********************************************************
                         NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554
                                )
In the Matter of                )
                                )
Telecommunications Relay Services)      CC Docket No. 98-67
and Speech-to-Speech Services for)
Individuals with Hearing and Speech)
Disabilities                    )
                                )
                 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
   Adopted:  May 14, 1998               Released:  May 20, 1998
Comment Date:       July 20, 1998
Reply Comment Date: September 14, 1998
By the Commission:
                        Table of Contents
                                                    Paragraph No.
     I.  INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
     II.  BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     III.  DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
               A.   Coverage of Improved TRS Under Title IV of the ADA .  9
                         1.   Scope of TRS Generally. . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
                         2.   Speech-to-Speech (STS) Relay Service. . . . . . 19
                         3.   Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) Services . . . . 27
                         4.   Multilingual Relay Services (MRS) and Translation Services 35
                         5.   Access to Emergency Services. . . . . . . . . . 40
                         6.   Access to Enhanced Services . . . . . . . . . . 42
               B.   Mandatory Minimum Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
                         1.   Speed of Answer Requirements. . . . . . . . . . 47
                         2.   CA Quality and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
                         3.   In-Call Replacement of CAs. . . . . . . . . . . 61
               C.   Competition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
                         1.   Multivendoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
                         2.   Treatment of TRS Customer Information . . . . . 69
               D.   Enforcement and Certification Issues . . . . . . . . 73
               E.   Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
     IV.  CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
     V.  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . 82
     VI.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
     VII.  ORDERING CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
APPENDIX A:  LIST OF COMMENTERS
APPENDIX B:   PROPOSED RULES
APPENDIX C:  47 C.F.R.  64.604
                         I.  INTRODUCTION
     1.  On January 14, 1997, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking
comment on ways in which Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) for persons with hearing
and speech disabilities can be improved.  The Commission sought comment on technological
advances that could improve the level and quality of service provided through TRS for the benefit
of the community of TRS users, and inquired about the effectiveness of the current TRS
regulation.  The Commission also sought comment on the impact of competition in
telecommunications markets on TRS and whether competition in the provision of TRS might have
a positive impact on the quality of that service.  The Commission received 49 comments and 34
reply comments in response to the Notice of Inquiry.
     2.   After reviewing the record developed in the NOI, we propose rule amendments in
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) that we believe will enhance the quality of TRS, and
broaden the potential universe of TRS users.  The proposals set forth here are intended to further
promote access to telecommunications for the millions of persons with disabilities who might
otherwise be foreclosed from participation in our increasingly telecommunications and
information-oriented society.  First, we propose to require that, within two years of the
publication in the Federal Register of a Report and Order in this proceeding, common carriers
providing voice transmission service must ensure that nationwide speech-to-speech (STS) relay
services are available to users with speech disabilities throughout their service areas.  Oftentimes,
persons with speech disabilities are unable to use the voice telephone network because of a lack of
understanding by the public of, and accommodation to, their disability.  Speech-to-speech services
use facilitators specially trained to understand the speech of persons with speech disabilities to
"relay" communications between those individuals and individuals without speech disabilities.  For
the approximate 2.5 million Americans with speech disabilities, speech-to-speech services
profoundly affect their lives, by enabling them to talk to friends and family and to conduct
business using telecommunications services that most Americans take for granted.
     3.   Second, we propose a number of amendments to our current TRS minimum
standards that we believe will improve the overall effectiveness of the TRS program.  For
example, we propose to amend our speed-of-answer rules to make the experience of persons
using TRS in placing a telephone call through a TRS center more functionally equivalent to the
experience of voice callers using the voice telephone network.  The ability to make a telephone
call without delay and without routinely encountering a busy signal is fundamental to our concept
of a rapid, efficient, Nationwide communications system.  We believe that the changes we
propose in our TRS minimum standards bring us closer to our goal of a rapid, efficient,
nationwide communications systems for all of the people of the United States.
     4.   Third, we propose amendments to our TRS enforcement rules to improve our
oversight of certified state TRS programs and our ability to compel compliance with the federal
mandatory minimum standards for TRS.  Currently, state TRS programs are certified for a five
year period, with no requirement that they report to the Commission on changes in their programs
during that period.  To increase the effectiveness of our enforcement, we propose that certified
state TRS programs notify the Commission of substantive changes to their program within sixty
(60) days of the effective date of the change, and to file documentation demonstrating that the
state program remains in compliance with all of the Commission's mandatory minimum standards.
We propose other amendments to our enforcement rules similarly aimed at fulfilling our obligation
to ensure that state TRS programs fully meet or exceed all federal operational, technical and
functional standards for the provision of TRS.
     5.   Consistent with the goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) of
bringing individuals with disabilities fully into the mainstream of American society, we believe that
the actions proposed today will have practical impacts that result in direct and tangible
improvements in the quality of TRS.  Moreover, through this Notice and the rulemaking process,
we seek to extend the benefits of advances in telecommunications to Americans who might
                                                       otherwise be excluded because of their disability.
                         II.  BACKGROUND
     6.   Title IV of the ADA requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is available, to
the extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to persons with hearing or speech disabilities
in the United States.  TRS is a telephone transmission service designed to give persons with
hearing or speech disabilities "functionally equivalent" access to the telephone network.  TRS has
been available on a uniform, nationwide basis since July 26, 1993.  The Commission sets
minimum operational, functional and technical standards for TRS, certifies state TRS programs,
and oversees the administration of the interstate TRS cost-recovery fund.
     7.   Currently, TRS uses dedicated equipment and staff (Communications Assistants or
CAs) that relay conversations between persons using text telephones (TTYs) and persons who
use conventional telephones.  To access TRS, a TTY user dials the telephone number of the local
TRS center.  The caller then gives the number of the party he or she desires to call to the CA.
The CA in turn places an outbound voice call to the called party.  The CA serves as the "link" in
the conversation, converting all TTY messages from the caller into voice messages, and all voice
messages from the called party into typed messages for the TTY user.  The process is performed
in reverse when a voice telephone user initiates a call to a TTY user.
     8.   In enacting Title IV, Congress directed the Commission to ensure that persons
with hearing and speech disabilities benefit from technological advances.  Thus, Title IV states
that "the Commission shall ensure that regulations prescribed to implement this section encourage
. . . the use of existing technology and do not discourage or impair the development of improved
technology."  As Congress stated:
                    [T]his legislation is not intended to discourage innovation regarding
          telecommunications services to individuals with hearing and speech impairments.
          The hearing and speech-impaired communities should be allowed to benefit from
          advancing technology.  As such, the provisions of the Section do not seek to
          entrench current technology, but rather to allow for new, more efficient and more
          advanced technology.
The Commission's NOI was released in this spirit.  This Notice represents our continuation of the
implementation of the statutory directive that the Commission ensure that our TRS regulations do
not artificially suppress or impair the development of TRS in a changing, dynamic
telecommunications landscape.
                         III.  DISCUSSION
               A.   Coverage of Improved TRS Under Title IV of the ADA
                         1.   Scope of TRS Generally
     9.   Background and Comments.  Title IV of the ADA and the Commission's rules
define TRS as:
                    [t]elephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has
          a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate by wire or radio with
          a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an
          individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to
          communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio.
The statutory and regulatory definitions further explain that TRS "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."
     10.  Historically, the Commission's rules on TRS have been applied only to TTY-to-
speech and speech-to-TTY services.  In the NOI, however, the Commission sought comment on
whether the requirements of the ADA also apply to any "improved" TRS.  By "improved"
services, we meant any form of TRS that goes beyond the current TTY-to-speech and speech-to-
TTY model, such as Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) and STS relay services.  We also sought
comment on whether these services must comply with all standards for TRS under Title IV.  We
further noted that the current definition of "Communications Assistant" defines a CA as "a person
who transliterates conversation from text to voice and from voice to text between two end users
of TRS."  We sought comment on whether this definition would need to be modified to
encompass relay services that do not involve speech-to-text or text-to-speech.
     11.  A majority of commenting parties believe that the statutory definition of TRS
encompasses forms of relay service that go beyond the current TTY-based relay services.
PacTel and Missouri, however, state that the determination of whether improved services fall
under Title IV should be made on a case-by-case basis.  Southwestern Bell argues that the
express language of Title IV limits its provision to services that are based on the use of TTYs.
Southwestern Bell relies on a 1996 Common Carrier Bureau Order concerning Operator Services
for the Deaf (OSD), where the Bureau declined to allow cost recovery for interstate OSD from
the interstate TRS Fund, concluding that OSD is a "TTY-to-TTY" service, not a "relay" service,
and therefore does not fall within the definition of TRS.  Countering Southwestern Bell's
argument, the California PUC points out that  ". . . the specific reference to TDDs [in the ADA] is
meant to illustrate the type of technology that might be used, not to preclude the use of other
technologies."
     12.  Ameritech notes that new and improved TRS should generally be subject to
Commission TRS standards.  It states, however, that our existing rules cannot always be applied
to new forms of TRS and in some cases "may need to be modified to reflect basic operational
differences."  Similarly, using STS services as an example,  the California PUC notes that "trials
[of speech-to-speech] have demonstrated that speech-to-speech differs from TRS in a number of
respects and it may not be appropriate to include speech-to-speech directly in TRS minimum
standards."  Finally, several commenters assert that the costs for improved TRS should be
recoverable from the TRS Fund, regardless of whether such improved services are required, or
are provided voluntarily.
     13.  The parties that address the Commission's definition of "Communications
Assistant" uniformly agree that the current definition is too restrictive.  Wisconsin TRS-AC also
notes that the term "CA" may not be the best term, because voice users are more familiar with the
term "operator" and may be less likely to hang up without realizing the call is a TRS call if that
term is used.
     14.  Discussion.  We tentatively conclude that Title IV of the ADA is applicable to any
wire or radio communication service that enables persons with hearing or speech disabilities to
engage in communication with persons without such disabilities and is not limited to services
using TTYs.  Our tentative conclusion is based on the plain language of Title IV together with
Congress' direction to the Commission to ensure that its regulations do not limit or discourage the
deployment of new technologies.  We believe that Title IV's language and structure establish that
Congress intended TRS to be an evolving service that would expand beyond traditional TTY relay
service as new technologies developed.  We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.
