Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 98-67          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Provision of Improved            | ** |                              |
| Telecommunications Relay         |    |                              |
| Services and Speech-to-Speech    | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Services for Individuals with    | ** |                              |
| Hearing and Speech Disabilities  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Petition for Clarification of    | *) |                              |
| WorldCom, Inc.                   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**DECLARATORY RULING**

**AND**

**SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: April 18, 2002 Released: April 22, 2002**

**Comment Date: 30 days after Federal Register Publication**

**Reply Comment Date: 45 days after Federal Register Publication**

By the Commission: Commissioners Abernathy and Copps issuing separate
statements.

# introduction

1.  In this *Declaratory Ruling*, we address a Petition for
    Clarification (*Petition*) filed by WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) on
    December 22, 2000.[^1] In its *Petition*, WorldCom explains its
    Internet protocol relay service (IP Relay) offering, and requests
    that the Commission clarify that IP Relay is eligible for
    reimbursement from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service
    (TRS)[^2] Fund. For the reasons discussed below, we find that IP
    Relay falls within the statutory definition of TRS and that such
    services are eligible to recover their costs in accordance with
    Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    (Communications Act).[^3] Because there is currently no automatic
    means for determining whether a call made via IP Relay is intrastate
    or interstate, we authorize, on an interim basis, recovery of all
    costs of providing IP Relay from the Interstate TRS Fund.
    Additionally, from the effective date of this order, to the extent
    indicated herein, we grant WorldCom a waiver of certain TRS minimum
    standards. In addition, we grant the same waiver of TRS minimum
    standards to all other current and potential IP Relay providers, for
    the same periods of time indicated herein, beginning on the date of
    the release of the *Declaratory Ruling*.

2.  In the *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* portion, we
    inquire as to whether recovery of costs from the Interstate TRS Fund
    for IP Relay should be a temporary or a permanent measure. If this
    should be a temporary measure, we request comment from the public on
    how IP Relay providers can develop the capability to determine
    whether a call is intrastate or interstate.

# Background

3.  TRS, which is usually provided through the public switched telephone
    network (PSTN), enables persons with hearing and speech disabilities
    to communicate by telephone with persons who may or may not have
    such disabilities.[^4] 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.[^5] For the
    TTY user, the 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.[^6]

4.  WorldCom states that its IP Relay service is used in the following
    manner:

    1\. A user establishes a local connection to an Internet service
    provider (ISP) using a computer, web phone, personal digital
    assistant, or any other IP-capable device.

    2\. The user points the web browser to the Internet address \--

    \"WWW.IP-Relay.COM,\" and clicks on the relay operator icon.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  When the call reaches WorldCom\'s Internet platform, a java applet
    is launched, which then automatically establishes a connection, via
    an 800 number, to WorldCom\'s relay center.

4.  The call is immediately routed to a calling assistant, and a regular
    relay session is initiated.[^7]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  WorldCom asks the Commission to clarify that IP Relay falls within
    the definition of TRS, and is entitled to recover its operating
    costs under Section 225 of the Communications Act.[^8] WorldCom
    further requests that the Commission allow it to recover all of the
    costs of its IP Relay service from the Interstate TRS fund because
    calls come to IP relay via the Internet, and there is currently no
    automatic method by which the IP Relay center can tell whether a
    given call is intrastate or interstate, given that Internet
    addresses have no geographic correlates. This is in contrast to
    PSTN-based TRS, in which the TRS center uses the caller\'s Automatic
    Numbering Identification (ANI) to identify the location of the
    caller.

6.  The Commission briefly addressed the potential impact of the
    Internet on TRS earlier in this proceeding.[^9] On June 29, 2001,
    the Commission\'s Consumer Information Bureau released a Public
    Notice requesting comment on the provision of improved TRS and on
    WorldCom\'s *Petition*.[^10] The Public Notice asked for public
    comment on the benefits of IP Relay, the appropriate means for
    allowing WorldCom to recover the costs of providing IP Relay, the
    minimum standards that should apply to IP Relay, and the security of
    IP Relay calls.[^11] We received 12 comments and five reply comments
    from carriers, organizations representing the deaf community, and
    public officials, along with hundreds of e-mail comments and letters
    from individuals who use IP Relay.[^12]

# Discussion

**A. Benefits of IP Relay**

7.  In the *Public Notice*, we asked commenters to identify the benefits
    of handling TRS calls via IP Relay. Commenters identified several
    benefits of IP Relay, in quality and flexibility of service, in ease
    of use and convenience, and in the potential for additional service
    features in the future.[^13]

8.  A number of commenters commend the ubiquity of IP Relay. Commenters
    state that IP Relay is available to anyone who has access to the
    Internet via computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), or
    Web-capable telephone or other device. Service accessibility is not
    limited to places that are equipped with TTYs or specialized
    software.[^14] They also state that, because IP Relay does not
    require a specialized piece of equipment (*i.e.*, a TTY), people who
    have computers or other Web-capable devices need not expend
    additional funds to purchase TTYs.[^15] Several commenters state
    that the quality of transmission is better via IP Relay, and that a
    computer screen and keyboard are easier to use than a standard
    TTY.[^16] Commenters also mention the convenience of being able to
    place calls through IP Relay while working on their computers,
    rather than having to go to a separate TTY, and sometimes having to
    log off the Internet to use the telephone line for a TTY.[^17]
    Commenters note that IP Relay users can initiate multiple calls
    simultaneously and even browse the Internet while making a
    call.[^18] Finally, commenters also note that TRS users will not be
    limited to their states\' designated primary relay providers, but
    can choose an IP Relay provider without restrictions.[^19]

9.  Several commenters argue that IP Relay will offer greater benefits
    in the future because of the flexibility and power of computers and
    the Internet.[^20] They argue that IP Relay makes two-line voice
    carryover (VCO) easier for people who are deaf or hard of
    hearing.[^21] Two-line VCO is an application where the person who is
    deaf or hard of hearing speaks to another party on a voice telephone
    line, and the other party\'s return speech is converted to text by
    the TRS center on another telephone line.[^22] This requires the
    expense of a second telephone line or the addition of three-way
    calling to the service of the person who is deaf or hard of hearing,
    but commenter's state that it is possible to accomplish two-lineVCO
    functionality via IP Relay without an extra telephone line and
    three-way calling.[^23] A number of commenters also identify
    conference calling, multiple simultaneous calls, and the ability of
    IP Relay to convert one text protocol to another as added features
    that are possible with IP Relay.[^24]

## B. Statutory Definition of TRS {#b.-statutory-definition-of-trs .unnumbered}

10. The Communications Act provides for telecommunications relay
    services, defined as telephone transmission services that give an
    individual who has a hearing or speech disability the ability 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.[^25] Such term includes services that enable two‑way
    communication between an individual who uses a TTY or other nonvoice
    terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device.
    Our task is simply to determine whether IP Relay falls within this
    definition. We note at the outset that Congress did not narrow its
    definition of TRS only to a specific category of services otherwise
    defined in the Act, such as \"telecommunications services\" (in
    contradistinction to "information services").[^26] Rather, Congress
    used the broad phrase \"telephone transmission services\" that was
    constrained only by the requirement that such service provide a
    specific functionality. The requisite functionality is that the
    service \"provide\[s\] 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 . . .
    \[without any such impairment\] to communicate using voice
    communication services by wire or radio.\"[^27] Under these
    circumstances, we find that the phrase \"telephone transmission
    service\" should be interpreted broadly, and in the context of both
    the sentence and section in which it appears, to include any
    transmission service involving \[telephonic equipment or devices\]
    to the extent that such transmission provides the particular
    functionality that the definition specifies. We note that the
    overall purpose of Section 225 is to \"ensure that interstate and
    intrastate \[TRS\] are available, to the extent possible and in the
    most efficient manner, to hearing‑impaired and speech‑impaired
    individuals in the United States.\"[^28] Further, Section 225
    specifically directs us to \"ensure that regulations prescribed to
    implement this section encourage, consistent with Section 7(a) of
    this Act, the use of existing technology and do not discourage or
    impair the development of improved technology.\"[^29] We believe our
    interpretation of the definition is thus consistent with the mandate
    of section 225(d)(2) because it is technology-neutral and will not
    impair use of any existing technology or discourage development of
    new technology. Rather, it encompasses all transmission using
    telephonic equipment or devices, whether over the public switched
    network, cable, satellite, or any other means, so long as the
    requisite functionality is provided.

