.

[^183]: *Id.* at § 153(33), 153 (51).

[^184]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 12 (citing 136 Cong. Rec. H2434 (May
    17, 1990)); NVRC Comments at 2; the Federation Comments at 3. The
    colloquy in the Congressional Record from almost a decade ago is:

    Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about a provision contained
    in the report filed b the Committee on Energy and Commerce which
    states: \"It is not the function of this legislation to facilitate
    access to audiotext services.\" Is it the gentleman\'s understanding
    that this bill precludes such access?

    Mr. Thomas A. Luken: The gentleman raises a good question. While the
    legislation does not require access to audiotext services at this
    time, if future technology can make these services available
    utilizing a relay service, it is our intent to ensure such access.
    136 Cong. Rec. H2434 (May 17, 1990).

[^185]: Ameritech Comments at 6-7; KRSI Comments at 7; SBC Comments at
    8; Sprint Comments at 11.

[^186]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^187]: *See*, *e.g.*, MATP Comments at 4; Missouri Assistive Technology
    Council and Project Comments at 5; NAD/CAN Comments at 4; NCOD
    Comments at 1; President's Committee on Employment of People with
    Disabilities Comments at 9; SHHH Comments at 6; DSDHH Reply Comments
    at 8.

[^188]: *See* ATAP Comments at 3; MATP Comments at 4 - 5 (\"Quite
    simply, if accessible products are not required and the TRS does not
    provide access, individuals with disabilities either have no access
    to the service or have access to a different service \[such as a
    live person or message call-back via TTY\] that is not equitable.\")

[^189]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14205.

[^190]: 47 U.S.C. § 255.

[^191]: *See* AIM Comments at 2; Bell Atlantic Comments at 6; FPSC
    Comments at 7; KRSI Comments at 7; MCI Comments at 5; Mr. Stoltz
    Comments at 3; the President\'s Committee Comments at 9-10; TDI
    Comments at 11; Texas PUC Comments at 10- l1; Mr. Gregory Reply at
    7; SBC Reply at 4.

[^192]: *See* Ms. Andrews Comments at 2 (CA, not caller, should initiate
    summarizing); FPSC Comments at 5 (CA should summarize all calls upon
    request); NAD/CAN Comments at 13 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(2) to
    substantiate its claim that the Commission\'s rules already allow
    for such an exception); NVRC Comments at 2 (Commission should
    continue the current policy that TRS be verbatim unless requested by
    the consumer).

[^193]: *See*, *e.g.*, MATP Comments at 4; COR Reply at 10 -- 11;
    NAD/CAN Reply at 7; Mr. Nelson Reply at 3; NVRC Comments at 2; TDI
    Reply at 10; Texas PUC Reply at 11.

[^194]: *See* MATP Comments at 4.

[^195]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 14; MCI Rely at 8. Because a charge is
    not associated with completing the first leg of a relay call to the
    TRS center, multiple charges occur only for toll calls.

[^196]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(c)(1)(D).

[^197]: *See* Bell Atlantic Comments at 6; Mr. LaPointe Comments at
    1(suggesting all menus should be programmed to allow a caller to
    access a live operator or to select a slower voice menu); Mr. Stoltz
    Comments at 3; SBC Reply at 4.

[^198]: NCOD at 1.

[^199]: *See* Maryland Comments at 8-9; NAD/CAN Comments at 12.

[^200]: Pay-per-call services cannot be accessed using a toll-free
    dialing sequence, such as a 1-800 number. A consumer can use a
    charge card to pay for the calls when they are made. *See* 47 U.S.C.
    § 228 ("Regulation of Carrier Offering of Pay-Per-Call Services");
    47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1600 et seq. ("Interstate Pay-Per-Call and Other
    Information Services").

[^201]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14204.

[^202]: 28 C.F.R. § 35.162.

[^203]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3).

[^204]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14203.

[^205]: *Id.*

[^206]: A "PSAP," or Public Safety Answering Point, contacts police,
    fire or ambulance service when it receives calls through its
    emergency service number.

[^207]: AT&T Comments at 7-8. AT&T concludes the centers can receive ANI
    information through the telephone network, but the PBX cannot
    automatically pass the information to an emergency center because it
    is not equipped with required network signaling protocol.

[^208]: Other providers attempt to locate the correct PSAP by manually
    consulting directories. *See* APCO and NENA Reply Comments at 3;
    AT&T Comments at 7; KRSI Comments at 6-7; MCI Comments at 5; SBC
    Comments at 8; TX-ACSEC Comments at 3; TDI Reply at 8.

[^209]: *See* TX-ACSEC Comments at 2-3; Texas PUC Comments at 10; GTE
    Reply at 2; NAD/CAN Reply at 10; TDI Reply at 8.

[^210]: *See* SBC Reply at 7.