     15.  We also tentatively conclude that the costs of providing interstate "improved" relay
services should be reimbursed from the interstate TRS Fund.  This conclusion is based on, and
consistent with, our statutory duty not to discourage the implementation of improved TRS.  We
tentatively conclude that TRS providers should be able to receive reimbursement for providing
intrastate or interstate improved relay services regardless of whether they provide the service
voluntarily or the provision of the service is required by the Commission's or a certified state's
TRS rules, provided that the Commission has first issued a determination, through a rulemaking
or a declaratory ruling, that a certain service is an "improved" TRS service.  We tentatively
conclude that two services shall be classified as "improved" TRS service, and thus the costs of
providing these services should be recoverable: (1) STS service and (2) VRI service.  Since STS
and VRI services are already being implemented by many TRS providers, we believe that allowing
recovery for the costs of these two services will spur further development of these services.  We
seek comment on our tentative conclusions.
     16.  Because some practical considerations may be involved in cost-recovery for
improved TRS, such as whether separate reimbursement rates must be developed for different
types of TRS, we tentatively conclude that the Interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council should
develop guidelines for interstate cost-recovery for improved TRS, within six months of the
adoption of a Report and Order in this proceeding.  We tentatively conclude that such guidelines
would be subject to review and final approval by the Commission, following an opportunity for
public comment on the guidelines.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  Commenters
should discuss the issues that the Advisory Council should consider in formulating these
guidelines and provide specific language for guidelines in support of their recommendations.
     17.   Pursuant to statutory directive, the Commission has established rules that set
forth the minimum operational, technical and functional standards for TRS.  We tentatively
conclude that only services that are mandated by Commission regulation must comply with the
Commission's mandatory minimum standards.  These services would include standard TRS, voice
carryover (VCO), hearing carryover (HCO), and, as we are proposing in this Notice, STS
service.  We tentatively conclude, as argued by Ameritech, that some improved services such as
STS may have operational differences that make compliance with current Commission standards
infeasible, as discussed in section III(A)(2), infra.  We seek comment on these tentative
conclusions.  We note that states that require TRS not mandated by the Commission, such as
VRI, are free to specify performance standards for the services provided within their jurisdiction,
provided those performance standards do not conflict with federal law.
     18.  Finally, we tentatively conclude, as suggested by several parties, that the current
definition of "Communications Assistant" is too restrictive to encompass some activities that may
be performed by a person who assists in providing TRS, especially a person involved in providing
"improved" TRS offerings.  We propose, therefore, to amend the current definition set forth in
our rules by removing the words "from text to voice and from voice to text," and maintaining
the remainder of the current definition.  We seek comment on this proposal.
                         2.   Speech-to-Speech (STS) Relay Service
     19.  Background and Comments   STS service is an improved TRS offering that uses
specially-trained persons as relay "voices" for persons with severe speech disabilities.  In the NOI,
the Commission requested general comment on STS services.  The Commission also sought
specific comment on the feasibility of requiring STS services within our mandatory minimum
TRS, the extent to which TRS providers are currently offering, or planning to offer, STS service,
the number of potential users of STS services, the availability of trained individuals capable of
providing STS services, and the potential costs of such services.
     20.  In response to the NOI, UCPA provides comprehensive data on the number of
individuals who could benefit from STS.  UCPA indicates that there are approximately 2.5 million
people in the United States with functional speech disabilities.UCPA also notes that there are
more than 500,000 people in the United States with cerebral palsy.  Of this pool, 30% have severe
speech disabilities and 85-90% have a speech disability.  UCPA also estimates that at least
150,000 people with cerebral palsy need augumentative communication protheses to have their
voices understood at all.
     21.  While all commenters appear to recognize the value and benefits of STS for people
with speech disabilities, they are divided on whether the Commission should mandate these
services.  Commenters representing TRS users and the community of persons with speech
disabilities generally support a Commission requirement for STS service.  Carriers, state
administrators and TRS providers, however, generally appear to oppose a Commission
requirement for STS service, and argue that market forces should be sufficient to spur providers
to offer this service.  Some commenters also assert that, at a minimum, the Commission should
monitor the development of STS at the state level for some time before mandating the service.
California, Georgia, Maryland and Wisconsin currently offer STS service; Missouri PSC states
that it conducted a STS trial in 1995; and GTE indicates that it is exploring the possibility of STS
in its Hawaii TRS operation.
     22.  AT&T points out that the costs of providing STS service are low in comparison
with the costs of providing other improved TRS, such as VRI.  While commenters indicate that
the nationwide demand for STS service may be low, commenters also state that if STS services
are offered on a centralized or regional basis, the cost-effectiveness of STS can be greatly
improved.    Finally, several commenters note that speech-to-speech has operational differences
that may make application of some of the Commission's general TRS rules to this service
infeasible.
     23.  Discussion.  We tentatively conclude that, within two years of the publication in
the Federal Register of a Report and Order in this proceeding, all common carriers providing
voice transmission services must ensure that STS services are available to callers with speech
disabilities throughout their service areas.  We propose to amend section 64.603 of our rules to
reflect this proposed requirement and to add a definition of STS service under section 64.601 of
our rules.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on the text of the proposed rules.
Our tentative conclusion that STS should be required under the Commission's TRS rules is based
on our finding that STS services fall within the scope of the ADA's definition of
"telecommunications relay services" as a telephone transmission service that enables an individual
who has a speech disability to communicate by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner
that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a person who does not have a speech disability to
communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio.  We also tentatively
conclude that requiring STS under the Commission's TRS rules is consistent with our
responsibility to ensure that our regulations do not discourage or impair the development of
improved technologies and that the significant benefits that STS service offers to people with
severe speech disabilities, an insular community that has been, for the most part, denied access to
the telephone network, greatly outweigh the costs of STS services.  UCPA provides statistics that
indicate that up to 76% of persons with severe speech disabilities are unemployed.  We believe
that access to the telephone network through STS services would significantly enhance
educational and employment opportunities for people with severe speech disabilities.  STS
services also would reduce the frustration and frequent hang-ups experienced by people with
speech disabilities when they attempt to use the telephone in their daily lives.  Moreover, the
population served by STS service does not appear to be adequately served by the current TRS
system.
     24.  We recognize that a few states have already initiated programs to deliver STS
services.  The existence of state STS programs may suggest that STS programs could be
established without a national requirement.  Some state administrators have stated that they do
not support the imposition of a national STS requirement, believing that additional
experimentation should be conducted and that the costs of providing STS on a state-by-state
basis may render the provision of the services prohibitive at this time.   We tentatively conclude,
however, that the adoption of federal rules will assist the states in developing cost-effective,
regional or national centers where speech-to-speech calls can be handled.  Without a federal rule
requiring STS, the states may conclude that offering the service within their state alone is
cost-prohibitive.  We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.  We also ask commenters to
discuss specific state STS programs, to comment on the standards applied by the states to their
STS programs and to provide the Commission with the benefit of the states' experiences.
     25.  We recognize that sufficient numbers of personnel trained to deliver STS services
may not currently be available.  We tentatively conclude, however, that an implementation date of
two years following publication in the Federal Register of a Report and Order adopting this
proposal provides a reasonable and sufficient time period for TRS providers to develop STS
offerings.  TRS providers may, for example, become involved in training individuals to provide
STS service.  The two-year timeline also allows TRS providers an opportunity to formulate the
most cost-effective basis by which STS service can be provided  (i.e., by coordinating or
centralizing the service in regional speech-to-speech centers, rather than by attempting to provide
independent services on a state-by-state basis).  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
     26.  Although we have tentatively concluded that all TRS mandated by Commission
rules, such as standard TRS, VCO and HCO, must comply with the Commission's minimum
standards for TRS, we recognize that STS services may have operational characteristics that may
make compliance with certain "traditional" TRS standards technically difficult or impossible.  For
example, it may be necessary to relax current speed-of-answer requirements for STS service (i.e.,
the length of time that may elapse between the receipt of dialing information and the dialing of the
requested number) because of the longer call set-up times, that may result from the functional
speech limitations of an individual caller with a speech disability, involved in STS service.  We ask
commenters to examine the Commission's rules governing mandatory minimum standards for
TRS, and to comment upon whether any specific exceptions to those rules must be made for
STS service, in light of the unique nature of the service.  Commenting parties should suggest
specific rule language in proposing a particular exception or change to the Commission's rules.
                    3.   Video Relay Interpreting (VRI) Services
     27.  Background and Comments.  VRI is an improved TRS offering that utilizes
personal computer (PC) videoconferencing equipment, sign language interpreting services, and
high-speed transmission services such as ISDN to enable a deaf TRS user to communicate with
voice telephone users in sign language, or by other forms of visual communication.  In the NOI,
the Commission sought comment on this relatively new technology.  The Commission specifically
invited comment on: (1) the technical feasibility of VRI services; (2) the potential benefits of the
service; (3) the availability of sign language interpreters; (4) the privacy and confidentiality
aspects of VRI; and (5) the costs of VRI.
     28.  Sprint and the Texas PUC, who have jointly conducted comprehensive VRI trials
in the state of Texas since 1995, filed detailed and informative reports with the Commission on
their experiences with VRI.  Texas PUC, for example, indicates that while VRI is technically
feasible through the use of ISDN Basic Rate Interface (BRI), and ISDN is already available
throughout most of Texas, the cost of ISDN remains a barrier to the deployment of VRI.  Texas
PUC also notes that high-end Pentium/586 computer equipment may be necessary to deliver a
smooth video transmission rate, despite claims of PC videoconferencing product dealers that the
less costly 486 computer is acceptable.
     29.  The majority of commenters addressing this issue agree that the potential benefits
of VRI services for people with hearing disabilities, especially those who communicate primarily
through sign language, are unquestionable.  Commenters state that some groups of persons with
hearing disabilities, such as small children, may not have the ability to type on a TTY and, thus,
still are excluded from the benefits of telephone service despite the availability of TRS.
Commenters also state that VRI provides more "functionally equivalent" access to the telephone
network because VRI users are able to impart "tone" to the conversation, and to interject into a
conversation as needed, capabilities which currently may be precluded by many TTYs.
     30.  Many commenters assert that, at least presently, the supply of qualified sign
language interpreters to staff nationwide VRI services may not be adequate.  In particular, the
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), a national certifying body for sign language
interpreters, notes a current "crisis in the nation with respect to the demand for and supply of
qualified interpreters."  In addition, a number of commenters urge the Commission to develop
standards for sign language interpreting services provided through VRI.  NAD urges the
Commission to adopt the U.S. Department of Justice's definition of "qualified interpreter" under
Titles II and III of the ADA.  Many commenters agree that confidentiality and privacy is vital to
VRI service, but contend that current Commission confidentiality rules, and standards of the
interpreting profession, may be sufficient to protect VRI users.  A majority of commenters
addressing the issue of cost suggest that, at this time, the cost of VRI, both to
telecommunications providers and to end users, is significant, and would be substantially higher
than the cost of basic TRS.
     31.  Finally, commenters are divided on whether VRI should become a mandatory
requirement under the Commission's TRS rules.  A few parties support mandated VRI services.