11. TRS calls handled via IP Relay allow people with hearing or speech
    disabilities to communicate with people who do not have such
    disabilities. IP Relay also enables two‑way communication between an
    individual who uses a nonvoice terminal device (a computer, PDA,
    Web‑capable telephone, or pager device) and an individual who does
    not use such a device. Based on these factors, we conclude that IP
    Relay also meets the functionality requirements of Section 225 and
    thus satisfies the definition of "telecommunications relay services"
    pursuant to the Act.

12. For these reasons, as well, we disagree with the USTA that allowing
    IP Relay to recover its costs is only permissible under the
    Communications Act if we deem IP Relay a \"telecommunications
    service,\" as opposed to an \"information service,\" under the
    Communications Act.[^30] USTA relies on the words
    \"telecommunications\" and \"services\" in the term
    \"telecommunications relay services\" in asserting that IP Relay can
    recover its costs only if it is deemed a telecommunications service.
    WorldCom, however, argues that Section 225 does not limit TRS solely
    to telecommunications services and that \"Congress chose to include
    any service that enables communication between speech and hearing
    disabled persons and other persons . . . .\"[^31]

13. What is critical to our analysis is that TRS is specifically defined
    in Section 225, and thus our concern is whether IP Relay satisfies
    that definition. Whether a particular TRS service or methodology
    might also be a \"telecommunications service\" or an \"information
    service\" is not relevant to resolution of the issue as to whether
    providers of IP Relay are entitled to recover their costs from the
    states or the Interstate TRS Fund.[^32]

14. This conclusion is consistent with our earlier finding that
    \"section 225 must be read to apply to any service that allows
    individuals with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate by
    wire or radio.\" Thus, we are not required to, and consequently do
    not, make a finding as to whether IP Relay constitutes
    telecommunications, telecommunications service, or information
    service.[^33]

## C. Cost Recovery {#c.-cost-recovery .unnumbered}

15. In the cost recovery scheme for TRS, the costs of intrastate calls
    are recovered from the states, and the costs of interstate calls are
    recovered from the Interstate TRS Fund.[^34] In its *Petition*,
    WorldCom requests that we allow it to recover all of the costs of
    providing IP Relay from the Interstate TRS Fund. WorldCom explains
    that because the first leg of an IP Relay call comes over the
    Internet, rather than from a telephone, there is no automatic way to
    determine whether any call is intrastate or interstate. This is
    because Internet addresses do not have geographic correlates, and
    there is currently no Internet address identifier that can
    automatically give the location of a caller, as is the case with the
    ANIs of telephone callers.[^35]

16. Section 225 does permit us, for good cause, to sometimes vary from
    strict jurisdictional separation of costs.[^36] The Commission, in
    establishing that, as an interim measure, all the costs for Video
    Relay Services (VRS) would be recovered from the Interstate TRS
    fund, stated that "\[w\]e believe the word 'generally' \[in Section
    225\] 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.\"[^37] Consequently, the costs of
    providing VRS are recovered from the Interstate TRS Fund, regardless
    of whether the calls are intrastate or interstate. The Commission
    allowed this to promote the growth of VRS by allowing carriers to
    concentrate their VRS operations in a few sites around the
    country.[^38] We follow this logic in authorizing recovery of the
    costs of IP Relay from the Interstate TRS Fund.

17. Nevertheless, there are two methods by which the costs of IP Relay
    could be allocated between the states and the Interstate TRS Fund.
    The first would require a determination of the best way to identify
    accurately the origination of an IP Relay call. One possible method
    of doing so would require IP Relay callers to establish profiles
    that identify the state from which they are calling.[^39] Several
    commenters point out, though, that profiles have proven unpopular
    with TRS users, and in some cases, callers might have an incentive
    to give false information to the profile.[^40] The second method
    would entail the development of a cost allocation formula based on
    an approximation of the mix of interstate/intrastate calls that were
    placed over IP Relay. One possible method of determining an
    allocator would entail conducting customer surveys to find out the
    state from which a customer is calling, and the state to which the
    call is placed.[^41]

18. Alternatively, a determination could be made that cost allocation is
    not necessary. WorldCom advocates this position. WorldCom argues
    that IP Relay costs should permanently be recovered from the
    interstate jurisdiction. Currently, there is one TRS provider in
    each state except California,[^42] recovering its costs from the
    state pursuant to a contract between the state and the carrier
    providing TRS. Because IP Relay is nationwide, WorldCom states that
    recovery of its costs in providing intrastate calls would require it
    to go through the very difficult and lengthy process of negotiating
    contracts with all 50 states.[^43]

19. In addition to formal comments filed with the Commission supporting
    the promotion of IP Relay, we have received more than 100 comments
    by e-mail from individuals who use IP Relay. [^44] All but one of
    these comments request that we move quickly to authorize recovery of
    costs for IP Relay, so that WorldCom can open more Internet ports to
    facilitate a greater volume of calls.[^45] All commenters agree that
    IP Relay costs should be recovered from the Interstate TRS Fund at
    least in the near term. Even commenters who support allocation of
    costs between the states and the Interstate TRS Fund agree that cost
    recovery from the Interstate TRS Fund is appropriate until either a
    cost allocation formula is adopted or a methodology is developed for
    determining the precise jurisdictional nature of a call.[^46]

20. We decline at this time to adopt either of the methods discussed
    above of allocating costs between states and the Interstate TRS
    Fund. The first method, collection of profiles on TRS users, raises
    issues of caller privacy that would require more examination before
    we could take conclusive action. Further, we believe that requiring
    TRS customers to provide profile information could discourage use of
    IP Relay, contrary to the direction of Congress to encourage the use
    of new and improved technology to provide TRS. The second method,
    allocating costs according to a formula based on approximate
    percentages of intrastate and interstate calling, would require
    substantial research into IP Relay calling patterns. We find,
    however, that it is in the public interest to authorize a
    compensation methodology for IP Relay quickly, in order to encourage
    the development of this service, and that to delay compensation
    pending the development of a methodology to determine the cost
    allocation of IP Relay calls could impede the development of the
    service. Thus, on an interim basis, we authorize any current or
    prospective IP Relay provider to receive compensation for providing
    IP Relay-based TRS from the Interstate TRS Fund, using the same
    formula that is used for interstate PSTN-based TRS calls, until such
    time as a determination is made concerning the development of a
    permanent IP Relay cost recovery formula.

21. We believe that this determination is supported by Section 225 of
    the Communications Act, which states that regulation governing TRS
    cost recovery shall \"generally\" provide that costs caused by
    interstate TRS shall be recovered from all subscribers for every
    interstate service and costs caused by intrastate TRS shall be
    recovered from the intrastate jurisdiction.[^47] As discussed above,
    in determining that the costs of providing VRS are recovered from
    the Interstate TRS Fund, regardless of whether the calls are
    intrastate or interstate, we interpreted the term \"generally\" to
    give us the discretion to fund intrastate service from the
    interstate jurisdiction. Similarly, we believe that our action here,
    intended as an interim arrangement, is an appropriate use of our
    discretion.

22. Accordingly, we direct the administrator of the Interstate TRS Fund,
    the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA), to pay eligible
    Internet-based relay services using the PSTN-based TRS formula rate
    per minute. This compensation level for IP Relay-based TRS is to be
    implemented upon release of this *Declaratory Ruling* *and Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* by the Commission, and shall
    be paid only for IP Relay services provided after the release of
    this *Declaratory Ruling* *and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*. Compensation shall be based on the monthly minutes of
    use, in accordance with the rules established for the Interstate TRS
    Fund.[^48] WorldCom states that IP Relay and PSTN-based TRS calls
    exhibit very similar cost and demand characteristics.[^49]
    Particularly, WorldCom notes that the cost savings it enjoys from
    the absence of certain network based charges is offset by the
    additional cost of establishing and maintaining the Internet gateway
    and the hardware and software to provide relay service via the
    Internet.[^50] We therefore believe that, at least in the interim,
    the cost recovery for IP Relay-based TRS calls should be the same as
    the cost of PSTN-based TRS calls.