[^211]: *See* AIM Comments at 1; APCO and NENA Comments at 2; Bell
    Atlantic Comments at 5; the Federation Comments at 3; Mr. Gregory
    Comments at 10-11; MATP Comments at 3; NAD/CAN Comments at 10-11;
    Mr. Stoltz Comments at 3; TDI Comments at 16-17; TX-ACSEC Comments
    at 3-4; COR Reply at 9; Mr. Nelson Reply at 3.

[^212]: Relay service has often been referred to as a provider of "dial
    tone." By completing the call to the PSAP, the CA is simply
    providing a dial tone connection equivalent to that which would
    occur with a voice user.

[^213]: *See* APCO and NENA Comments at 2; Sprint Comments at 10;
    TX-ACSEC Comments at 4; NAD/CAN Reply at 10.

[^214]: *See* Sprint Comments at 10.

[^215]: *See* AIM Comments at 1 (where one or more persons are faced
    with death or injury or if there is a risk of serious property
    damage); APCO and NENA Comments at 3; Federation Comments at 3; NVRC
    Comments at 2; SBC Reply at 7 (include calls expressly requesting
    connection to 911 or requesting assistance from \"a public agency of
    the type typically accessed via a 911 system by persons without
    hearing or speech impairments (*e.g.*, police, fire, and ambulance
    or emergency squads)\").

[^216]: *See* Bell Atlantic Comments at 5; KRSI Comments at 6; SBC
    Comments at 8; NAD/CAN Reply at 11; SBC Reply at 6.

[^217]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 11.

[^218]: 47 C.F.R. § 225.

[^219]: Maryland Comments at 12; TDI Comments at 20; NAD/CAN Reply
    Comments at 12; and NVRC Reply Comments at 3.

[^220]: NAD/CAN Reply Comments at 12.

[^221]: NAD/CAN Reply Comments at 12; TDI Reply Comments at 15.

[^222]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(2).

[^223]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14216.

[^224]: *See* AIM Comments at 2; KRSI Comments at 14; MATP Comments at
    5; NAD/CAN Comments at 23; SHHH Comments at 11; ; Mr. Stoltz
    Comments at 6; TDI Comments at 19; COR Reply Comments at 13-14; NVRC
    Reply Comments at 3; TRS Advisory Council Reply Comments at 5.
    Sprint states that it believes that the proposed rule amendment will
    help the Commission ensure that interstate and intrastate TRS are
    available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner to
    people in the United States with hearing or speech disabilities.
    *See* Sprint Comments at 14-15.

[^225]: *See* Mr. Gregory Comments at 19.

[^226]: *See* the Board Comments at 2, 4; FPSC Comments at 11.

[^227]: Mr. Gregory Comments at 19.

[^228]: *See* the Board Comments at 3-4.

[^229]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd 14216-7.

[^230]: *See* AIM Comments at 2; KRSI Comments at 14; MATP Comments at
    5; NAD/CAN Comments at 23; SHHH Comments at 11; Sprint Comments at
    14; Mr. Stoltz Comments at 6; COR Reply Comments at 13-14; NVRC
    Reply Comments at 3.

[^231]: the Federation Comments at 5-6; NAD/CAN Comments at 23-24; NVRC
    Comments at 4; SHHH Comments at 11; COR Reply Comments at 14.

[^232]: NAD/CAN Comments at 23.

[^233]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(g).

[^234]: *Id.*

[^235]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(1).

[^236]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5).

[^237]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14217.

[^238]: *See*, *e.g.*, the Federation Comments at 5-6; NAD/CAN Comments
    at 23-24; NVRC Comments at 4; SHHH Comments at 11; COR Reply
    Comments at 14.

[^239]: 47 U.S.C. § 225.

[^240]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 6.16.

[^241]: We note that in administering our rules pertaining to informal
    complaints against common carriers under section 208 of the Act,
    Commission staff works cooperatively with consumers and companies to
    promote meaningful solutions to problems raised by consumers and to
    address underlying compliance concerns. In addition, the staff
    routinely meets with consumer groups and company representatives to
    evaluate the effectiveness of the process and explore improvements
    that will better serve the needs of consumers and the industry. We
    expect the staff to use a similar approach in administering our TRS
    rules.

[^242]: The Act gives the Commission, and its staff pursuant to
    delegated authority, broad powers to inquire into or investigate the
    activities and practices of parties who are subject to the Act's
    requirements. *See*, *e.g.*, sections 4 (i) and 403 of the Act, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 403.

[^243]: TDI Comments at 19.

[^244]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(f)(2)(B).

[^245]: Mr. Gregory Comments at 19-20; NAD/CAN Comments at 23; TDI
    Comments at 19.

[^246]: NAD/CAN Comments at 23.

[^247]: *See* Mr. Gregory Comments at 20.

[^248]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14217.