The majority of commenters, however, including carriers, TRS providers, and state
administrators, oppose requiring VRI as a mandatory service at this time because of the recent
introduction of the service and its high implementation cost.
     32.  Discussion.  We tentatively conclude that VRI should not be mandated by the
Commission's TRS rules at this time.  All parties appear to agree that VRI has tremendous
potential to both improve the functional equivalency of TRS and to broaden the universe of TRS
users.  The technology, however, is still at a relatively early stage of development, and the costs
to implement this service on a nationwide basis appear to be prohibitive.  We also note that there
may be an inadequate supply of qualified interpreters to staff nationwide VRI services at this time.
We believe that VRI will grow and develop more efficiently if providers are allowed to
experiment with various VRI offerings on a trial basis, and to offer these services as a means of
differentiating themselves from their competitors, until a cost-effective and practical VRI platform
is developed.  Mandating the provision of VRI when it is still at an early stage of development
may remove competitive incentives for the development of innovative and quality VRI offerings
by TRS providers.  We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that VRI should not be a
required TRS service under the Commission's rules at this time.  Commenters who disagree with
our tentative conclusion should provide specific evidence demonstrating the feasibility of
implementing effective and affordable VRI on a nationwide basis.
     33.  We recognize that TRS providers may be increasingly likely to offer VRI services
to TRS users as the technology develops and as the costs of providing VRI decrease.
Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that the Commission should continue to monitor the state of
VRI technology.  We request comment on when and how the Commission should determine to
revisit the issue of whether VRI should be mandated under our TRS rules.
     34.  In the interest of protecting users of voluntarily-provided VRI services from the
risk of communication errors caused by the use of unqualified interpreters, we propose to
incorporate the definition of "qualified interpreter," as used by the Department of Justice in its
Titles II and III regulation, to our TRS rules.  We also tentatively conclude that our TRS
confidentiality, conversation content and "type of call" rules apply to the provision of VRI
services.  We seek comment on these proposals.  Finally, as we tentatively concluded under
para. 15, supra, while we do not propose to mandate the provision of VRI, VRI still would be
considered a "relay" service within the meaning of Title IV.  As such, we tentatively conclude that
the costs of interstate VRI are recoverable from the interstate TRS Fund, subject to guidelines
that we propose be developed by the interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council.  Similarly, the costs
of intrastate VRI would be recoverable from the intrastate jurisdiction.  Allowing the recovery of
VRI costs, we believe, will spur TRS providers to offer VRI on a voluntary basis.  We seek
comment on these tentative conclusions.
                    4.   Multilingual Relay Services (MRS) and Translation Services
     35.  Background and Comments.  Multilingual relay services (MRS) allow persons with
hearing and speech disabilities who use languages other than English to communicate with voice
telephone users in a shared foreign language, through a CA who is fluent in the selected language.
In the NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether Title IV of the ADA encompasses
MRS, the extent to which MRS is currently available, and if there is a need for MRS, what
standards the Commission could adopt for this service.
     36.  The record indicates that MRS service is currently provided in areas of the United
States where large non-English speaking populations reside, and that the majority of MRS are
Spanish-language services.   Commenters appear to agree that MRS is within the scope of Title
IV; they also state, however, that because of the varying populations and resources of different
states, the decision to implement MRS should rest with the state.  Ameritech also requests
clarification on whether the Commission's inquiry on multilingual services referred to translation
services or same-language services.  Finally, Maryland and the DC PSC indicate that American
Sign Language (ASL) translation services are available as part of their TRS offerings.
     37.  Discussion.  We tentatively agree with those parties that assert that, at this time,
the decision as to whether to implement MRS is best left to the state TRS programs.  Because
language needs and population demographics may vary widely from state-to-state, we tentatively
conclude that the development and implementation of federal rules governing MRS could be
problematic.  Moreover, we tentatively conclude, based on the record, that where there is a
demand for these services, some TRS providers have been providing MRS services to non-
English speaking communities, especially to Spanish-speaking communities, at a satisfactory level,
and that, as a consequence, Commission intervention in this area is not needed at this time.  We
seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
     38.  We clarify, however, that MRS is, by definition, a "telecommunications relay
service" as defined in Title IV of the ADA and our rules because those services are telephone
transmission services that enable a person with a hearing or speech disability to communicate by
wire or radio with a person without such a disability.  As such, although we do not propose to
mandate the provision of MRS, MRS is considered a "relay" service within the meaning of Title
IV.  Accordingly, to the extent voluntarily provided, the costs of intrastate or interstate MRS are
recoverable from the intrastate jurisdiction or the interstate TRS Fund, as appropriate.  As with
VRI, by allowing carriers to recover their costs of providing this service, we seek to spur the
development of MRS and to encourage TRS providers to offer MRS on a voluntary basis.
     39.  We tentatively conclude that Title IV of the ADA, as a general matter, only
encompasses same-language MRS, since such services are by nature "relay" services between a
person with a hearing or speech disability and a person without such a disability, using a shared
language.  We understand that some TRS providers may be offering "translation" services to TRS
users (i.e., communication between two parties who each use a different language) including
Spanish-language and ASL translation services.  We tentatively conclude that any such
"translation" TRS, especially foreign-language translation services, are value-added TRS offerings
that go beyond the "relaying" of conversations between two end users.  Therefore, the interstate
portion of such services should not be reimbursable from the interstate TRS Fund.  We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.  In particular, we ask parties to discuss whether an
exception should be made for ASL translation services.  ASL is a language unique to the deaf
community.  Therefore, ASL translation services may be necessary to provide "functional
equivalency" to ASL users.  We note, however, that ASL is primarily a visual language, and not a
written or text-based language.  Commenters should discuss whether ASL, when not presented
visually but "typed" on a TTY, is capable of being translated to English in an objective and
reliable manner, with a low risk of misunderstanding or CA error.
                    5.   Access to Emergency Services
     40.  Background and Comments.  The Commission's current TRS regulations require
that "CAs shall handle emergency calls in the same manner as they handle any other TRS calls."
Although this issue was not raised in the NOI, several emergency number and public safety
associations filed reply comments asserting that further Commission guidance and minimum
standards may be necessary in this area.  Commenters suggest that there is inconsistency and
confusion among the states and TRS providers as to how such calls should be handled.  APSCO
and NENA assert that, due to the "critical nature" of emergency calls, CA processing of those
calls is of utmost importance, but the procedures for handling the calls vary from state-to-state.
APSCO and NENA ask that the Commission establish minimum standards for call handling in this
area, and suggest that consideration be given to: (1) using databases to match the TRS caller's
automatic number information (ANI) with the appropriate emergency service number in his or her
area; (2) allowing the TRS center to pass the caller's ANI information to the emergency service
provider, even where the TRS user disconnects before emergency personnel are connected (i.e.,
the functional equivalent of 911 "call-back"); and (3) defining what constitutes an "emergency"
call.  TX-ACSEC also supported the need for minimum standards in this area.
     41.  Discussion.  We recognize that, despite Department of Justice regulations under
Title II of the ADA that require state and local government entities to make emergency services
directly accessible to TTY users, many individuals with hearing and speech disabilities may
choose to contact emergency services via a TRS center.  While CAs should handle these types of
calls in the same manner as they handle any other TRS call, we are concerned that the lack of
consistency among TRS providers regarding the handling of emergency calls may jeopardize
public safety.  Moreover, we believe that TRS users should be informed as to how emergency
calls will be handled by any TRS center.  Accordingly, we seek further comment on this issue.
Commenters should address, among other things: (1) whether TRS centers should be required
under the Commission's rules to pass a caller's ANI to an emergency services operator; and (2)
how "emergency calls" should be defined.  We also ask TRS providers to describe their current
operating procedures for incoming emergency calls.  Commenters who propose that the
Commission adopt minimum standards in this area should propose specific rule language to
implement their proposals.
                    6.   Access to Enhanced Services
     42.  Background and Comments.  Current Commission rules require TRS to be capable
of handling "any type of call normally provided by common carriers."  In enacting Title IV,
however, Congress stated that "there are some services, such as audiotext services, that connect
callers to recorded information services.  It is not the function of this legislation to facilitate
access to these kind of services."
     43.  In our first Report and Order on TRS, the Commission held that TRS providers
were not required to offer access to enhanced services.  We encouraged, however, the provision
of access to these services where technically feasible.  In the NOI, the Commission sought to
determine whether, because of technical limitations, any particular services remain inaccessible to
TRS users.
     44.  A significant number of commenters asserted that two types of services remain
largely inaccessible to TRS users and constitute a "glaring omission in relay services": (1) voice
menu-driven services; and (2) pay-per-call services.  NAD states that "[m]illions of businesses,
governmental agencies, transportation facilities, and schools now use these interactive systems,
which, because of the speed of response needed, remain inaccessible to relay users."  According
to NAD, voice menu-driven systems frequently do not offer a live operator option, and, for this
reason, completely block telephone access to TRS users.  AT&T states that the current TRS
platform cannot effectively interact with the prompts and time limits built into many enhanced
service applications, and that charges for pay-per-call services cannot be properly billed to the
TRS user.  The Texas PUC, however, comments that Relay Texas already provides access to
pay-per-call services.  Several parties also assert that the actual responsibility for access to these
services rests with the provider of the enhanced service, who should make the service directly
accessible via TTY, under the public access and public accommodations requirements of Titles II
and III of the ADA.  Some commenters contend that, to some degree, the incompatibility of
voice-menu systems and TRS may be resolved using more advanced TTY protocols that approach
"realtime" text transmission.  Several commenters state that TRS should be required to handle
voice menu-driven systems and pay-per-call relay calls.Finally, to remedy the inaccessibility of
voice-menu systems, NASRA suggests that CAs be "allowed to offer the caller a condensed
version of the [recorded] message or ask if a particular message is sought, such as a list of
services offered."
     45.  Discussion.  The record indicates that computer-driven voice-menu systems (or
"audiotext" systems), that are increasingly used by businesses and services in the United States,
may present substantial barriers to TRS users because the speed at which information is provided
via voice-menu is too fast to allow the TRS user to respond within the voice-menu system
response time.  Accordingly, TRS users must frequently place a succession of calls to leave a
message with, or access the information provided by, a voice-menu system.  We tentatively
conclude, however, that in the absence of further direction from Congress, our jurisdiction under
Title IV of the ADA does not permit us to mandate access to such services.  Indeed, Congress
expressly stated that Title IV was not intended to mandate access to enhanced services.  We
seek comment on our tentative conclusion.  Commenters who disagree with our tentative
conclusion should discuss the Commission's legal authority to require access to such services
through TRS.   Commenters should also discuss the technical issues involved in handling calls to
pay-per-call services through TRS, and why access to pay-per-call services may be provided by
some TRS providers and not by others.