23. We also direct NECA and the Interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council to
    develop cost recovery guidelines for IP Relay based on this
    *Declaratory Ruling* within six months of its release. As the
    Commission did in requiring the development of cost recovery
    guidelines for improved TRS,[^51] we direct NECA and the Interstate
    TRS Fund Advisory Council to consider comments in this proceeding in
    developing guidelines. NECA and the Interstate TRS Fund Advisory
    Council should carefully examine any differences in the costs of
    providing IP Relay and PSTN-based TRS. We will place the proposed
    guidelines on public notice to provide the public with an
    opportunity to comment on the guidelines before we give final
    approval.

24. WorldCom recommends that we approve compensation for IP Relay from
    the Interstate TRS Fund effective the release date of this
    *Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, at the current per minute compensation for interstate
    PSTN-based TRS calls, and require providers of IP Relay to keep
    separate logs of Internet-based and PSTN-based TRS conversation
    minutes. This would permit the Interstate TRS Fund to \"true-up\"
    amounts paid to providers of IP Relay if a different cost recovery
    rate is later established for IP Relay, based on the actual costs of
    providing IP Relay.[^52] We decline to adopt WorldCom\'s
    recommendation. WorldCom has stated that the cost characteristics of
    IP Relay are very similar to those of PSTN-based TRS.[^53] We
    therefore believe that WorldCom will be adequately compensated by
    recovering its costs at the current PSTN-based TRS rate.

25. We wish to make clear that our decision to provide for cost recovery
    for IP Relay from the Interstate TRS Fund in no way precludes the
    states from establishing IP Relay in addition to their current
    PSTN-based TRS, or from providing cost recovery from state
    funds.[^54] Should a state choose to authorize and provide cost
    recovery for Internet-based relay, any costs recovered from the
    state would not be eligible for recovery from the Interstate TRS
    Fund.

26. We also agree with commenters that IP Relay is a valuable addition
    to TRS because of the availability of IP Relay. We believe that the
    availability of IP Relay may encourage competition in TRS, a
    regulated service that typically has only one provider per state. In
    addition to WorldCom, AT&T has tested an Internet-based relay
    service and has stated that it will launch such a service when we
    permit the recovery of costs.[^55] We believe that these carriers,
    and others that may launch Internet-based relay services, will
    compete with each other for customer loyalty by providing the best
    quality service. This incentive to provide high quality and improved
    service features will augment the power and flexibility of the
    Internet in delivering improved services to the public.

## D. Minimum Standards. {#d.-minimum-standards. .unnumbered}

27. Our rules establish several operational, technical, and functional
    minimum standards that carriers must meet to be certified as TRS
    providers.[^56] Several of these standards may not be applicable to
    the provision of IP Relay.[^57] WorldCom has asked for a waiver of
    certain minimum standards. For this reason, we will consider the
    applicability of our TRS minimum standards to IP Relay.

28. *Waiver Standard.* In analyzing the applicability of our TRS minimum
    standards to IP Relay, we consider established legal standards for
    waiver of the Commission's rules. The Commission will adhere
    strictly to its rules unless a party can demonstrate that "in the
    public interest the rule should be waived."[^58] Furthermore, the
    Commission may only waive a provision of its rules for "good cause
    shown."[^59] The Commission must take a "hard look" at applications
    for waiver[^60] and must consider all relevant factors when
    determining if good cause exists.[^61] The party petitioning the
    Commission for a waiver bears the heavy burden of showing good
    cause: "\[an\] applicant \[for a waiver\] faces a high hurdle even
    at the starting gate."[^62] In addition, "\[t\]he agency must
    explain why deviation better serves the public interest, and
    articulate the nature of the special circumstances, to prevent
    discriminatory application and to put future parties on notice as to
    its operation."[^63] Finally, a waiver of one or more portions of
    the Commission's rules does not excuse an applicant from compliance
    with the Commission's other requirements.[^64] As discussed below,
    we find good cause to believe that WorldCom's waiver requests are in
    the public interest and grant them to the extent indicated herein.

29. *Speed of Answer*. TRS minimum standards mandate that 85 percent of
    relay calls must be answered within ten seconds by any method which
    results in the caller\'s call being placed, not put on queue or
    hold.[^65] These calls are measured on a daily basis and take into
    account abandoned calls.[^66] WorldCom requests a waiver on the
    speed of answer standard for one year, while it gains the
    experience, hardware, and obtains the qualified CAs necessary to
    meet the standard.[^67] Most commenters believe that our speed of
    answer standard should apply to IP Relay,[^68] though some add that
    the standard should be modified for IP Relay so that it does not
    include the time needed for the caller to connect to the Internet,
    but should be measured from the time the caller connects with the IP
    Relay center.[^69] We agree with commenters that the speed of answer
    standard should apply to IP Relay, and we note that our minimum
    standards currently measure speed of answer from \"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.\"[^70] Similarly, we will
    consider the call delivered to the IP Relay center when the IP Relay
    center\'s equipment accepts the call from the Internet. Carriers
    providing IP Relay, in order to remain qualified to receive
    reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund, will have to maintain
    sufficient staffing to adhere to our speed of answer standard,
    therefore, we deny WorldCom's request to waive our speed of answer
    requirement.

30. *Emergency Call Handling*. WorldCom notes that it is not able to
    provide location information to Public Safety Answering Points
    (PSAPs) because it does not have the ANI of the calling party, and
    therefore does not have information to identify the caller\'s
    location. Therefore, WorldCom requests a waiver of the requirement
    that emergency caller information be passed on automatically to the
    PSAP.[^71] Commenters agree that, because ANI information is not
    available in Internet connections, this requirement should be
    waived.[^72] We agree that it would be unreasonable to require IP
    Relay to provide information that it does not possess, and we
    therefore grant a waiver of emergency call information requirements
    for a period of one year. We encourage WorldCom and others to work
    on developing a method by which it can rapidly get critical location
    information from emergency callers, and pass this information along
    to appropriate emergency services. AT&T has an Emergency Call
    Handling data base that allows for retrieval of emergency services
    by city/state, and can quickly connect a caller to the appropriate
    PSAP, once the caller identifies her city/state, address, and phone
    number.[^73] One commenter envisions Internet-based relay services
    providing software by which callers can send a preset emergency
    message with the push of a single key or very few keys.[^74] We
    strongly encourage other IP Relay providers to consider providing
    means to connect emergency callers expeditiously to the appropriate
    PSAPs, and to continue to work on methods by which automatic
    provision of critical emergency information can be achieved by IP
    Relay. At the end of the waiver period, we expect that WorldCom and
    other IP relay providers will have devised a method by which they
    can automatically transfer calls to emergency services providers,
    including location information.

31. *Equal Access to Interexchange Carriers*. WorldCom has asked us to
    waive the requirement that IP Relay provide long distance via the
    carrier of the customer\'s choice, stating that as an IP Relay
    provider it does not charge for long distance, and therefore carrier
    of choice is unnecessary.[^75] Most commenters agree, stating that
    carrier of choice may be impossible because it is not possible to
    tell whether or not a call is long distance.[^76] We agree that cost
    is a significant factor in carrier of choice, and we recognize the
    difficulty in determining whether a call is long-distance. We also
    believe that, as IP Relay develops, a consumer will be able to use
    the interexchange carrier of her choice by using that interexchange
    carrier\'s IP Relay offering. We will therefore waive the carrier of
    choice requirement for IP Relay permanently, provided that IP Relay
    providers continue their policy of not charging customers for long
    distance calls.

