**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CC Docket No. 98-67          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Telecommunications Relay         | ) |                              |
| Services                         | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| And Speech-to-Speech Services    |   |                              |
| for                              | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Individuals with Hearing and     | ) |                              |
| Speech                           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Disabilities                     |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted:** February 22, 2001 **Released:** February 23, 2001

By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  On March 6, 2000, the Commission released a *Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Improved TRS Order*)
    amending its rules governing the delivery of telecommunications
    relay services (TRS).[^1] The *Improved TRS Order* expands the kinds
    of relay services available to consumers and requires improvements
    in the quality of relay services, based on our ten years of
    experience with TRS and changes in available technologies.[^2]

2.  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.[^3] 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.[^4]
    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.[^5]
    To fulfill this mandate, the Commission first issued rules in
    1991.[^6] TRS has been available on a uniform, nationwide basis
    since July 26, 1993.[^7] The *Improved TRS Order* is designed to
    improve the quality of TRS by increasing the availability and
    usefulness of the telecommunications network for Americans with
    speech and hearing disabilities.[^8] The Commission's Rules set
    forth the minimum operational, technical, and functional standards
    for TRS.[^9]

3.  On June 5, 2000, the Commission, on its own motion, amended the
    effective date by which parties must comply with most of the amended
    rules adopted in the *Improved TRS Order*.[^10] The *Improved TRS
    Order on Reconsideration* also established a fixed date for the
    annual submission of complaint log summaries by states and TRS
    providers to the Commission of July 1 of each year.[^11] The
    Commission also more rigorously conformed the text of the rules
    concerning the submission of contact information and the treatment
    of emergency calls to the precise language in the *Improved TRS
    Order.* Finally, the Commission clarified the requirement regarding
    the transfer of customer profile information between outgoing and
    incoming TRS providers,[^12] clarified the review process and
    possible disposition of informal complaints under our amended TRS
    rules and made certain non-substantive changes.

4.  TRS enables persons with hearing and speech disabilities to
    communicate by telephone with persons who may or may not have such
    disabilities.[^13] Today, TRS centers 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. In addition, as of March 1, 2001, our
    rules require TRS centers to provide speech-to-speech services,
    which facilitate telephone conversations for people who have
    difficulty speaking. The *Improved TRS 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 services will have access to services that are
    functionally equivalent to those enjoyed by Americans without
    disabilities.

5.  In this Order, we resolve seven petitions[^14] seeking temporary
    waivers of certain requirements established in the *Improved TRS
    Order*.[^15] These petitions request an extension of time from the
    December 18, 2000 due date for compliance with the provisions of the
    *Improved TRS Order*. There are three types of waiver requests
    before us: (1) requests from states for additional time to comply
    with the requirements of the *Improved TRS Order* to facilitate
    collection of cost justification information from Sprint pertaining
    to Sprint's provision of relay services for the states,[^16] (2)
    requests for additional time to comply with various service quality
    standards (i.e., typing speed, in-call replacement of CAs, and speed
    of answer),[^17] and (3) requests for additional time to comply with
    the requirement that relay providers automatically transfer
    emergency calls to the nearest Public Safety Answering Point
    (PSAP).[^18] These waiver requests are explained in greater detail
    below. Petitioners request anywhere from a two and one-half to a
    six-month extension of time. For the reasons discussed herein, we
    grant the Petitioners a three-month waiver to collect their cost
    justification information from Sprint and to comply with the
    aforementioned service quality standards. We also grant the
    Petitioners a six-month waiver to allow Sprint to complete its
    database and comply with the emergency call requirements.

# Discussion

## Cost Justification 

### Background

6.  While the statutory obligation to deliver relay services falls on
    common carriers, the law and the Commission's rules give 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.[^19] All states have
    certified programs today, and most states competitively select a
    relay provider through a competitive bidding process. In general, a
    state administrator, or a statewide trade association of common
    carriers contracts with a relay provider for relay services for
    their state. These contracts are specifically at issue in four of
    the waiver requests before us.[^20] Four states request additional
    time to obtain cost justification information from Sprint, their
    relay provider, so that the states can in turn, enter into new
    contracts for the provision of compliant services.