     46.  We note that many carriers, telecommunications service providers, and TRS
providers make enhanced services accessible to TRS users voluntarily when technically feasible,
and we encourage them to continue to do so.  Although we tentatively conclude that we do not
have jurisdiction to require access to such services, we believe Congress' mandate that we ensure
that "functionally equivalent" TRS are available, to the extent possible, permits us to establish
rules to govern the way in which CAs handle recorded messages that require user interaction or
input.  Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that our rules should be amended to allow CAs,
when encountering an interactive recorded message during a TRS call that cannot be relayed
verbatim, due to technical limitations, to alert the TRS user to the presence of a recorded
message.  The CA also should be permitted to inquire as to whether the TRS user wishes the CA
to summarize the message or to listen for specific information.  We tentatively conclude that this
narrow exception to the requirement that all calls be relayed "verbatim"  would increase TRS
efficiency, by allowing CAs to alert the TRS user to a recorded message through a "hot key" on
their terminal, and to receive instructions from the TRS user on how he or she wishes to proceed,
without having to engage in frequent call-backs.  Moreover, TRS users could still request a
verbatim message, even if to do so would require frequent call-backs by the CA.   We seek
comment on this proposed rule.  Commenters should note that the proposed rule, rather than
requiring CAs to summarize recorded messages, would permit the TRS user to have a second
option of directing the CA to handle such calls in this fashion.
     B.   Mandatory Minimum Standards
                         1.   Speed-of-Answer Requirements
     47.  Background and Comments.  The Commission's TRS rules require TRS providers
to meet certain blockage and speed-of-answer parameters.  Specifically, section 64.604(b)(2) of
our rules states:
          Speed of Answer.  TRS shall include adequate staffing to provide callers with
     efficient access under projected calling volumes, so that the probability of a busy
     response due to CA unavailability shall be functionally equivalent to what a voice
     caller would experience in attempting to reach a party through the voice telephone
     network.  TRS shall, except during network failure, answer 85% of all calls within
     10 seconds, and no more than 30 seconds shall elapse between receipt of dialing
     information and the dialing of the requested number.
     48.  Speed-of-answer was one of the more frequently discussed issues by  commenting
parties.  Most parties agreed that the Commission's current speed-of-answer rules are vague and
subject to varying interpretations by different TRS providers.  Louisiana, for example, points
out that the speed-of-answer calculation can be distorted by the exclusion of abandoned and
redialed calls from the calculation.   A number of parties note that TRS providers may interpret
"answer" as permitting calls to be answered by a computer and placed in queue; the TRS user
could then wait several minutes or more before the call is actually answered by a CA prepared to
place the call.  Texas PUC and Maryland contend that their ability to assess speed-of-answer
times improved when a specific time period (e.g., daily) was set as the basis for the speed-of-
answer calculation.  Finally, NASRA suggests that the Commission's rules should be revised to
require that calls be answered "within 10 seconds of reaching the relay switch."
     49.  Discussion.   Speed-of-answer requirements are a cornerstone of the Commission's
TRS rules.  The ability of a TRS user to reach a CA prepared to place his or her call, without
experiencing delays that a voice telephone user would not experience in placing a telephone call,
is fundamental to the concept of "functional equivalence."  For this reason, we are concerned
about the apparent lack of uniformity in the application of our speed-of-answer rules among state
TRS programs.  We also are concerned about the allegations of numerous commenters that TRS
users may be subject to high rates of call blockage and, after reaching a TRS center, may be put
"on hold" before their calls are placed.  These types of experiences are not "functionally
equivalent" to the experiences of individuals without a hearing or speech disability.
     50.  Because of the apparent inconsistency in the application of our rules, we
tentatively conclude that we should revise our speed-of-answer rules to require TRS providers to
answer 85% of all calls within 10 seconds by a CA prepared to place the TRS call at that time.
We further propose to require that the calculation of whether a provider is in compliance with the
85% - 10 second rule must be performed on at least a daily basis.
     51.  The rule amendments we propose are intended to eliminate two practices: (1) the
practice of having calls answered by an automated system, either at a switch, a call management
platform, or at the TRS center, and placed in queue for long periods; and (2) the practice of
calculating speed-of-answer rates on a weekly or monthly basis, which allows the averaging of
both low-use and busy TRS calling periods.  We believe that these two practices tend to distort
actual TRS performance.  We seek comment on these proposed rule amendments.
     52.  We further propose to require that the 10-second speed-of-answer time frame be
triggered when a call initially arrives at the TRS provider's network.  The point at which a call
"initially arrives" at the TRS provider's network could vary with the construction of the network.
For example, some TRS providers' network may route all TRS calls to a regional call distribution
platform, while other providers' networks could route calls directly to a TRS center switch.  Our
proposal is intended to ensure that, once a TRS call passes into the TRS provider's network
facilities, regardless of which configuration that provider uses, the TRS provider ensures that the
call is answered within 10 seconds by a CA prepared to place the call.  We seek comment on this
proposal.  We also ask commenters to discuss whether all TRS providers have the technical ability
to track CA response times, and, thus, the ability to demonstrate compliance with our proposed
speed-of-answer rule.
     53.  The exclusion of redialed or abandoned calls in speed-of-answer reports can
distort the record of a TRS provider's actual performance by reducing the total number of calls
from which the average speed-of-answer is calculated, thus improving the TRS provider's
average.  We tentatively conclude that we should not require that these calls be included in all
speed-of-answer calculations.   While some callers may redial or abandon a call when they receive
a busy signal or are placed on hold by a TRS center, redialed or abandoned calls may be prompted
by other circumstances as well, such as callers that simply change their mind about placing a call
or that are interrupted while placing the call.  We tentatively conclude that we should not adopt a
regulation that assumes that all abandoned and redialed TRS calls result from high blockage.  We
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  In reaching this tentative conclusion, we note that our
rules require TRS providers to maintain adequate staffing of their facilities to ensure that callers
are provided with efficient access under projected calling volumes, so that the probability of a
busy response due to CA unavailability is functionally equivalent to what a voice caller would
experience in attempting to reach a party through the voice telephone network.  We remain
concerned that our tentative conclusion, that we should not require that redialed or abandoned
calls be included in speed-of-answer reports, which could result in improved speed-of-answer
statistics for a particular carrier, not be used by TRS providers to avoid properly staffing their
facilities.  We seek comment on how the Commission can ensure that this result is avoided.
                         2.   CA Quality and Training
     54.  Background and Comments.  Current Commission regulations require CAs to
have, among other things, "competent skills in typing, grammar, spelling, interpretation of
typewritten ASL, and familiarity with hearing and speech disability cultures, language and
etiquette."  In the NOI, we sought general comment on the effectiveness of this rule over the
past three years.  The Commission received numerous comments, especially from TRS users,
stating that the quality of CAs varies widely, and that there is an alarming decline in CA quality
that is affecting the "functional equivalency" of TRS service.
     55.  Many parties representing TRS users note that the Commission currently has no
quantitative rules for CA typing speed.  These parties urge the Commission to amend our rules
to set a minimum CA typing speed.  Commenters assert that, in light of more efficient
technologies (e.g., enhanced TTY protocols, auto-correct software), CAs could approach
"realtime" transmission of text-to-voice and voice-to-text, if they were sufficiently skilled
typists.  NAD urges the Commission to adopt a minimum typing speed of 100 words-per-
minute, and to require that CA typing tests be oral, rather than written.  NASRA suggests a 45
word-per-minute standard.  AT&T, a major TRS provider, argues against adopting quantitative
typing speeds for CAs.  AT&T states that requiring a significant increase in typing speed would
"disserve" TRS users, because the current labor pool for potential CAs is already "limited."
     56.  Several commenters urge the Commission to require the phase-in of technology,
such as computer-aided realtime transcription (CART), until TRS approaches real-time,
simultaneous text transmission.   Commenters argue that TRS centers should be required to
install certain types of software, such as auto-correct software, that will reduce CA error and
misspelling rates.  Sprint, however, asserts that requiring TRS providers to install certain types
of software would be an intrusion into areas that the Commission does not regulate.
     57.  The Commission's current rules do not address the quality of voice articulation
required of CAs.  Commenters representing TRS users allege that many CAs lack competent skills
in voice articulation.  These commenters state that CAs may have strong accents, use local
dialects, or may not even be fluent in the English language.  Several commenters urge the
Commission to impose screening or quality assurance requirements to prevent the hiring of CAs
with poor voice articulation or incompetent typing skills.
     58.  Discussion.  We are concerned about the allegations of TRS users that CA quality
appears to vary widely, and in many cases may be substandard.  We tentatively conclude,
however, that a federal rule imposing a minimum typing speed for CAs is not appropriate at this
time.  Our tentative conclusion is based upon our concern that imposing  a federal standard could
actually harm TRS users by constraining the labor pool for CAs and therefore, could adversely
impact the ability of the TRS providers to offer TRS on a ubiquitous, around-the-clock basis.  We
request comment on this tentative conclusion.  Commenters objecting to our tentative conclusion
should specifically discuss the effect of establishing of a minimum typing speed requirement for
CAs on the CA labor pool.  We also invite comments on whether TRS providers are experiencing
any labor shortages or difficulties in hiring and retaining competent CAs, and the extent to and
manner in which TRS providers currently screen and test potential CAs for typing competency.
Finally, we agree with commenters that new technologies, such as enhanced TTY protocols and
enhanced computer software, could greatly increase TRS transmission times and, consequently,
CA typing speeds.  We seek comment, however, on the extent to which such technologies have
been adopted by TRS users and TRS providers.
     59.  We tentatively conclude that clear and articulate voice communication is an
essential skill for any CA and is essential to the concept of "functional equivalency." We seek
comment on whether to amend our rules to address the need for clear and articulate voice
communication by CAs and, in particular, how to evaluate the clarity and articulation of a CA's
voice communications.  The presence of an accent or a certain manner of speaking, which to one
listener renders the speaker "inarticulate," may not render the speaker inarticulate to another
listener.  Accordingly, we request further comment on this area.  Commenters who believe the
Commission should adopt rules for voice articulation should propose specific rule language and
discuss how such a rule can be applied in an objective, nondiscriminatory manner.  Commenters
should also discuss whether screening CAs for voice articulation would raise questions of
discriminatory employment practices based upon a potential CA's race, ethnic background or
national origin, or whether it would conflict with state and local equal employment opportunity
laws.