32. *Voice Initiated Calls*. WorldCom claims that it can provide VCO,
    hearing carry over (HCO),[^77] and speech-to-speech (STS)[^78]
    through IP Relay, provided that the customer has the appropriate
    customer premises equipment.[^79] Other commenters, however, believe
    that technological limitations make these services impossible at
    this point.[^80] We also note that, currently, IP Relay can only be
    accessed by text users. We believe that IP Relay should be available
    to voice users, but agree with commenters that technology and the
    marketplace should drive the pace at which Internet-based relay
    providers resolve the problems involved with providing voice access
    to IP Relay.[^81] We will therefore waive the requirement that IP
    Relay be accessible by voice for a period of one year, while we
    inquire further into the problems and possibilities presented by
    voice access. We emphasize, however, that if an Internet-based relay
    provider develops the technology to provide VCO and STS before the
    expiration of this waiver, it will be authorized to provide these
    services to customers who have the necessary equipment and to
    recover its costs from the Interstate TRS Fund. We see no reason why
    IP Relay cannot be used for the text leg of an HCO call, and
    therefore we do not waive this requirement.

33. *Minimum Standards*. We will apply all other TRS minimum standards
    to IP Relay.[^82] In order to be certified and eligible for
    reimbursement, IP Relay must meet these minimum standards, or
    request and receive waivers of the standards. We emphasize that
    these waivers are temporary and are intended to facilitate the
    growth of IP Relay as a new service. As Internet-based relay
    services grow, we will require them to meet minimum standards once
    the technology is sufficiently mature to permit them to do so. These
    waivers will apply to all other current or prospective IP Relay
    providers, for the time periods indicated herein. We note that our
    minimum standards do not currently require TRS providers to provide
    VRS, but these services are eligible for reimbursement from the
    Interstate TRS Fund if IP Relay provides them.[^83]

34. We previously required relay services to offer pay-per-call
    services, stating that it is technically feasible for relay centers
    to accommodate these services.[^84] We see no reason why IP Relay
    cannot also accommodate pay-per-call, or \"900\" number, services.
    In cases where the pay-per-call service requires the use of a credit
    card, the CA can pass along credit card information provided by the
    customer. In cases of pay-per-call services that are billed by the
    minute, IP Relay will be able to provide the caller\'s telephone
    number to the pay-per-call service provider for billing. We find
    that the provision of pay-per-call services through IP Relay is
    another component of functional equivalency.

35. We note that the minimum standards require all providers of
    interstate TRS to submit a contact person or office to the
    Commission for TRS consumer information and complaints.[^85]
    Providers of IP Relay must submit a contact person or office for TRS
    consumers' information and complaints about the provider's service.
    This information may be the same contact information that the
    provider submits for its PSTN-based TRS. IP Relay providers may
    also, if they so choose, designate a separate person or office as
    the contact for IP Relay consumer information and complaints.

## E. Security {#e.-security .unnumbered}

36. The *Public Notice* asked commenters to address what requirements
    would be needed to ensure the privacy of calls made via IP Relay and
    of the caller profiles of IP Relay users. The *Public Notice* also
    asked whether we need to take specific measures to protect users
    from Internet viruses.

37. Currently, our rules prohibit TRS CAs from disclosing the content of
    any relayed conversation, with limited exceptions for
    speech-to-speech CAs and as provided by Section 705 of the
    Communications Act.[^86] We agree with commenters that these same
    standards should apply to IP Relay CAs,[^87] and that
    confidentiality of calls via IP Relay should be protected.[^88] As
    regards technical security, WorldCom notes that it encrypts all IP
    packets with 128-bit encryption and does not currently link IP Relay
    calls to customer profiles.[^89] TDI approves of encryption,
    suggesting that the same level of encryption as that used to protect
    credit card transactions on the Internet should be used for IP Relay
    calls.[^90] AT&T states that its trial IP Relay offering did not
    provide specialized encryption or message protection, but \"agrees
    that the privacy considerations and policies associated with
    traditional relay should be enforced with Internet relay.\"[^91]

38. We find that the application of the confidentiality requirements of
    our current TRS minimum standards is sufficient to protect consumer
    privacy for the time being. We applaud WorldCom\'s choice to apply
    encryption to IP Relay conversations, and we agree with AT&T that
    the encryption made possible by the Internet can enhance the
    security and privacy of TRS calls via the Internet.[^92] For this
    reason, we conclude that any provider of IP Relay should offer
    encryption of calls, using encryption of commercially reasonable
    quality. A provider of IP Relay that does not provide such
    encryption shall warn the caller and call recipient each time they
    make a call or receive a call that their calls via the service are
    not encrypted. We will address the issue of security of IP Relay
    further in this proceeding.

# SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

## A. Overview {#a.-overview .unnumbered}

39. In the foregoing *Declaratory Ruling*, we authorized providers of IP
    Relay to recover their costs from the Interstate TRS Fund. We did so
    because currently there is no automatic means by which a caller\'s
    location can be determined. Therefore, it cannot be automatically
    determined whether a call via IP Relay is intrastate or interstate.
    The PSTN-based TRS system uses the caller\'s ANI to determine the
    area code from which a call is made. This piece of information,
    along with the area code of the number being called, allows the TRS
    provider to determine whether the call is intrastate or interstate
    and recover its costs from the state or from the Interstate TRS Fund
    accordingly. Because the first leg of a call made via IP Relay comes
    from the caller to the IP Relay center via the Internet, there is no
    ANI, and because Internet addresses have no geographic correlates,
    there is no comparable automatic method for determining whether the
    caller is in the same state as the call recipient.

40. This *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* inquires into
    cost recovery mechanisms for IP Relay. The Commission previously
    sought public comment on \"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.\"[^93] Authorizing cost recovery for IP Relay,
    and thereby encouraging the growth of IP Relay, is an important step
    forward in providing improved TRS service. This *Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* supplements the prior *Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*,[^94] and addresses issues that arise from
    this authorization of cost recovery for IP Relay.

## B. Cost Recovery {#b.-cost-recovery .unnumbered}

41. In the *Declaratory Ruling* above, we allow recovery of all costs of
    providing IP Relay from the Interstate TRS Fund \"until such time as
    a determination is made concerning the appropriate permanent cost
    recovery methodology.\"[^95] We request public comment on whether we
    should attempt to devise a method for allocating calls as intrastate
    or interstate, and, if so, suggestions for how we may accomplish
    this goal.

42. Section 225 of the Communications Act directs the Commission to
    prescribe regulations that \"generally provide that costs caused by
    interstate \[TRS\] shall be recovered from all subscribers for every
    interstate service and costs caused by intrastate \[TRS\] shall be
    recovered from the intrastate jurisdiction.\"[^96] The Commission
    has traditionally \"determined the nature of communications by the
    end points of the communication and consistently has rejected
    attempts to divide communications at any intermediate points of
    switching or exchanges between carriers.\"[^97] In defining whether
    a call is interstate or intrastate, we tentatively conclude that we
    should follow this tradition and classify a TRS call, whether made
    via PSTN-based or IP Relay, by the location of the call\'s
    originator and the location of the ultimate recipient, without
    reference to the location of the TRS center, any Internet Service
    Provider (ISP), or other intermediate points of switching or
    exchange. The Commission has defined a communication as interstate
    \"when the communication or transmission originates in any state,
    territory, possession of the United States, or the District of
    Columbia and terminates in another state, territory, possession, or
    the District of Columbia.\"[^98] We tentatively propose to apply
    this reasoning in determining the jurisdictional nature of
    IP-initiated TRS calls. We request comment on whether this tentative
    proposal is appropriate, or whether we should use alternate or
    additional factors in determining the nature of IP Relay calls for
    purposes of recovery from the Interstate TRS Fund.

43. However, for purposes of determining recovery of costs from the
    Interstate TRS Fund, this methodology of allocation is problematic
    because, as explained above, there is no automatic means of
    determining the origination of IP Relay calls. In the absence of
    this information, TRS providers cannot determine, or report to the
    TRS Fund Administrator, whether a call is interstate or intrastate.
    We seek comment on whether Section 225 of the Communications Act
    requires us to develop a cost allocation methodology for IP Relay
    calls, or whether the statute gives us the discretion to conclude
    that all costs for IP Relay shall be reimbursable from the
    Interstate TRS Fund. To the extent that commenters believe that
    costs must be allocated between the interstate and intrastate
    jurisdictions for purposes of recovery from the Interstate TRS Fund,
    we request that they consider what methods may exist, or could be
    developed, to determine the location of a caller using IP Relay. For
    example, we seek comment on whether we should establish a method by
    which IP Relay callers establish profiles that identify the state
    from which they are calling from. Further, we ask commenters to
    consider whether the use of a fixed allocator would satisfy the
    statutory requirement that costs caused by interstate relay services
    be recovered from all subscribers for every interstate service, and
    if so, how such a fixed allocator could best be derived.
    Specifically, we request comment on the propriety of using
    PSTN-based TRS calling patterns to determine the percentages of IP
    Relay calls that are intrastate and interstate, given that TRS users
    are not using IP Relay to access Web sites or other Internet
    features, but to make functionally equivalent telephone
    communications.