[^249]: *Id.*

[^250]: Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. (1988).

[^251]: *Id.*

[^252]: The Use of N11 Codes and Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC
    Docket No. 92-105, *First Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 5572 (1997).

[^253]: 47 C.F.R. § 1600.

[^254]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2003(c)(2) and (g) defines subscriber list
    information, and excludes it from the definition of CPNI.

[^255]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^256]: NAD Comments at 26-27; TDI Comments at 21-22.

[^257]: *See* Maryland Comments at 13; NAD/CAN Reply Comments at 12;
    NVRC Reply Comments at 3; TDI Reply Comments at 15.

[^258]: *See* the President\'s Committee Comments at 7.

[^259]: *See* NAD/CAN Reply Comments at 12.

[^260]: *See* COR Reply Comments at 6.

[^261]: *See* Maryland Comments at 13; NAD/CAN Reply Comments at 12; TDI
    Reply Comments at 15.

[^262]: Maryland Comments at 12-13.

[^263]: *See* FCC Public Forum on 711 Access to Telecommunications Relay
    Services CC Docket No. 92-105 September 8, 1999, Comment by Gil
    Becker (Education Segment), Comment by Brenda Battat (Education
    Segment).

[^264]: *See* Mr. Behnke Reply Comments at 1; Ms. Curtis Reply Comments
    at 1; Mr. Kemp Reply Comments at 1; Ms. Moore Reply Comments at 1;
    and Dr. Pray Reply Comments at 1.

[^265]: 47 U.S.C. § 225 (d)(2).

[^266]: *See* AIM Comments at 2; ATAP Comments at 3; CTIA Comments at
    1-2.

[^267]: We recognized in the *Notice* that, in response to our original
    *NOI*, commenters requested that the Commission require call
    release, Caller ID, conference calling through TRS, two line VCO,
    and automatic call forwarding. *Notice,* 13 FCC Rcd at 14218.

[^268]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 24-27; NVRC Comments at 3; TDI
    Comments at 21-22; NVRC Reply at 1; TDI Reply at 17. Two-line voice
    carryover (VCO) enables consumers to use one line for voicing and
    the other for receiving TTY transmissions in conference calls.

[^269]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 24-27; TDI Comments at 21-22.
    Voice-to-text (VTT) permits relay calls to take place between VCO
    users and TTY users.

[^270]: *See* NAD/CAN Comments at 24-27; Mr. Nelson Reply Comments at 7;
    TDI Comments at 21-22; TDI Reply Comments at 17. Call release
    prevents erroneous disconnections when a TTY caller must go through
    a switchboard at a hotel or hospital to reach the private room of
    the recipient of the TTY call.

[^271]: *See* Mr. Nelson Reply at 7.

[^272]: *See* NVRC Comments at 3; NVRC Reply Comments at 1.

[^273]: *See* Mr. Gregory Comments at 7.

[^274]: *See* Wynd Reply at 1.

[^275]: According to the International Telecommunications Union, the
    V.18 protocol standard "is intended for use in text telephone, in
    interworking units, in text relay service, in emergency centers, and
    in computers to be used for text telephony in the PSTN." *See* CTIA
    Comments at 5.

[^276]: CTIA Comments at 2-3; TDI Comments at 4-5; GTE Reply Comments at
    5.

[^277]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604 (b) (1).

[^278]: *See* Amendment of 47 C.F.R. 1.1200 *et seq.* Concerning Ex
    Parte Presentation in Commission Proceedings, *Report and Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd 7348, 7356-57 (citing 47 C.F.R. §1.1204(b)(1)).

[^279]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.1206(b)(2), as revised.

[^280]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.49.

[^281]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *See* 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[).]{.smallcaps}

[^282]: *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14218.

[^283]: 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^284]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^285]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^286]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^287]: Telecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2.

[^288]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^289]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    Code 4813.

[^290]: This is recent data from the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, which administers the Interstate TRS Fund.

[^291]: *See* *supra* section I(C)(8)(a).

[^292]: *See* *supra* section I(C)(8)(a).

[^293]: *See supra* section I(C)(8)(b).

[^294]: *See* *supra* section I(C)(8)(d).

[^295]: *See* *supra* section I(C)(1)(b).

[^296]: *See* *supra* section I(C)(3)(h).

[^297]: *See* *supra* section I(C)(3)(j).

[^298]: *See* *supra* section I(C)(3)(i).

[^299]: 47 U.S.C. § 225 (c).

[^300]: *See* *Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14223.

[^301]: 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).

[^302]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^303]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^304]: 5 U.S.C. § 632.

[^305]: Telecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2.

[^306]: Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^307]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    Code 4813.

[^308]: This is recent data from the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, which administers the interstate TRS Fund.

[^309]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(c).

[^310]: S. Rep. No. 116, 101^st^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess. (1989).