     60.  Finally, we tentatively conclude that we should not adopt further CA requirements
at this time.  Because TRS is still a relatively new service, comprehensive Commission
intervention in all areas of CA standards may overburden TRS providers and stifle competitive
incentives for TRS providers to develop and improve their service to increase their attractiveness
to consumers and state administrators.  We expect, as we stated in 1991, that in areas of CA
typing speed and competence, TRS providers will strive to provide "the excellent level of service
all telephone consumers demand."  We request comment on this tentative conclusion.
                         3.   In-Call Replacement of CAs
     61.  Background and Comments.  In the NOI, the Commission sought comment on call
suspensions initiated by CAs (e.g., changes in CAs between shifts), and the impact of the
suspensions, if any, on TRS users.  Numerous parties representing TRS users assert that during
relay calls, a CA may transfer a call to another CA, and that these transfers are very disruptive.
Ameritech and MCI, on the other hand, assert that in-call CA transfers are rare.  AT&T, MCI
and GTE state that in-call transfers are sometimes necessary to avoid CA fatigue or repetitive-
motion injuries during extended calls.  AT&T notes that collective bargaining agreements may
require TRS providers to ensure that CAs do not work longer than their established shift and that
they receive adequate breaks.  Several commenters suggest that the Commission specify a
minimum period of time in which a CA is required to stay with a TRS call, to avoid CA transfers
within the first few minutes of a call.  MCI also asserts that in-call CA replacement is "rare,"
and notes that, based on its experience as a TRS provider, the average length of a TRS call
appears to be six (6) minutes.  Texas PUC recommends that the Commission adopt a rule
permitting TRS users to request a specific CA gender when a CA transfer occurs.
     62.  Discussion.  We tentatively conclude that we should amend our rules to require
that a CA answering and placing a TRS call must stay with that call for at least ten (10) minutes
before an in-call CA transfer can take place.  We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  In
particular, we ask commenters to discuss whether a ten-minute time period adequately balances
the need to minimize call disruptions with the need to prevent CA fatigue and overuse injuries, or
whether the minimum period of call coverage by the same CA should be shorter (5 minutes) or
longer (15 minutes).  We also seek comment on whether the proposed rule regarding CA transfers
would conflict with any federal, state or local labor laws or regulations.  Commenters asserting
that our proposed rule would conflict with labor laws or regulations, or with collective bargaining
agreements, should point to specific regulations or agreements that are in conflict with our
proposed rule, to enable the Commission to fully assess the alleged conflicts.  Finally, while we
tentatively conclude that we should not establish rules permitting TRS users to request a specific
CA gender during a CA transfer, we strongly encourage TRS providers to offer this option to
TRS users, to the extent CA staffing allows the TRS provider to accommodate such requests.  If
a TRS provider currently offers callers the option of requesting a specific CA gender at the outset
of a call, we encourage the TRS provider to apply this option to in-call CA transfers.
          C.   Competition Issues
                    1.   Multivendoring
     63.  Background and Comments.  Commission rules allow common carriers to provide
TRS within their service areas "individually, through a competitively selected vendor, or in
concert with other carriers."  Currently, the most common means by which carriers and the
states comply with this rule is through the competitively selected single-vendor model.  Pursuant
to this model, the state enters into an exclusive contract to provide statewide TRS with a single
vendor that is selected through a request for proposals (RFP) process.  The cost of the intrastate
TRS service contract generally is recovered from all ratepayers in the state, either through an
intrastate subscriber line surcharge or through the ratemaking process.  Under the single-vendor
model, TRS users are required to use their resident state's chosen TRS provider for intrastate
calling.  Because interstate TRS service is funded by a national TRS Fund, however, callers may
choose any TRS provider for interstate calls by dialing one of several national toll-free numbers
for interstate calls that are advertised by TRS providers.
     64.       We note that many commenters representing TRS users claim, as a general matter,
that TRS are ineffective and fall far short of their understanding of "functional equivalence."
Many commenters argue that substandard intrastate TRS is a direct result of the single-vendor
model.  According to these parties, the single-vendor model encourages the selection of a TRS
provider based on cost alone, and removes any incentive for incumbent TRS providers to improve
service after they receive an exclusive contract to provide TRS in a state.  Many of these
commenters urge the Commission to take steps to require or promote multivendoring in state
TRS programs as a mechanism to improve TRS quality.  Major TRS providers, including AT&T,
MCI and Sprint, and the majority of state TRS administrators do not address this issue in their
comments.
     65.  Discussion.  As an initial matter, we note that the Telecommunications Act of
1996 ("1996 Act") obligates the Commission to facilitate the introduction of competition to
telecommunications markets.  We believe that, while regulated single-vendor markets may
result in reasonably low prices or reasonably high quality services, the greatest benefits of TRS
will be realized when vendors directly compete for TRS consumers.  Although requiring intrastate
TRS multivendoring would comport with the overall policy goals of the Act and proposals for
multivendoring advanced by commenters hold out substantial promise, we do not propose to
require intrastate TRS multivendoring at this time.  Instead, we invite comment on the following
issues: (a) the Commission's jurisdiction to require intrastate mutivendoring; (b) the correlation
between the single-vendor model and problems with intrastate TRS; and (c) the structuring of an
intrastate multivendor environment.
     66.  First, the Commission's jurisdiction to implement multivendoring at the state level
is unclear.  In most instances, intrastate TRS programs are administered directly by the states,
following Commission certification.  Whereas the Commission exercises authority over
intrastate TRS by setting mandatory minimum standards that all TRS must meet, the Commission
has no direct jurisdiction over the recovery of intrastate TRS costs and is not involved in the rate-
setting or contracting processes conducted by the state for its intrastate TRS program.
Moreover, Title IV of the ADA expressly permits carriers to comply with their statutory
obligation to provide TRS "individually, through designees, through a competitively selected
vendor, or in concert with other carriers."  This statutory provision appears to restrict the
Commission's authority to require the multivendoring of TRS service at the state level.  We seek
comment on this analysis.
     67.  Second, while numerous commenters assert that there is a relationship between the
single-vendor environment and problems with TRS quality, we have not received comment on the
issue from TRS providers and state TRS administrators, two groups that we expect would have a
unique understanding of the single-vendor environment.  We invite these parties to comment on
the allegations that the single-vendor model is inefficient and produces substandard TRS.
     68.  Third, while many commenters have expressed an interest in creating choice of
TRS provider for intrastate calling services, none have proposed a specific structure for an
intrastate multivendor environment.  Specifically, no party has addressed how vendors should
compete in each state, or how costs should be recovered.  We seek further comment on these
issues, especially from state TRS administrators who have implemented, or are planning to
implement, a multivendor environment in their state.
                    2.   Treatment of TRS Customer Information
     69.  Background and Comments.  In the current TRS environment, statewide TRS
service contracts frequently are awarded to a single TRS provider for a specified contract term,
e.g., three to five years.  During a specific TRS providers' term, that provider may develop
databases consisting of information on relay customer preferences or calling patterns.  This
information, often referred to as "caller profiles," is used by the TRS provider to deliver more
efficient and individualized service to TRS users.  If an incumbent TRS provider fails to win
renewal of its contract, a dispute may arise between the outgoing TRS provider and the state as to
the ownership of this customer information, with the state seeking to turn the customer
information over to the new TRS provider, to ease the transition between providers.
     70.  Although the Commission did not raise this issue in the NOI, Sprint, a major TRS
provider, and NASRA, an association representing state TRS administrators, devoted
considerable comment to it.  NASRA argues that any information, including caller profile
information that is gathered by a TRS provider in the provision of service to a state's citizens, is
the property of, and transferable to, the state that paid for that relay service pursuant to the
contract.  NASRA seeks clarification, however, on the application of section 222 of the
Communications Act, as amended, to the TRS arena.
     71.  Sprint argues, on the other hand, that such information is proprietary to the TRS
provider, that each TRS provider should be responsible for developing its own caller database,
and that TRS providers should not be forced to hand over this information to their competitors,
especially in a multiple vendor environment.  Sprint also contends that all "caller profile"
information is actually gathered in the TRS provider's database before the call reaches the CA and
billing to the state begins.  Therefore, according to Sprint, the state has not "paid" for the
database.
     72.   Discussion.  Section 222 of the 1996 Act governs, among other things, carriers'
use, disclosure, or provision of access to, customer proprietary network information.  In
particular, section 222(c)(1) of the Act provides that
     [e]xcept as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a
     telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains [CPNI] in its provision of a
     telecommunications service shall only use, disclose or permit access to individually
     identifiable [CPNI] in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from
     which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the
     provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of
     directories.
We seek comment on whether the disclosure by an outgoing TRS provider of customer
information to a new TRS vendor that has won a TRS contract, is subject to section 222 of the
Act and our implementing regulations.  We specifically seek comment on whether TRS
providers constitute "telecommunications carriers," and whether the information compiled by TRS
providers constitutes "CPNI" under section 222.  In particular, we ask parties to describe in detail
the types of data collected from TRS users to form customer profiles, and how this information is
used by TRS providers.  To the extent parties argue that the disclosure of information in this
situation is subject to section 222, we seek specific comment on whether such disclosure is
permitted pursuant to section 222(d)(1), which generally allows a carrier to use, disclose, or
permit access to CPNI, notwithstanding other provisions in section 222, "to initiate, render, bill
and collect for telecommunications services."  Alternatively, we seek comment on whether such
disclosure is permissible without customer approval under the proviso in section 222(c)(1), which
excepts from the general CPNI restrictions, uses that are "required by law."  As we noted
above, Title IV of the ADA requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is available, to the
extent possible and in the most efficient manner, to persons with hearing or speech disabilities in
the United States.  Thus, requiring outgoing TRS providers to disclose customer information to
a new TRS vendor may be necessary to ensure that customers receive TRS in the most efficient
manner possible, consistent with this Congressional requirement.
     D.   Enforcement and Certification Issues
     73.  Background and Comments.  Section 225(b)(2) of the Communications Act, as
amended, provides the Commission with jurisdiction to administer and enforce the obligations of
both interstate and intrastate common carriers to provide TRS.  Pursuant to the enforcement
scheme established by Congress, which includes a voluntary state certification process and a
complaint process,  states that apply for and receive Commission certification of their TRS
program are subject to modified enforcement standards. In general, those standards require all
complaints filed against the certified state program to be addressed in the first instance by the
state.  Although no specific period is required by the statute, the Commission's rules set five (5)
years as the certification period for state programs.  State TRS programs are not required to
amend their certification application at any point during the five-year period under the
Commission's current TRS rules.