44. We also ask commenters to address whether the Commission should be
    responsible for devising a fixed allocator for dividing the
    reimbursement for IP Relay costs between the Interstate TRS Fund and
    the states, or whether we should charge some other party with this
    responsibility. For example, we seek comment on whether the existing
    Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Council, or a
    similar federal-state multi-jurisdictional advisory council is best
    suited to develop such methodologies.

45. We emphasize that the scope of our inquiry is confined to IP Relay
    only and to the recovery of TRS costs from the Interstate TRS Fund.
    This inquiry is not intended to regulate the Internet, nor to
    establish standards for the separation of Internet traffic in
    general, but to regulate IP Relay as a means of functionally
    equivalent access to the voice telephone network, and to specify how
    TRS providers may recover the costs for IP Relay. This regulation is
    pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission by Congress in
    the Americans with Disabilities Act, codified in Section 225 of the
    Communications Act.

# Conclusion

46. For all the reasons stated above, we clarify that TRS includes
    Internet-based relay services, and that providers of such services
    as IP Relay are eligible to recover their costs. In order to
    encourage the development of this emerging technology and minimize
    the effort required to recover costs, all cost recovery for
    Internet-based relay services shall be from the Interstate TRS Fund.
    We direct NECA to pay eligible Internet-based relay services
    providers using PSTN-based TRS formula rate per minute. This
    compensation level for IP Relay-based TRS is to be implemented upon
    release of this *Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* by the Commission, and shall be paid only for
    IP Relay Services provided after the release of this *Declaratory
    Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

***Ex Parte* Presentations**

47. This *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* is a permit-but-disclose notice
    and comment rulemaking proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are
    permitted, in accordance with the Commission\'s rules, provided that
    they are disclosed.[^99]

    **Regulatory Flexibility Act**

48. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), [^100] the
    Commission has prepared a Final Certification certifying that the
    rules promulgated in the *Declaratory Ruling* will not have "a
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities."[^101] The Final Certification is set forth in Appendix A.

49. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared this Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
    policies and rules proposed in the *Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written
    public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be
    filed by the deadlines for comment on the remainder of the *Second
    Further Notice of Propose Rulemaking*, and they should have separate
    and distinct headings designating them as responses to the IRFA. The
    Commission will send a copy of the *Second Further Notice of Propose
    Rulemaking*, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the
    RFA.[^102]

    **Paperwork Reduction Act**

50. The requirement for collection of information contained in this
    proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and
    Budget for review under Section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction
    Act (44 USC 3504 (H)). Persons wishing to comment on this collection
    of information should direct their comments to Judy Boley, Office of
    the Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission, The
    Portals, Room 1C-804, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, tel.
    202-418-0214, e-mail <jboley@fcc.gov>.

    **Comment and Reply Dates**

51. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
    before 30 days after Federal Register Publication, and reply
    comments on or before 45 days after Federal Register Publication.
    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 FR 24,121 (1998).

52. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
    this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
    copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced
    in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
    should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and
    the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
    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. Parties who choose to file by
    paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more
    than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this
    proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each
    additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand
    or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
    first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Services mail (although we
    continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
    mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive
    hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
    Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110,
    Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00
    a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. All hand deliveries must be held together with
    rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
    entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S.
    Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
    East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service
    first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be
    addressed to 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. All
    filings must be addressed to the Commission\'s Secretary, Marlene H.
    Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
    445 12^th^ Street, SW, Room TW-A325 Washington, DC 20554.

53. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Dana
    Jackson, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Room 5-A741, Washington DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a
    3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word
    97 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 labelled with the commenter\'s name,
    proceeding (including the lead docket number in this case, CC Docket
    No. 98-67, type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of
    submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The
    label should also include the following phrase \"Disk Copy - Not an
    Original.\" Each diskette should contain only one party\'s
    pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition,
    commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission\'s copy
    contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554.

# Ordering clauses

54. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152 and 225, this DECLARATORY RULING IS
    ADOPTED.

55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WorldCom\'s *Petition for Clarification*
    IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

56. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the waivers requested by WorldCom in its
    *Petition for Clarification*, regarding certain of the minimum
    standards for TRS contained in Section 64.604 of our rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 64.604, ARE GRANTED, to the extent indicated herein.

57. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrator of the Interstate TRS
    Fund, the National Exchange Carriers Association, SHALL upon release
    of this *Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* by the Commission, pay eligible providers of IP Relay
    the costs of providing IP Relay using the PSTN-based TRS formula
    rate per minute.

58. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 303 (r), and 403 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),
    154 (j), 225, 303(r), and 403, the NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IS
    ADOPTED. Comments regarding the NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ARE
    REQUESTED as described above.

59. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this *Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

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

61. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio recording
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
    Bureau, at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at
    bmillin@fcc.gov. This *Declaratory Ruling and Second Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* can also be downloaded in Text and ASCII
    formats at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary

    APPENDIX A

    FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),[^103]
    requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for
    notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency
    certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities."[^104] The RFA generally defines the term "small entity"
    as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
    organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^105] In
    addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
    "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^106] A
    "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned
    and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
    satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
    Administration (SBA).[^107]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
62. This *Declaratory Ruling* addresses a Petition for Clarification
    (*Petition*) filed by WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) in December of
    2000.[^108] This *Petition* requests that the Federal Communications
    Commission (Commission) clarify that Internet Protocol (IP)
    telecommunications relay services (TRS) are eligible for
    reimbursement from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service
    Fund. The Commission sought comments on the WorldCom Petition in a
    Public Notice.[^109] As a result of the WorldCom *Petition* and
    filed public comments, the Commission is issuing this *Declaratory
    Ruling* which will allow WorldCom to recover such costs.

63. As noted in paragraph 59 of the *Declaratory Ruling*, this item
    imposes a regulatory burden on the Interstate TRS Fund
    Administrator, requiring it to pay qualified providers of IP
    telecommunications relay services (TRS) for their costs caused by
    their TRS. The Interstate TRS Fund is a not-for-profit organization,
    and therefore is a \"small organization.\" A small organization is
    generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently
    owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."[^110]
    Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small
    organizations.[^111] Because the Interstate TRS Fund is the only
    entity affected by the *Declaratory Ruling*, we conclude that a
    \"substantial number\" of small entities will not be affected by the
    *Declaratory Ruling*.

64. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this *Declaratory
    Ruling* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
    number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the
    *Declaratory Ruling*, including a copy of this Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the
    Congressional Review Act.[^112] In addition, the *Declaratory
    Ruling* and this final certification will be sent to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the
    Federal Register.[^113]

    APPENDIX B

    INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA)[^114] the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has
    prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
    of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number
    of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this *Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*.[^115] 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 *Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* provided in paragraph 51 of the item. The
    Commission will send a copy of the *Declaratory Ruling and Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, including this IRFA, to the
    Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
    (SBA).[^116] In addition, the *Declaratory Ruling and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will
    be published in the Federal Register.[^117]

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
65. Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), which is provided through
    the public switched telephone network (PSTN), enables persons with
    hearing and speech disabilities to communicate by telephone with
    persons who may or may not have such disabilities.[^118] 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.
    WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) indicates that its Internet Protocol (IP)
    Relay service is used in a manner similar to the PSTN-based TRS
    system. The user establishes a local connection to an Internet
    Service Provider using a computer, web phone, personal digital
    assistant, or any other IP-capable device. The user clicks on the
    relay operator icon, and when the call reaches the Internet platform
    a connection is automatically established, via an 800 number, to the
    WorldCom relay center. The call is then routed to a CA and a regular
    relay session is initiated.[^119]

66. WorldCom's Petition for Clarification (*Petition*)[^120] asked the
    Commission to clarify (1) that IP Relay falls within the definition
    of TRS and (2) that it is entitled to recover its operating costs
    under Section 225 of the Communications Act.[^121] WorldCom further
    requested that the Commission allow it to recover all of the costs
    of its IP Relay service from the Interstate TRS Fund. Calls come to
    IP relay via the Internet, and there is currently no automatic
    method by which the IP Relay center can tell whether a given call is
    intrastate or interstate, given that Internet addresses have no
    geographic correlates. This is in contrast to PSTN-based TRS, in
    which the TRS center uses the caller\'s Automatic Numbering
    Identification (ANI) to identify the location of the caller.