7.  New Hampshire, North Carolina, Arizona and California request
    temporary waivers to implement certain requirements of the *Improved
    TRS Order*.[^21] Each of these states is currently in the process of
    negotiating with Sprint, its relay provider, and has requested
    additional cost justification information to ensure that the amended
    franchise will be reasonable, compliant with the rules and
    cost-effective.[^22] The states explain that they cannot evaluate
    Sprint's proposed price increase and enter into a new contract
    without such information. [^23] On January 9, 2001, Sprint stated
    that it has resolved, or expects to resolve shortly, the cost
    increase issues with its state customers.[^24]

### Discussion

8.  We believe that a three-month waiver will provide the states the
    time they need to enter into new contracts with their relay
    providers and comply with sections 64.603 and 64.604 of our rules.
    Because the Petitioners require additional cost justification
    information to ratify their contracts with Sprint, we grant these
    petitioners a three-month waiver of our rules in sections 64.603 and
    64.604, i.e., until March 16, 2001. This additional time should
    result in compliant contracts and improved services for TRS users.

9.  We caution, however, that this additional time should not be used to
    further delay the implementation of the *Improved TRS Order*.
    Rather, we expect that the states, relay providers and carriers will
    continue to act in good faith to comply with the new relay
    requirements. The *Improved Services Order* was designed to improve
    the quality, availability and usefulness of the telecommunications
    network for Americans with speech and hearing disabilities.[^25]
    Thus, to the extent that relay providers are providing compliant
    services during this negotiating period, we commend them for doing
    so and encourage such improvements to continue during the extension
    of time.

## Access to Emergency Services

### Background

10. We have before us four requests for a waiver of the December 18,
    2000 due date to implement section 64.604(a)(4) of our rules[^26]
    which establishes the mandatory minimum standards for the handling
    of emergency TRS calls.[^27] Section 64.604(a)(4) states that
    "\[p\]roviders must use a system for incoming emergency calls that,
    at a minimum, automatically and immediately transfers the caller to
    the nearest PSAP. 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."[^28] As we stated in the *Improved
    TRS Order*, with a voice caller, a PSAP will automatically receive
    the caller's telephone number even 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 is disconnected before being handled by
    an emergency services operator.[^29]

11. While Department of Justice regulations require state and local
    government entities to make emergency services directly accessible
    to TTY users,[^30] some individuals with hearing and speech
    disabilities continue to contact emergency services via a TRS
    center.[^31] These calls require the CA to locate and call the PSAP
    serving the area where the call originated from, as well as provide
    the relay function for the call.[^32] Thus, the Commission adopted
    section 64.604(a)(4) of our rules in the *Improved TRS Order* to
    ensure that relay calls to 911 are functionally equivalent to a
    direct call to 911.

12. In order to implement the new emergency call requirements, Sprint,
    the relay provider in many areas of the country, argues that it must
    create a new database that includes all of the PSAPs in the
    country.[^33] Sprint and an independent contractor retained by
    Sprint are currently developing such a database.[^34] Sprint asserts
    that it needs until June 15, 2001 to have the database populated,
    fully tested and operational.[^35]

13. Verizon explains that in all but one of the states within its
    footprint, it does not directly provide TRS service.[^36] Thus,
    Verizon relies on vendors selected by the state commissions. Verizon
    has been working with these vendors to meet the Commission's
    emergency call handling requirements in a timely manner.[^37] Sprint
    is one of Verizon's largest vendors.[^38] Thus, because Sprint needs
    additional time to make sure that its database is compliant, Verizon
    argues that it will also need more time to have a functional
    database. In the interim, Verizon has taken steps to ensure that TTY
    users who call the TRS center have access to emergency
    services.[^39] In addition, Verizon is urging its TTY users, in the
    event of an emergency, to dial 911 directly rather than accessing
    the TRS center.[^40]