     74.  A majority of commenters representing TRS users assert that the Commission's
TRS enforcement and certification procedures are largely ineffective.  ALDA, for example, states
that the current certification process is ineffective because, among other things, there are no
reporting requirements for state TRS programs during the certification period.  SHHH, along
with several other commenters, notes that TRS providers do not have "well-publicized" complaint
procedures.  NAD states that most consumer complaints "stop at the supervisor's desk," and
AGB states that complaints tend to get "lost in the process."    A number of commenters
alleged that state programs and TRS providers do not forward complaints to the Commission in a
timely fashion and are not acting on complaints within the 180 day time frame established by Title
IV.  Other commenters suggest that amendments to the Commission's complaint procedures are
justified by these and other types of enforcement problems.  TRS providers, state TRS
administrators, and carriers did not comment on enforcement issues in response to the NOI.
     75.  Discussion.  To increase the effectiveness of the Commission's certification
process, we tentatively conclude that the Commission's certification rules should be amended in
the following manner.  First, we tentatively conclude that the states be required to notify the
Commission of substantive changes in their state TRS program within 60 days of the effective
date of the change and to file documentation demonstrating that the state TRS program remains
in compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards.  The Commission may
suspend or revoke a certification if, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, the Commission
determines that the state certification is no longer warranted.  We further note that the
Commission may, upon its own motion, require a certified state program to submit documentation
demonstrating ongoing compliance with the Commission's minimum standards if, for example, the
Commission receives evidence that a state program may not be in compliance with the
Commission's mandatory minimum standards.  We tentatively conclude that "substantive changes"
include, but are not limited to: (1) the replacement of the state's TRS vendor; (2) the opening of
the state TRS program to allow multiple vendors; and (3) changes in the underlying state rules
governing the TRS program involving any of the mandatory minimum standards for TRS.
Second, we tentatively conclude that we should amend our rules to require that, as a condition of
certification, a state TRS program must demonstrate that its program makes available to TRS
users informational materials on state and Commission complaint procedures sufficient for users
to know the proper procedures for filing complaints.  We seek comment on our tentative
conclusions.
     76.  We seek further comment on these issues, and, in particular, on what modifications
to our rules may be needed regarding referral of complaints to certified states and Commission
action on TRS complaints.  We ask commenters, and in particular TRS providers and state
administrators, to provide us with data on the number of TRS complaints they have received
concerning their programs since 1993, the number of complaints resolved, and the time frame
within which those complaints have been resolved.  Finally, we ask commenters to discuss
whether the FCC should adopt specific guidelines that can be used to assess whether a state TRS
program provides "adequate procedures and remedies for enforcing the requirements of the state
program."
     E.   Other Issues
     77.  In the NOI, the Commission sought comment on several other issues relating to
TRS, including: (1) the extent to which carriers are currently offering TTY users the option of
having their number designated as a TTY number, either in published directories or through
Directory Assistance (DA) service; (2) the extent to which states have implemented TTY,
Telebraille and other specialized consumer premises equipment distribution programs; and (3)
the effectiveness of carrier information and outreach activities.  While the Commission received
a variety of comments from interested parties on these issues in response to the NOI, we are not
proposing rules addressing these areas and do not seek comment on them.  We will continue to
monitor these issues, and will revisit them as appropriate.
     78.  A number of parties have recommended that the Commission consider establishing
an advisory committee to monitor TRS quality issues, or to expand the role of the interstate TRS
Fund Advisory Council to allow that body to consider also TRS quality issues.  We recognize
the importance of efforts to ensure the quality of TRS.  We do not, however, propose rules
addressing the proposal that we create an advisory committee, or expand the role of the TRS
Fund Advisory Council, in this Notice.    Many of the tentative conclusions and proposals we
reach in this Notice are related to the issue of TRS quality.  We encourage all parties to
thoroughly review and comment upon those tentative conclusions and proposals.
     79.  We note also with interest that a number of commenters, especially CTIA, urge the
Commission to promote the integration of enhanced TTY transmission protocols, including the
v.18 protocol and "enhanced Baudot" protocols, into the TTY network, or to undertake a
separate rulemaking to explore the capability of enhanced protocols, such as v.18, to improve
interconnectivity between TTY equipment and digital devices, including wireless devices.
While such issues have considerable merit, at this time, we do not propose rules or seek comment
on these issues in this docket.  We may address the issues in the future in a future proceeding, not
only in the context of TRS, but in the context of TTY interconnectivity and access to digital
services generally.
     80.  Finally, parties representing TRS users recommend that the Commission require
TRS providers to implement certain TRS features and capabilities.  For example, several parties
request that the Commission require "call release" as a mandatory TRS feature.  Other features
proposed by the parties include Caller ID recognition, the ability to conduct conference calls
through TRS, "two-line VCO," and automatic call forwarding.   In this Notice, we do not
propose that any additional TRS features, other than those proposed in other areas of this Notice,
be required under our rules at this time.  These and other important aspects of TRS may be
addressed in further proceedings in this docket.
                         IV.  CONCLUSION
     81.  This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking embodies our statutory duty to ensure that
TRS keeps pace with technological developments and does not become entrenched into one type
of service.  We believe that our proposed rules maintain the forward-looking spirit of Title IV of
the ADA, both by proposing to extend TRS service to persons with speech disabilities, and by
proposing rule amendments and modifications that we believe will increase the effectiveness of
our TRS rules.   We encourage interested parties to comment on the issues raised and the rules
proposed in Appendix B in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
           V.  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
     82.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has
prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Notice).  Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice
provided below in para. 92, supra.  The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  See 5 U.S.C. 
603(a).  In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.  See id.
               A.   Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
     83.  The Notice is based upon the record developed in a Notice of Inquiry on
improving telecommunications relay services (TRS), released by the Commission on January 14,
1997 (FCC 97-7).  The goal of this proceeding is to consider ways in which TRS can be
improved, both to better serve current TRS users and to ensure that TRS serves the broadest
possible population of persons with hearing and speech disabilities, consistent with Congress'
direction at 47 U.S.C.  225(d)(2) to the Commission to ensure that its regulations encourage the
use of existing technology and do not discourage or impair the development of improved
technology.  Specifically, the Notice proposes to require nationwide speech-to-speech (STS)
service for persons with severe speech disabilities as a mandatory TRS feature within two years of
publication of final rules in this proceeding, and requests comment on this proposal.  The Notice
also proposes a number of rule amendments based upon the comments submitted by parties in the
Notice of Inquiry, and seeks comment on those proposals.   The overall intent of these proposed
rules is to improve the effectiveness of TRS service and the Commission's oversight of TRS,  and
to clear up ambiguities surrounding several of the Commission's current TRS rules.
               B.   Legal Basis
     84.  Authority for actions proposed in this Notice may be found in: Sections 1, 4(i) and
(j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections
151, 154(i), 151(j), 201-205, 218 and 225.
               C.   Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
          Proposed Rules Will Apply
     85.  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.
The RFA generally defines the term "small entity " as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."  In addition, the term
"small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
Business Act.  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).
     86.  TRS Providers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition
of small entity specifically applicable to providers of telecommunications relay services (TRS).
The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies
other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.   The SBA defines such establishments to be
small businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.  According to our most recent
data, there are 12 interstate TRS providers, and these consist of interexchange carriers, local
exchange carriers, and state-managed entities.  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 12 small TRS providers that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.  We seek
comment generally on our analysis identifying TRS providers, and specifically on whether we
should conclude, for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, that any TRS providers are small
entities.
               D.   Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
          Requirements
     87.  See paragraph 91, infra, for an initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 analysis.
This Notice proposes the following information collection:  that states be required to notify the
Commission of substantive changes in their state TRS program within 60 days of the effective
date of the change and to file documentation demonstrating that the state TRS program remains
in compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards.  See paras. 73-76, supra, for
a discussion of the proposed information collection.  The information collection generally would
be performed by a state official familiar with the state's telecommunications relay program; it
would have no impact on large or small entities.  The Commission estimates that the costs of
compliance with this information collection will be minimal.
               E.   Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities
          and Consistent with Stated Objectives
     88.  The proposals in the Notice, and the comments the Commission seeks regarding
them, are part of the Commission's analysis of its role with respect to the implementation and
operation of nationwide TRS for persons with hearing and speech disabilities.  The guiding
principal shaping these proposals is Congress' direction to the Commission to ensure that TRS
keeps pace with advancing technology and that the Commission's rules do not discourage the
implementation of technological advances or improvements.   The majority of TRS service is
provided by large interexchange carriers and incumbent local exchange carriers, and we believe
that the number of small entities impacted by these proposals would be potentially very small.
With respect to proposed amendments to the Commission's rules governing TRS, by statute,
common carriers providing voice transmission services who are subject to the TRS rules,
including small entities, may comply with their obligations individually, through designees,
through a competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers.  For this reason, the
Commission expects that the proposed rule amendments will have a minimal impact on small
entities.  Moreover, the Notice does not propose any reporting requirements applicable to small
entities.   We tentatively conclude that our proposals in the Notice would impose minimum
burdens on small entities.  We encourage comment on this tentative conclusion.
          F.   Federal Rules that Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed Rules
     89.  None.
                    VI.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS
     A.   Ex Parte Presentations
     90.  This is a permit-but-disclose notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding.  Ex
parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they
are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.  See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203,
1.1206.  Written submissions, however, will be limited as discussed below.
     B.   Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
     91.  This Notice contains proposed information collections.  As part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained
in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13.  Public
and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB
comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collections of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
     C.   Comment Filing Procedures
     92.  General Requirements.  Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in 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 July 20, 1998 and reply comments on or before September 14, 1998.  To
file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and six copies of all comments, reply
comments, and supporting comments.  If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy
of your comments, you must file an original and 11 copies.  Comments and reply comments
should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street,
N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C.  20554, with a copy to Carmell Weathers of the Common
Carrier Bureau, 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 221, Washington, D.C.  20554.  Parties should also
file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.  20036.
Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C.  20554.
     93.  Paperwork Reduction Act Comments.  Written comments by the public on the
proposed information collections are due on July 20, 1998.  Written comments must be submitted
by the OMB on the proposed information collections on or before 60 days after date of
publication in the Federal Register.  In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of
any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley,
Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236
NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC  20503 or via the Internet to
fain_t@al.eop.gov.
     94.  Other requirements.  Comments and reply comments must include a short and
concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading.  Comments and reply
comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the
Commissions rules.  We also direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party
and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments.  Comments and
reply comments also must clearly identify the specific portion of this Notice to which a particular
comment or set of comments is responsive.  If a portion of a party's comments does not fall under
a particular topic listed in the outline of this Notice, such comments must be included in a clearly
labelled section at the beginning or end of the filing.
     95.  Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette.  Such
diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing requirements
addressed above.  Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to Carmell Weathers, Network
Services Division, 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 235, Washington, D.C.  20554.  Such a
submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS
5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software.  The diskette should be submitted in "read only" mode.  The
diskette should be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment
or reply comments) and date of submission.  The diskette should be accompanied by a cover
letter.