67. The Commission briefly addressed the potential impact of the
    Internet on TRS earlier in this proceeding[^122] when the Commission
    requested comment on the provision of improved TRS and on
    WorldCom\'s *Petition*.[^123] The Public Notice asked for public
    comment on the benefits of IP Relay, the appropriate means for
    allowing WorldCom to recover the costs of providing IP Relay, the
    minimum standards that should apply to IP Relay, and the security of
    IP Relay calls.[^124] The Commission received 12 comments and five
    reply comments from carriers, organizations representing the deaf
    community, and public officials, along with hundreds of e-mail
    comments and letters from individuals who use IP Relay.[^125]

68. In the *Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making* aspect of this item,
    we request comment on whether recovery of costs from the Interstate
    TRS Fund for IP Relay should be a temporary or a permanent measure.
    If this should be a temporary measure, we seek comment from the
    public on how IP Relay TRS providers can develop the capability to
    determine whether a call is intrastate or interstate. If a permanent
    measure, we seek comment on the bases for such proposed action.
    Finally, we seek comment on the mechanisms for applying the process
    of reimbursement for all affected IP TRS Relay providers, including
    any small entities providing TRS.

    **B. Legal Basis**

69. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 2, and 225 of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152,
    and 225.

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

70. 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.[^126] The RFA generally
    defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
    terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
    governmental jurisdiction.\"[^127] In addition, the term \"small
    business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business
    concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^128] A \"small business
    concern\" is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)
    is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
    additional criteria established by the SBA.[^129]

71. 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 TRS.[^130]

72. **TRS Providers.** Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed
    a definition of small entity specifically applicable to TRS
    providers. The closest applicable definitions under the SBA rules
    are for wired telecommunications carriers and telecommunications
    resellers.[^131] The SBA defines such establishments to be small
    businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^132]
    According to our most recent data,[^133] there are 11 interstate TRS
    providers, which consist of entities whose core businesses are as
    interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, state‑managed
    entities, and non‑profit organizations. We note that currently there
    are no wireless IP Relay TRS providers. However, we welcome comments
    on the proposals in our *Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* from
    wireless service providers. 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 changes. We seek
    comment generally on our analysis identifying TRS providers, and
    specifically on whether we should conclude, for RFA purposes, that
    any TRS providers are small entities.[^134]

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities**

73. If rules establishing a reimbursement system for IP Relay providers
    are promulgated pursuant to this proceeding, all providers of IP
    Relay, including small entities, will be required to report to the
    TRS Administrator data needed to calculate their reimbursement
    amount. This data would be provided on an existing Interstate TRS
    Fund Administrator's form. This form is straightforward and simple
    to complete. In addition, the form represents data that is already
    collected by TRS providers.

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

74. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically
    small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its
    proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives
    (among others): "(1) the establishment of differing compliance or
    reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
    resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification,
    consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
    requirements under the rule for such 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 such small
    entities."[^135]

75. The proposals in the *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    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 principle 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.[^136] Easily the majority of TRS service is
    provided by large interexchange carriers and incumbent local
    exchange carriers. The majority of IP Relay TRS is likely to be
    provided by these same carriers.[^137] We believe that the number of
    small entities impacted by these proposals, apparently 11, would be
    potentially very small.

76. With respect to proposals in the *Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, common carriers providing voice transmission services
    that are subject to the TRS rules, including small entities, may
    comply with their obligations individually, through designees,
    through competitively selected vendors, or in concert with other
    carriers.[^138] Because of the array of options available to TRS
    providers when complying with these requirements, the Commission
    expects that the proposals contained in the Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking will have minimal impact on small entities. We
    tentatively conclude that our proposals in the *Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* would impose minimum burdens on small
    entities. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.

77. At this time, there is no mechanism available that would allow
    differentiation between intra- and inter-state calls made through
    the Internet. The *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*
    identifies and requests comment on establishing a mechanism for
    reimbursing IP Relay providers based on the use of a fixed
    allocator. If an allocator were to be established, all TRS
    providers, including small entities, would be able to determine the
    appropriate amount for reimbursement. Such an approach would satisfy
    the statutory requirement that costs caused by interstate relay
    service be recovered from all subscribers for every interstate
    service. An alternative the Commission is considering is making the
    interim arrangement of cost recovery from the Interstate TRS Fund
    for [all]{.underline} calls permanent. We recognize that this
    alternative may benefit small TRS providers, by simplifying
    reporting requirements and clarifying reimbursement amounts. We seek
    comment on the statutory basis for such a decision.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules**

78. None.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY**

# Re: Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  {#re-provision-of-improved-telecommunications-relay-services-and-speech-to-speech-services-for-individuals-with-hearing-and-speech-disabilities-cc-docket-no.-98-67-declaratory-ruling-and-second-further-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking. .unnumbered}

The FCC must not allow regulatory artifacts to slow innovation by
limiting support for TRS to older technologies. IP Relay -- a service
that has the ability to improve communication for all Americans that
rely on TRS -- is just the sort of development that should warrant the
Commission's prompt attention. My only regret is that we did not act
sooner to provide flexibility for this service innovation. Thus I am
very pleased that today we are classifying IP Relay as a part of TRS.

Congress provided funds to support "telephone transmission services that
provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or
speech impairment to engage in communication by wire and radio with a
hearing individual."[^139] Certainly IP Relay falls under this
classification.

Granting TRS providers technological flexibility will continue to lead
to substantial innovation in the marketplace. Now users of TRS need not
restrict their telephone communications to places equipped with TTYs or
specialized software; all they need is a connection to the Internet.
Moreover, when conversing over IP Relay, there are more activities
available to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. They can
participate in a conference call, or go online while holding a
conversation. These added services come at a lower price to digital
consumers -- individuals who use IP Relay need only invest in a
computer, instead of a computer and a TTY.

In light of these advantages, I would have granted IP relay providers
more flexibility in meeting our emergency call information requirements.
Our current rules require a TRS provider automatically to provide caller
identification information; currently IP Relay providers do not have
access to that information. It is unclear to me that such location
information is critical given the user of IP relay would generally know
both where they are and by definition must be capable of using a
keyboard and therefore I am reluctant to drive up the costs of the
service. Nor am I prepared to deny IP Relay service based on this factor
alone. I believe the marginal increase in safety associated with
automatic location information, when balanced with the broader public
interest benefits of deployment of IP Relay, argues for a more flexible
regulatory approach in the short term.

Nevertheless, I am pleased to support the Declaratory Ruling and Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket. I hope we can
learn from developments in IP Relay and continue to adapt our
regulations to technological change to ensure our policies do not
relegate some consumers to a technological backwater. I look forward to
working with TRS users, relay providers, states, the staff, and my
fellow Commissioners to ensure the continued vitality of our TRS
policies.

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,

*Re:* *Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities*

I am pleased to support this declaratory ruling that will make Internet
Relay available as an option for the millions of Americans with
disabilities and those who communicate with these citizens. As new
technologies develop, we have an obligation to do everything we can to
realize the vision of Congress that those with disabilities have access
to ***[functionally equivalent]{.underline}*** services so that
***all*** citizens can participate fully in our society.