14. California has also requested a six-month waiver in which to
    implement the provisions of section 64.604(a)(4) of the Commission's
    Rules.[^41] California is unique insofar as the provision of relay
    services is concerned because it has two relay providers. MCI is the
    primary relay service provider and Sprint is the secondary relay
    service provider.[^42] California expects Sprint to be in compliance
    with all of the provisions of the *Improved TRS Order*, except the
    PSAP requirements, by the December 18, 2000 due date.[^43] In their
    petition, California stated that it expects MCI to be fully
    compliant by the December 18, 2000 due date.[^44]

15. SBC, which serves as its own relay provider in three locations, has
    requested a five-month waiver to comply with section 64.604(a)(4) of
    our rules.[^45] SBC has been working with a private contractor to
    develop its own PSAP database, similar to the one Sprint is
    developing, to comply with the rule.[^46] Based upon the vendor's
    best estimate, the database should be operational by May 15,
    2001.[^47] SBC, however, notes that they cannot guarantee this date
    and that an additional waiver may be required.[^48]

### Discussion

16. We agree with Sprint, Verizon and SBC that "good cause" exists for
    granting the requested temporary extension pursuant to section 1.3
    of the Commission's Rules.[^49] We therefore grant all of the
    carriers and states using Sprint as their relay provider a six-month
    extension, until June 18, 2001, to comply with the new automated
    PSAP emergency call requirements as set forth in section
    64.604(a)(4) of our rules. Sprint currently gives emergency calls to
    its relay centers the highest priority and has procedures in place
    for handling such calls.[^50] Because Sprint is working
    expeditiously to complete its database, and because procedures for
    handling emergency calls are consistent with the Commission's goal
    of providing access to users with speech and hearing disabilities,
    we believe that a six-month waiver of the automated transfer of
    emergency calls to the nearest PSAP is reasonable. For similar
    reasons, we also grant SBC a six-month waiver of section
    64.604(a)(4) of our rules. As a relay provider, SBC also needs
    additional time to populate its database in the states where it is
    the relay provider. Until the databases are populated and fully
    operational, however, all carriers must continue giving emergency
    relay calls the highest priority and greatest care to ensure the
    safety of relay users. Consistent with the requirements established
    in the *Improved TRS Order*, relay providers must direct emergency
    calls as quickly as possible to the correct PSAP, and provide the
    caller's telephone number to the PSAP quickly and in a format the
    PSAP can use to determine the location of the caller.

## Service Quality Standards 

### Background

17. As stated above, the *Improved TRS Order* amended the Commission's
    Rules to expand and improve the kinds of relay services available to
    TRS consumers.[^51] As a result, the Commission adopted new
    mandatory minimum operational and technical standards. Some of the
    service quality standards impose certain requirements on the CAs who
    handle relay calls. Because of the varying skill levels and the
    contracts with the CAs, however, some Petitioners ask for additional
    time to bring their CAs and their systems into compliance.[^52]

18. SBC seeks a temporary waiver of the 60 words per minute (wpm) typing
    speed requirement for CAs.[^53] Specifically SBC seeks a waiver
    until May 31, 2001, in which to fully comply with this mandatory
    minimum operational standard.[^54] SBC explains that while many of
    its CAs are meeting this requirement, there are numerous incumbent
    CAs with considerable seniority who have not yet passed SBC's newly
    instituted oral-to-text typing test.[^55] SBC explains that full
    compliance will require additional testing, training or re-training
    employees, and if necessary and possible, replacing employees.[^56]
    In addition, some of SBC's TRS centers are staffed by employees
    working under collective bargaining agreements.[^57] If these
    employees do not meet the 60 wpm standard, they could become
    unqualified and lose their jobs.[^58] SBC contends that such action
    could make it difficult to adequately staff the TRS centers.[^59] In
    addition, SBC seeks a waiver of the requirement that TRS providers
    must give oral-to-type tests of CA speed.[^60] SBC states that the
    failure of the incumbent employees to pass the oral-to-text typing
    test could negatively impact customer service.[^61]