     96.  Additional Information.  For additional information on this proceeding, contact
Kris Monteith, (202) 418-1098 (voice), (202) 418-0484 (TTY).  E-mail: kmonteit@fcc.gov.
FCC Internet Home Page:  http://www.fcc.gov.  FCC Disabilities Issues Page:
http://www.fcc.gov/.ditf.
     97.  Accessible Formats.   Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio
cassette and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at
(202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or at mcontee@fcc.gov, or Ruth Dancey at (202)
418-0305, TTY (202) 418-2970, or at rdancey@fcc.gov.  This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
also can be downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/nsd.
                      VII.  ORDERING CLAUSES
     98.  IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to authority found in sections 1, 4(i) and (j),
201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i),
151(j), 201-205, 218 and 225, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED.
     99.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs,
Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
                      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                      Magalie Roman Salas
                      Secretary                            APPENDIX A
                        LIST OF COMMENTERS
Comments
1.   AIM, Inc.
2.   Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (AGB)
3.   Association of Late-Deafened Adults (ALDA)
4.   ALDA-Potomac
5.   Ameritech
6.   AT&T
7.   Auditory Oral Action Committee (AOAC)
8.   Bell Atlantic-Nynex
9.   BellSouth
10.  State of California and the California Public Utilities Commission (California PUC)
11.  California Association of the Deaf (CAD)
12.  Mr. Robert Case
13.  Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)
14.  Coalition of Protection and Advocacy Systems (CPAS)
15.  Consumer Action Network (CAN)
16.  DC Association of Deaf Citizens and the Virginia Association
          of the Deaf (DCADC- VAD)
17.  District of Columbia Public Service Commission (DC PSC)
18.  Ms. Marcia M. Finisdore
19.  Ms. Claudia Foy
20.  GTE.
21.  Hawaii State Coordinating Council on Deafness (Hawaii CCD)
22.  Idaho Association of the Deaf (IAD)
23.  Mr. Jerald M. Jordan
24.  Kansas Relay Service, Inc. (Kansas Relay)
25.  Louisiana Relay Administration Board (Louisiana Relay)
26.  Mr. Paul M. Lurie
27.  Maryland Department of Budget and Management (Maryland)
28.  Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership (MATP)
29.  Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (MCDHH)
30.  MCI
31.  Dr. Otto Menzel
32.  Missouri Public Service Commission (Missouri PSC)
33.  Ms. Myra B. Morell
34.  National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
35.  National Association for State Relay Administration (NASRA)
36.  Mr. David J. Nelson
37.  Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons (NVRC)
38.  Oregon Public Utility Commission (Oregon PUC)
39.  Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc. (SHHH)
40.  Ms. Ausma Smits
41.  Southwestern Bell
42.  Sprint
43.  Mr. James H. Stoltz
44.  Stavros Center for Independent Living
45.  Texas Public Utility Commission (Texas PUC)
46.  Travis County Department of Human Services (Travis DHS)
47.  United Cerebral Palsy Association (UCPA)
48.  Western Massachusetts Association of the Deaf (WMAD)
49.  Wisconsin TRS Advisory Council (Wisconsin TRS-AC)
Reply Comments
1.   Dr. Robert Aber
2.   Association of Late Deafened Adults (ALDA)
3.   Association of Public Safety Communications Officials and the National Emergency
     Number Association (APCO-NENA)
4.   AT&T
5.   Ms. Lora M. Barnes
6.   Ms. Kathleen Barrett
7.   Ms. Julie Behms
8.   Bell Atlantic-Nynex
9.   Mr. Ralph Boemio
10.  Ms. Connie Brittain
11.  State of California and the California Public Utilities Commission (California PUC)
12.  Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)
13.  Consumer Action Network (CAN)
14.  Council of Organizational Representatives (COR)
15.  Ms. Margaret DeSantos
16.  Disability Resource Agency for Independent Living
17.  GTE
18.  Ms. Pamela K. Hoye
19.  Mr. Randy Kitch
20.  Ms. Laurel LaShell
21.  Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership (MATP)
22.  National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
23.  Mr. David J. Nelson
24.  Pacific Telesis (PacTel)
25.  Mr. Jim Reeves
26.  Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. (RID)
27.  Mr. Barry A. Romich
28.  Mr. Kevin Siemens
29.  Sonny Access Consulting
30.  Sprint
31.  Texas Advisory Committee on State Emergency Communications (TX-ACSEC)
32.  Ultratec, Inc.
33.  UCPA of San Diego County
34.  United States Telephone Association (UCPA)
                            APPENDIX B
                          PROPOSED RULES
Part 64, Subpart F of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is revised as follows:
PART 64 - MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
Subpart F - Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer Premises
Equipment for Persons with Disabilities
1.   The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C.  154.
2.   Section 64.601 is revised to read as follows:
 64.601  Definitions.
As used in this subpart, the following definitions apply:
          (1)  * * *
          (2)  * * *
          (3)  * * *
          (4)  * * *
     (5)  Communications assistant (CA).  A person who transliterates conversation between
two end users of TRS.  CA supersedes the term "TDD operator."
          (6)  * * *
     (7)  Speech-to-speech relay service (STS).  A form of TRS that provides the ability for an
individual with a speech disability to engage in functionally equivalent communication by wire or
radio with an individual without such a disability, through the use of a communications assistant
with specialized training in recognizing and relaying the speech of persons with speech disabilities.
     (8)  Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS).  Telephone transmission services that
provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing or speech disability to engage in
communication by wire or radio * * *
     (9) Text telephone (TTY).  A machine that employs graphic communication in the
transmission of coded signals through a wire or radio communications system.  TTY supersedes
the terms "TT," "TDD," or "telecommunications device for the deaf."
     (10) Voice Carry over.  A reduced form of TRS where the person with the hearing
disability is able to speak directly * * *
3.   Section 64.603 is revised to read as follows:
 64.603  Provision of services.
* * *
     (a) * * *
     (b) * * *
     (c) Speech-to-speech (STS) service. Each common carrier providing telephone voice
transmission services shall provide, not later than  [insert date 2 years after publication of final
rules in the Federal Register], in compliance with the regulations prescribed herein, throughout
the area in which it offers services, speech-to-speech relay services, individually, through
designees, through a competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers.
4.   Section 64.604 is revised to read as follows:
 64.604.  Mandatory minimum standards.
          (a) Operational standards -
          (1) * * *
          (2) Confidentiality and conversation content.  Except as authorized by section 705
of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, CAs are prohibited from disclosing the content of any
relayed conversation regardless of content and from keeping records of the content of any
conversation beyond the duration of a call, even if to do so would be inconsistent with state or
local law.  CAs are prohibited from intentionally altering a relayed conversation and, to the extent
that it is not inconsistent with federal, state, or local law regarding use of telephone company
facilities for illegal purposes, must relay all conversation verbatim unless the user specifically
requests summarization.  In the event a CA encounters a automated voice-menu or audiotext
system during a relay call, and the CA cannot relay the call and interact with the automated
system simultaneously in a functionally equivalent manner, the CA is allowed to alert the TRS
user that an automated system is present and inquire whether the user wants the CA to summarize
the message or listen for a specific message.
          (3) Types of Calls.  Consistent with the obligations of common carrier operators,
CAs are prohibited from refusing single or sequential calls or limiting the length of calls utilizing
relay services.  A CA answering and placing a TRS call must stay with that call for at least ten
(10) minutes before an in-call CA transfer can take place.  TRS shall be capable of handling any
type of call normally provided by common carriers and the burden of infeasibility of handling any
type of call will be placed on the carriers.  Providers of TRS are permitted to decline to complete
a call because credit authorization is denied.  CAs shall handle emergency calls in the same
manner as they handle any other TRS calls.
          (4) Video relay interpreting services (VRI).  If VRI services are provided to TRS
users, the following rules apply: (1) interpreters or transliterators used to provide VRI must be
able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using
any necessary specialized vocabulary; and (2) interpreters or transliterators used to provide VRI
must comply with the rules relating to confidentiality, conversation content, and types of calls, at
sections 64.604(a)(2) and 64.604(a)(3) of this subpart.
     (b)  Technical standards -
          (1) * * *
          (2)  Speed of answer.   TRS shall include adequate staffing to provide callers with
efficient access under projected calling volumes, so that the probability of a busy response due to
CA unavailability shall be functionally equivalent to what a voice caller would experience in
attempting to reach a party through the voice telephone network.  TRS shall, except during
network failure, answer 85% of all calls by a CA prepared to place the TRS call, within 10
seconds of the time the incoming call reaches the TRS provider's network, and no more than 30
seconds shall elapse between receipt of dialing information and the dialing of the requested
number.  The calculation of whether 85% of all calls have been answered within 10 seconds must
be performed on a daily basis.
          (3) * * *
          (4) * * *
          (5) * * *
5.   Section 64.605 is revised by amending section 64.605(b)(2) to read as follows, and adding
a new section 64.605(f) as follows:
 64.605.  State certification.
     * * *
     (b)  * * *
          (1)  * * *
          (2)  Establishes that the state program makes available adequate remedies and
procedures for enforcing the requirements of the state program, and demonstrates that its
program makes available to TRS users informational materials on state and Commission
complaint procedures that inform users about the proper procedures for filing complaints; and
          (3)  * * *
     (c)  * * *
     (d)  * * *
     (e)  * * *
     (f)  Change in certified state program.  In the event a certified state TRS program
undergoes a substantive change during the period in which it holds certification, the state program
must, within 60 days of the change, notify the Commission of the change in its program and file
documentation with the Commission demonstrating that the state program remains in compliance
with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards at section 64.604 of this subpart.  For
purposes of this section, a "substantive change" includes, but is not limited to, the replacement of
the state program's TRS vendor, the opening of the state program to allow multiple vendors, or
any change in the underlying state statutes or regulations governing the state TRS program.
                            APPENDIX C
                        47 C.F.R.  64.604
 64.604  Mandatory minimum standards.
     (a) Operational standards-(1) Communications assistant (CA).  TRS providers are responsible for
requiring that CAs be sufficiently trained to effectively meet the specialized communications needs of
individuals with hearing and speech disabilities; and that CAs have competent skills in typing, grammar,
spelling, interpretation of typewritten ASL, and familiarity with hearing and speech disability cultures,
languages and etiquette.