I saw a demonstration of IP Relay and other new technologies at the TDI
conference in South Dakota last summer, and it is clear that the
advanced products and services I saw can go a long way toward enabling
people with disabilities to obtain information and to communicate with
others in ways that we could only dream about a few years ago. I am
truly pleased that we will be holding a Forum and Expo here at the FCC
on May 3 that will focus on relay services. This will be a great
opportunity to see these new technologies in action and to draw public
and, I hope, Congressional attention to a wide range of disabilities
issues. I hope we can all work hard to make this Forum and Expo a huge
success.

The item we approve today is part of a larger whole. It is just one of
the important initiatives and challenges that we face in meeting the
several disabilities challenges before us. The Commission needs to
complete its section 255 proceeding on accessibility to equipment and
services and to ensure that we are doing all we can to carry out fully
Congress' directives. We should address other important issues such as
hearing aid compatibility for digital wireless phones, accessibility to
digital and interactive television, and implementation this year of
video description and TTY access to E-911.

We must always be sure that our rules are being enforced. And finally,
we must get our own house in order through such actions as making sure
that those with disabilities are able to access government information
through the Internet or via other information technologies, as Congress
directed.

This is such an important area. The reality is so far away from how
things should and could be. I was astounded to learn that the
unemployment rate in the disabilities community is in the vicinity of 75
percent. That's just unacceptable. It's a waste of national talent and
national treasure that costs not only these people, but our country,
greatly. These issues affect all of us -- not only the millions of
Americans with disabilities, but also the millions more who communicate
with these citizens and whose lives would be improved as their lives are
improved.

So I'm pleased we're moving forward on this, and I commend the Bureau
for the item.

[^1]: WorldCom, *Petition for Clarification, CC Docket No. 90-571,
    Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities*, Dec. 22, 2000. Because CC Docket No. 90-571 is
    concluded, and because CC Docket No. 98-67 deals with improved
    telecommunications relay service, we are considering the petition
    under this proceeding.

[^2]: The term \"telecommunications relay service\" means 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 communication services by wire or radio.
    Such term includes services that enable two-way communication
    between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal
    device and an individual who does not use such a device.

    47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^3]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(5),(7).

[^5]: 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. Effective October 1,
    2001, TRS centers can be accessed through an abbreviated dialing
    arrangement by dialing 711. In addition to dialing their state TRS
    access numbers for both interstate and intrastate relay calls, TRS
    users may also dial a toll-free number to reach alternative
    providers for interstate service.

[^6]: *See Improved Service Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5142 (2000) (*Improved Service
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*).

[^7]: *Petition*, at 2.

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 225.

[^9]: We solicited comment on the use of the World Wide Web for TRS
    voice communications in the *Improved Service Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.* "We also seek comment on
    improved transmission speed, wireless messaging services, 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." *See Improved Service
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, at
    5197.

[^10]: Consumer Information Bureau Seeks Additional Comment on the
    Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Service, DA 01-1555,
    *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 13,100, Jun. 29, 2001; published at 66
    Fed. Reg. 37,631 (Jul. 19, 2001).

[^11]: *See Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd., at 13,103. The Public Notice
    also sought comment on IP capabilities and outreach regarding TRS.
    While we do not reach these issues in our consideration of
    WorldCom's Petition, we will consider these comments along with the
    other comments received in response to our *Improved Service Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*.

[^12]: Comments were filed by AT&T, Inc. (AT&T), the California Public
    Utilities Commission (California), Katherine Keller, Dana Mulvany,
    the National Association for the Deaf (NAD), Self Help for Hard of
    Hearing People (SHHH), Sprint Corporation (Sprint), Charles
    Sterling, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI), The United
    States Telecommunications Association (USTA), Ronald Vickery, and
    WorldCom. Additionally, over a hundred e-mails were sent by
    individuals. Reply comments were filed by California, Dana Mulvany,
    TDI, USTA, and WorldCom.

[^13]: *See* WorldCom, Comments, Attachment 1, at 3; AT&T, Inc.
    Comments, at 3-4; Sprint Comments, at 2; NAD Comments, at 2-3; TDI
    Comments, at 4-5; SHHH Comments, at 4-7; California Comments, at
    1-3; Dana Mulvany Comments, at 1-3; Ronald Vickery Comments, at 1-3;
    Katherine Keller Comments, at 1; e-mail comments from Connie Loper,
    Frank Mounts, Valerie Johnson, Afshan Hashim, *et. al.*

[^14]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 13; (NAD) Comments, at 3; Dana
    Mulvany Comments, at 2.

[^15]: *See* AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) Comments, at 3; Ronald Vickery Comments,
    at 1-2; Dana Mulvany Comments at 2.

[^16]: *See* AT&T Comments, at 3; California Comments, at 1; Dana
    Mulvany Comments, at 2; Ronald Vickery Comments, at 2.

[^17]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 20; AT&T Comments, at 4; Sprint
    Comments, at 2; (TDI) Comments, at 4; Dana Mulvany Comments, at 3.

[^18]: *See* AT&T Comments, at 3; WorldCom *Petition*, at 4-5.

[^19]: *See* AT&T Comments, at 3; TDI Comments, at 8-9.

[^20]: *See* WorldCom *Petition*, at 5; Sprint Corporation (Sprint)
    Comments, at 2; Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI)
    Comments, at 5; Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH)
    Comments, at 6; California Public Utilities Commission (California)
    Comments, at 2; Dana Mulvany Comments, at 2; Ronald Vickery
    Comments, at 2-3; Katherine Keller Comments, at 1-2.

[^21]: *See* SHHH Comments, at 6; Dana Mulvany Comments, at 5-6; Ronald
    Vickery Comments, at 2-3; Katherine Keller Comments, at 2.

[^22]: VCO is \"\[a\] 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.\" 47 C.F.R.
    §64.601(9). Two-line VCO \"enables consumers to use one line for
    voicing and the other for receiving TTY transmissions in conference
    calls.\" *Improved Service Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, at 5196, n.268. *See* SHHH Comments, at 6;
    Dana Mulvany Comments, at 5-6; Ronald Vickery Comments, at 2-3;
    Katherine Keller Comments, at 2.

[^23]: *See* SHHH Comments, at 6; Dana Mulvany Comments, at 5-6; Ronald
    Vickery Comments, at 2-3; Katherine Keller Comments, at 2.

[^24]: *See* SHHH Comments, at 7; California Comments, at 2; Dana
    Mulvany Comments, at 4.

[^25]: 47 U.S.C. § 225.

[^26]: Telecommunications service is defined as \"the offering of
    telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such
    classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the
    public, regardless of the facilities used.\" 47 U.S.C. § 153(46).
    Information service is defined as \"the offering of a capability for
    generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing,
    retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via
    telecommunications and includes electronic publishing, but does not
    include any use of any such capability for the management, control,
    or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a
    telecommunications service.\" 47 U.S.C. § 153(46.

[^27]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(3)

[^28]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1)

[^29]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(2)

[^30]: *See* USTA Comments, at 4-5. See also 47 U.S.C. § 153(46).

[^31]: WorldCom Reply Comments at 3.

[^32]: *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (Improved
    Service)*, CC Docket No. 98-67, *Report and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5148 (2000).

[^33]: WorldCom asserts that IP Relay is an \"Interstate Enhanced
    Service.\" For the reason stated above, we need not address
    WorldCom\'s assertion.

[^34]: \". . . 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.\" 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3). The Interstate TRS Fund was
    established to administer the recovery of costs for interstate TRS.
    *See Telecommunications Relay Services, and the Americans with
    Disabilities Act of 1990 (TRS Proceeding)*, CC Docket No. 90‑571,
    *Third Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 5300 (1993).

[^35]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 1-2. Unlike telephone numbers, where
    the state can be determined by the area code, Internet addresses are
    assigned with no identifier of geographic location. Thus, when a
    caller contacts IP Relay to make a call, it is impossible to
    determine the caller\'s location and whether the called party is in
    the same state or in another state.

[^36]: *Improved Service Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, at 5154.

[^37]: *Id*.

[^38]: *See Improved Service* *Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, at 5153-54.

[^39]: *See* Sprint Comments, at 3.

[^40]: *See* Sprint Comments, at 3; NAD Comments, at 4; WorldCom
    Comments, at 3.