19. Arizona also seeks a waiver of some of the new mandatory minimum
    standards.[^62] Specifically, Arizona requests an additional three
    and one-half-months, until April 1, 2001, in which to fully comply
    with the new typing speed requirements for CAs,[^63] the in-call
    replacement times for CAs,[^64] and the new speed of answer
    requirements.[^65] Like SBC, Arizona faces some contractual hurdles
    to compliance with the new mandatory minimum standards.[^66]

### Discussion

20. We grant SBC and Arizona until May 31, 2001, to comply with the
    aforementioned service quality standards referenced in their waiver
    requests. We agree with SBC and Arizona that a waiver in these
    limited circumstances is appropriate. Providing the CAs additional
    time to meet our requirements, will provide little disruption to the
    provision of compliant services. Furthermore, an extension in time
    will allow current relay center employees the opportunity to improve
    their skills and meet the mandatory minimum standards. Thus, we
    grant SBC a waiver until May 31, 2001 to comply with Section
    64.604(a)(1) of our rules. We also grant Arizona a waiver until May
    31, 2001 to comply with sections 64.604(a)(1), 64.604(a)(5) and
    64.604(b)(2) of our rules.

# Ordering Clauses

21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
    section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, that the
    California Public Utilities Commission and the People of the State
    of California, The Arizona Commission for the Deaf and Hard of
    Hearing, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission and the North
    Carolina Telecommunications Relay Services are granted a three-month
    waiver, until March 16, 2001, to comply with sections 64.603 and
    64.604 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 47 C.F.R. 64.603 and
    64.604.

22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, all carriers using Sprint Communications
    Company, L.P. as their relay provider and SBC are granted a
    six-month waiver, until June 18, 2001, to comply with section
    64.604(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(4).

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the Arizona Commission for the Deaf and
    Hard of Hearing and SBC Communications, Inc. shall be granted a
    waiver until May 31, 2001, to comply with sections 64.604(a)(1),
    64.604(a)(5) and 64.604(b)(2) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 64.604(a)(1), 64.604(a)(5) and 64.604(b)(2).

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Yog R. Varma

    Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, CC Docket No.
    98-67, 15 FCC Rcd 5140 (2000) (*Improved TRS Order*).

[^2]: *Improved TRS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5141, ¶ 1.

[^3]: 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).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^5]: *Id.* at § 225(b).

[^6]: 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*).

[^7]: 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).

[^8]: *Improved TRS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5144, ¶ 8.

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 *et. seq.*

[^10]: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Order on
    Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 00-200 (rel. June 5, 2000)
    (*Improved TRS Order on Reconsideration*).

[^11]: *Id*. at ¶ 2.

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601(5), (7).

[^14]: *See* Sprint Communications Company L.P. Motion for a Limited
    Temporary Waiver (filed Nov. 7, 2000) (Sprint Waiver Request); New
    Hampshire Public Utilities Commission Request for Temporary Waiver
    for Extension of Time to Implement FCC Report and Order No. FCC
    00-56 as Amended by Order No. 00-200 (filed Nov. 8, 2000) (NHPUC
    Waiver Request); California Public Utilities Commission and the
    People of the State of California Request for Temporary Waiver for
    Extension of Time (filed December 6, 2000) (California Waiver
    Request); Arizona Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
    Request for Extension of Time (filed Dec. 14, 2000) (Arizona Waiver
    Request); Verizon Communications, Inc. Request for Temporary Waiver
    (filed December 15, 2000) (Verizon Waiver Request); North Carolina
    Telecommunications Relay Service Administration Request for
    Extension of Time (filed Nov. 6, 2000) (North Carolina TRS Waiver
    Request); SBC Communication, Inc. request for Temporary Waiver
    (filed Dec. 11, 2000) (SBC Waiver Request). Collectively "the
    Petitioners."

[^15]: An eighth petition was filed by the Florida Public Service
    Commission. *See* Florida Public Service Commission Request for
    Temporary Waiver for Extension of Time to Implement FCC Report and
    Order No. 00-200 (filed Oct. 24, 2000). This request, however, was
    withdrawn on January 17, 2001. *See* Florida Public Service
    Commission Notice of Withdrawal of Request for Temporary Waiver
    (filed Jan. 17, 2001).

[^16]: *See* North Carolina TRS Waiver Request, NHPUC Waiver Request,
    Arizona Waiver Request and California Waiver Request.

[^17]: *See* SBC Waiver Request and Arizona Waiver Request.

[^18]: *See* Sprint Waiver Request, SBC Waiver Request, Verizon Waiver
    Request and California Waiver Request.

[^19]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a), (c).

[^20]: *See* North Carolina TRS Waiver Request, NHPUC Waiver Request,
    Arizona Waiver Request, and California Waiver Request.

[^21]: NHPUC Waiver Request at 1 (New Hampshire requests an extension
    until March 1, 2001); North Carolina TRS Waiver Request (North
    Carolina Request a three month waiver request); Arizona Waiver
    Request at 1-2 (Arizona requests a three and one-half month waiver
    until April 1, 2001) and California Waiver Request at 1-2
    (California requests a six month waiver until June 15, 2001).

[^22]: *Id*.

[^23]: *Id*.

[^24]: *See* Letter from Michael B. Finger Hut, Counsel for Sprint, to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
    CC Docket No. 98-67 (filed Jan. 11, 2001).

[^25]: *Improved Services Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5144, ¶ 8.

[^26]: *See* Sprint Waiver Request, SBC Waiver Request, Verizon Waiver
    Request and California Waiver Request. (All of the Petitioners
    request a six month waiver, except SBC which requests a five month
    waiver.)

[^27]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(4).

[^28]: *Id*.

[^29]: *Improved TRS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5193, ¶ 101.

[^30]: 28 C.F.R. § 35.162.

[^31]: *Improved TRS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5192, ¶ 100.

[^32]: Sprint Waiver Request at 2.

[^33]: *Id*. at 1.

[^34]: *Id*.

[^35]: *Id.*

[^36]: Verizon Waiver Request at 1 (Hawaii, where Verizon has been
    awarded the contract, is the exception).

[^37]: *Id*.

[^38]: *Id.*

[^39]: *Id*. at 2.

[^40]: *Id*.

[^41]: California Waiver Request.

[^42]: *Id*. at 1.

[^43]: *Id.*

[^44]: *Id*. at 2.

[^45]: SBC Waiver Request.

[^46]: *Id*. at 2.

[^47]: *Id*. at 4.

[^48]: *Id*. at 2, 4.

[^49]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. *See also* Sprint Waiver Request at 1-5,
    Verizon Waiver Request at 1-2 and SBC Waiver Request at 3-4.

[^50]: Sprint Waiver Request at 2-3

[^51]: *Improved TRS Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5141, ¶1.

[^52]: *See* SBC Waiver Request and Arizona Waiver Request.

[^53]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(1).

[^54]: SBC Waiver Request at 1.

[^55]: *Id*. at 1-2.

[^56]: *Id*. at 2.

[^57]: *Id.* Presently, 149 employees are covered by the AIT-CWA
    Collective Bargaining Agreement.

[^58]: *Id.*

[^59]: *Id*. at 3.

[^60]: *Id*. at 1.

[^61]: *Id*. at 3.

[^62]: *See* Arizona Waiver Request at 1.

[^63]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(1).

[^64]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §64.604(a)(5).

[^65]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §64.604(b)(2).

[^66]: Arizona Waiver Request at 2 nn.4-6.