[^41]: A survey of this sort could involve designating a specific time
    period during which the CA would be required to ask each IP Relay
    caller what state she is calling from and log this information,
    along with the state of the number being called. We are concerned,
    however, about the inconvenience and intrusion into caller privacy
    that such a survey would entail.

[^42]: California provides TRS via multiple vendors. Currently,
    California has two TRS providers.

[^43]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 3.

[^44]: *See, e.g.,* e-mail comments from Connie Loper, Frank Mounts,
    Valerie Johnson, Afshan Hashim.

[^45]: *See, e.g.,* e-mail comments from Connie Loper, Frank Mounts,
    Valerie Johnson, Afshan Hashim.

[^46]: *See, e.g.,* Sprint Comments, at 2-4; NAD Comments, at 4; Ronald
    Vickery Comments, at 3-4.

[^47]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B).

[^48]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(4)(iii)(E).

[^49]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 5.

[^50]: *See* *id*.

[^51]: *See Improved Service Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, at 5156.

[^52]: *See* Letter from L. Fenster, WorldCom, to M. Roman Salas,
    Federal Communications Commission, March 1, 2002, at 1.

[^53]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 5.

[^54]: We are not aware of any mechanism for a state establishing a fund
    to differentiate on a per call basis the jurisdictional nature of
    the call thus creating at least the possibility that states may be
    funding interstate communications.

[^55]: *See* WorldCom *Petition*, at 3; AT&T Comments, at ii.

[^56]: *See id.*, § 64.604(c).

[^57]: Both WorldCom and commenters address minimum standards at
    considerable length. *See* WorldCom, Comments, at 5-7; AT&T, Inc.
    (AT&T) Comments, at 9-11; Sprint Corporation (Sprint) Comments, at
    4-5; National Association for the Deaf (NAD) Comments, at 6-7;
    Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI) Comments, at 6; Self
    Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH) Comments, at 8; California
    Public Utilities Commission (California) Comments, at 3-4; Dana
    Mulvany Comments, at 5-6; Ronald Vickery Comments, at 4.

[^58]: *FPC v Texaco, Inc*., 377 U.S. 33, 39 (1964).

[^59]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^60]: *Id.*

[^61]: *Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., v. Volpe*, 401 U.S.
    402, 416 (1971).

[^62]: *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

[^63]: *Northeast Cellular Telephone Company, L.P v. FCC*, 897 F.2d
    1164, 1166(D.C. Cir. 1990).

[^64]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3; *Part 68 Waiver Request of Alameda
    Engineering Inc., et al, Order*, 10 FCC Rcd. 12135, 12139 (1995).

[^65]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(b)(2). This rule is also known as the
    "85/10" rule.

[^66]: *Id*.

[^67]: *See* WorldCom *Petition*, at 7.

[^68]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments, at 9; Sprint Comments, at 5.

[^69]: *See* TDI Comments, at 8; NAD Comments, at 6-7.

[^70]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(b)(2).

[^71]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 6.

[^72]: *See, e.g.*, Sprint Comments, at 4; SHHH Comments, at 8; TDI
    Comments, at 8-9.

[^73]: *See* AT&T Comments, at 10-11.

[^74]: *See* Ronald Vickery Comments, at 4.

[^75]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 6-7.

[^76]: *See* AT&T Comment, at 10; SHHH Comments, at 8; TDI Comments, at
    9-10.

[^77]: HCO is \"\[a\] 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.\" 47 C.F.R. §
    64.601(6).

[^78]: Speech-to-speech relay service is 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. 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(10).

[^79]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 7.

[^80]: *See* Sprint Comments, at 4-5; NAD Comments, at 7; TDI Comments,
    at 10-11.

[^81]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 7-8; Sprint Comments, at 5; AT&T
    Comments, at 11-12.

[^82]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604.

[^83]: *See Improved Service Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, at 5154. We also note that VRS has received
    waivers of several of our TRS minimum standards. *See Improved
    Service,* *Order,* DA-01-3029, 17 FCC Rcd 157, 161-164 (2001).

[^84]: *See Improved Service Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, at 5181-82.

[^85]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(2)(ii).

[^86]: *See id.*, § 64.604(a)(2).

[^87]: *See* AT&T Comments, at 12; California Comments, at 4.

[^88]: *See* SHHH Comments, at 9; TDI Comments, at 12; Charles Sterling
    Comments, at 1-2.

[^89]: *See* WorldCom Comments, at 8.

[^90]: *See* TDI Comments, at 12.

[^91]: *See* AT&T Comments, at 12.

[^92]: *See id.*

[^93]: *Improved Service Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, at 5197.

[^94]: *See id.*

[^95]: *Supra* ¶ 18.

[^96]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B).

[^97]: *Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 96-98, *Declaratory
    Ruling*, *Inter-Carrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic
    (Reciprocal Compensation)*, CC Docket No. 99-68, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 14 FCC Rcd 3689, 3695 (1999).

[^98]: *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket No.
    96-45, *Report to Congress*, 13 FCC Rcd 11,501, 11,555 (1998).

[^99]: *See generally*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1202, 1.1204, 1.1206.

[^100]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^101]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^102]: The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has been amended by the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
    Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^103]: The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has been amended by the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
    Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^104]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^105]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^106]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^107]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^108]: WorldCom, *Petition for Clarification, CC Docket No. 90-571,
    Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities*, Dec. 22, 2000.

[^109]: Consumer Information Bureau Seeks Additional Comment on the
    Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Service, DA 01-1555,
    *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 13,100, Jun. 29, 2001; published at 66
    Fed. Reg. 37,631 (Jul. 19, 2001).

[^110]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^111]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to the
    Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^112]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^113]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^114]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^115]: We expect that we could have complied with the RFA by completing
    an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification on this issue;
    however, we have chosen instead to complete this Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis for a more complete record. 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^116]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^117]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^118]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(5), (7).

[^119]: WorldCom, *Petition for Clarification, CC Docket No. 90-571,
    Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities*, Dec. 22, 2000, at 2.

[^120]: WorldCom, *Petition for Clarification, CC Docket No. 90-571,
    Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities*, Dec. 22, 2000.

[^121]: 47 U.S.C. § 225.

[^122]: We solicited comment on the use of the World Wide Web for TRS
    voice communications in the *Improved Service Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.* "We also seek comment on
    improved transmission speed, wireless messaging services, 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." *See* Improved Service
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, *Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd
    5140, 5197 (2000) (*Improved Service Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*).

[^123]: Consumer Information Bureau Seeks Additional Comment on the
    Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay Service, DA 01-1555,
    *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 13,100, Jun. 29, 2001; published at 66
    Fed. Reg. 37,631 (Jul. 19, 2001).

[^124]: *See Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd., at 13,103. The Public Notice
    also sought comment on IP capabilities and outreach regarding TRS.
    While we do not reach these issues in our consideration of
    WorldCom's Petition, we will consider these comments along with the
    other comments received in response to our *Improved Service Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*.

[^125]: Comments were filed by AT&T, Inc. (AT&T), the California Public
    Utilities Commission (California), Katherine Keller, Dana Mulvany,
    the National Association for the Deaf (NAD), Self Help for Hard of
    Hearing People (SHHH), Sprint Corporation (Sprint), Charles
    Sterling, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI), The United
    States Telecommunications Association (USTA), Ronald Vickery, and
    WorldCom. Additionally, individuals sent over a hundred e-mails.
    California, Dana Mulvany, TDI, USTA, and WorldCom filed reply
    comments.

[^126]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^127]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^128]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^129]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^130]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Trends
    in Telephone Service* (Aug. 2001).

[^131]: 13 C.F.R. § 120.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) Code 513310 and 513330.

[^132]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 513310 and 513330*.*

[^133]: This is recent data from National Exchange Carriers Association,
    which administers the Interstate TRS Fund.

[^134]: There is currently one provider of IP Relay TRS, WorldCom, Inc.
    WorldCom, Inc. is not a small entity. AT&T Corp. and Sprint. Inc.
    have indicated their intention to provide IP Relay TRS. These two
    corporations are not small entities. Therefore they are outside the
    statutory mandated scope of this IRFA.

[^135]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).

[^136]: See 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(2).

[^137]: Currently, WorldCom, which is a large entity, is the only
    provider of IP Relay.

[^138]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(c).

[^139]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).