     (2) Confidentiality and conversation content.  Except as authorized by section 705 of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  605, CAs are prohibited from disclosing the content of any relayed
conversation regardless of content and from keeping records of the content of any conversation beyond the
duration of a call, even if to do so would be inconsistent with state or local law.  CAs are prohibited from
intentionally altering a relayed conversation and, to the extent that it is not consistent with federal, state or
local law
regarding use of telephone company facilities for illegal purposes, must relay all conversation verbatim
unless the relay user specifically requests summarization.
         (3) Types of calls.  Consistent with the obligations of common carrier operators, CAs are
prohibited from refusing single or sequential calls or limiting the length of calls utilizing relay services.
TRS shall be capable of handling any type of call normally provided by common carriers and the burden of
proving the infeasibility of handling any type of call will be placed on the carriers.  Providers of TRS are
permitted to decline to complete a call because credit authorization is denied.  CAs shall handle emergency
calls in the same manner as they handle any other TRS calls.
         (b) Technical standards-(1) ASCII and Baudot. TRS shall be capable of communicating with
ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed generally in use.
         (2) Speed of answer.  TRS shall include adequate staffing to provide callers with efficient access
under projected calling volumes, so that the probability of a busy response due to CA unavailability shall
be functionally equivalent to what a voice caller would experience in attempting to reach a party through
the voice telephone network.  TRS shall, except during network failure, answer 85% of all calls within 10
seconds and no more than 30 seconds shall elapse between receipt of dialing information and the dialing of
the requested number.
         (3) Equal access to interexchange carriers.  TRS users shall have access to their chosen
interexchange carrier through the TRS, and to all other operator services, to the same extent that such
access is provided to voice users.
         (4) TRS facilities.  TRS shall operate every day, 24 hours a day.  TRS shall have adequate
redundancy features functionally equivalent to the equipment in normal central offices, including
uninterruptible power for emergency use.  TRS shall transmit conversations between TT and voice callers
in real time.  Adequate network facilities shall be used in conjunction with TRS so that under projected
calling volume the probability of a busy response due to loop or trunk congestion shall be functionally
equivalent to what a voice caller would experience in attempting to reach a party through the voice
telephone network.
         (5) Technology.  No regulation set forth in this subpart is intended to discourage or impair the
development of improved technology that fosters the availability of telecommunications to persons with
disabilities.  VCO and HCO technology are required to be standard features of TRS.
         (c) Functional standards-(1) Enforcement.  Subject to  64.603, the Commission shall resolve any
complaint alleging a violation of this section within 180 days after the complaint is filed.
         (2) Public access to information.  Carriers, through publication in their directories, periodic billing
inserts, placement of TRS instructions in telephone directories, through directory assistance services, and
incorporation of TT numbers in telephone directories, shall assure that callers in their service areas are
aware of the availability and use of TRS.
         (3) Rates.  TRS users shall pay rates no greater than the rates paid for functionally equivalent
voice communication services with respect to such factors as the duration of the call, the time of day, and
the distance from the point of origination to the point of termination.
         (4) Jurisdictional separation of costs-(i) General.  Where appropriate, costs of providing TRS
shall be separated in accordance with the jurisdictional separation procedures and standards set forth in the
Commission's regulations adopted pursuant to section 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
         (ii) Cost recovery.  Costs caused by interstate TRS shall be recovered from all subscribers for
every interstate service, utilizing a shared funding cost recovery mechanism.  Costs caused by intrastate
TRS shall be recovered from the intrastate jurisdiction.  In a state that has a certified program under 
64.605, the state agency providing TRS shall, through the state's regulatory agency, permit a common
carrier to recover costs incurred in providing TRS by a method consistent with the requirements of this
section.
         (iii) Telecommunications Relay Services Fund.  Effective July 26, 1993, an Interstate Cost
Recovery Plan, hereinafter referred to as the TRS Fund, shall be administered by an entity selected by the
Commission (administrator).  The initial administrator, for an interim period, will be the National
Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.
         (A)  Contributions.  Every carrier providing interstate telecommunications services shall
contribute to the TRS Fund on the basis of its relative share of gross interstate revenues as described
herein.  Contributions shall be made by all carriers who provide interstate services, including, but not
limited to, cellular telephone and paging, mobile radio, operator services, personal communications service
(PCS), access (including subscriber line charges), alternative access and special access, packet-switched,
WATS, 800, 900, message telephone service (MTS), private line, telex, telegraph, video, satellite,
intraLATA, international and resale services.
         (B) Contribution computations.  Contributors' contribution to the TRS Fund shall be the
product of their subject revenues for the prior calendar year and a contribution factor determined annually
by the Commission.  The contribution factor shall be based on the ratio between expected TRS Fund
expenses to total interstate revenues.  In the event that contributions exceed TRS payments and
administrative costs, the contribution factor for the following year will be adjusted by an appropriate
amount, taking into consideration projected cost and usage changes.  In the event that contributions are
inadequate, the fund administrator may request authority from the Commission to borrow funds
commercially, with such debt secured by future years contributions.  Each subject carrier must contribute
at least $100 per year.  Service providers whose annual contributions total less than $1,200 must pay the
entire contribution at the beginning of the contribution period.  Service providers whose contributions total
$1,200 or more may divide their contributions into equal monthly payments.  Contributions shall be
calculated and filed in accordance with a "TRS Fund Worksheet," which shall be published in the Federal
Register.  The worksheet sets forth information that must be provided by the contributor, the formula for
computing the contribution, the manner of payment, and due dates for payments.  The worksheet shall be
certified to by an officer of the contributor, and subject to verification by the Commission or the
administrator at the discretion of the Commission.  Contributors' statements in the worksheet shall be
subject to the provisions of Section 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  The fund
administrator may bill contributors a separate assessment for reasonable administrative expenses and
interest resulting from improper filing or overdue contributions.
         (C) Data collection from TRS Providers.  TRS providers shall provide the administrator with
true and adequate data necessary to determine TRS fund revenue requirements and payments.  TRS
providers shall provide the administrator with the following:  total TRS minutes of use, total interstate TRS
minutes of use, total TRS operating expenses and total TRS investment in general accordance with Part 32
of the Communications Act, and other historical or projected information reasonably requested by the
administrator for purposes of computing payments and revenue requirements.  The administrator and the
Commission shall have the authority to examine, verify and audit data received from TRS providers as
necessary to assure the accuracy and integrity of fund payments.
         (D)  The TRS Fund will be subject to a yearly audit performed by an independent certified
accounting firm or the Commission, or both.
         (E) Payments to TRS Providers.  TRS Fund payments shall be distributed to TRS providers
based on formulas approved or modified by the Commission.  The administrator shall file schedules of
payment formulas with the Commission.  Such formulas shall be designed to compensate TRS providers
for reasonable costs of providing interstate TRS, and shall be subject to Commission approval.  Such
formulas shall be based on total monthly interstate TRS minutes of use.  TRS minutes of use for purposes
of interstate cost recovery under the TRS Fund are defined as the minutes of use for completed interstate
TRS calls placed through the TRS center beginning after call set-up and concluding after the last message
call unit.  In addition to the data required under (c)(4)(iii)(C) of this section, all TRS providers, including
providers who are not interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, or certified state relay providers,
must submit reports of interstate TRS minutes of use to the administrator in order to receive payments.
The administrator shall establish procedures to verify payment claims, and may suspend or delay payments
to a TRS provider if the TRS provider fails to provide adequate verification of payment upon reasonable
request, or if directed by the Commission to do so.  TRS Fund administrator shall make payments only to
eligible TRS providers operating pursuant to the mandatory minimum standards as required in  64.604,
and after disbursements to the administrator for reasonable expenses incurred by it in connection with TRS
Fund administration.  TRS providers receiving payments shall file a form prescribed by the administrator.
The administrator shall fashion a form that is consistent with Parts 32 and 36 procedures reasonably
tailored to meet the needs of TRS providers.  The Commission shall have authority to audit providers and
have access to all data, including carrier specific data, collected by the fund administrator.  The fund
administrator shall have authority to audit TRS providers reporting data to the administrator.
         (F) TRS providers eligible for receiving payments from the TRS Fund are:
         (1) TRS facilities operated under contract with and/or by certified state TRS programs
pursuant to  64.605; or
         (2) TRS facilities owned by or operated under contract with a common carrier providing
interstate services operated pursuant to  64.604; or
         (3) Interstate common carriers offering TRS pursuant to  64.604.
         (G) Any eligible TRS provider as defined in paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(F) of this section shall notify
the administrator of its intent to participate in the TRS Fund thirty (30) days prior to submitting reports of
TRS interstate minutes of use in order to receive payment settlements for interstate TRS, and failure to file
may exclude the TRS provider from eligibility for the year.
         (H) Administrator reporting, monitoring, and filing requirements.  The administrator shall
perform all filing and reporting functions required under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (J), of this
section.  Beginning in 1994, TRS payment formulas and revenue requirements shall be filed with the
Commission on October 1 of each year, to be effective for a one-year period beginning the following
January 1.  The administrator shall report annually to the Commission an itemization of monthly
administrative costs which shall consist of all expenses, receipts, and payments associated with the
administration of TRS Fund.  The administrator is required to keep the TRS Fund separate from all other
funds administered by the administrator, shall file a cost allocation manual (CAM), and shall provide the
Commission full access to all data collected pursuant to the administration of the TRS Fund.  The
administrator shall establish a non-paid, voluntary advisory committee of persons from the hearing and
speech disability community, TRS users (voice and text telephone), interstate service providers, state
representatives, and TRS providers, which will meet at reasonable intervals (at least semi-annually) in
order to monitor TRS cost recovery matters.  Each group shall select its own representative to the
committee.  The administrator's annual report shall include a discussion of advisory committee
deliberations.
         (I) Information filed with the administrator. The administrator shall keep all data obtained
from contributors and TRS providers confidential and shall not disclose such data in company-specific
form unless directed to do so by the Commission. The administrator shall not use such data except for
purposes of administering the TRS Fund, calculating the regulatory fees of interstate common carriers, and
aggregating such fee payments for submission to the Commission.  The Commission shall have access to
all data reported to the administrator, and authority to audit TRS providers.
         (J) The administrator's performance and this plan shall be reviewed by the Commission after
two years.
         (K) All parties providing services or contributions or receiving payments under this section are
subject to the enforcement provisions specified in the Communications Act, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and the Commission's rules.
         (5) Complaints-(i) Referral of complaint.  If a complaint to the Commission alleges a
violation of this subpart with respect to intrastate TRS within a state and certification of the program of
such state under  64.605 is in effect, the Commission shall refer such complaint to such state
expeditiously.
         (ii) Jurisdiction of Commission.  After referring a complaint to a state under paragraph
(c)(5)(i), or if a complaint is filed directly with a state, the Commission shall exercise jurisdiction over such
complaint only if:
         (A) final action under such state program has not been taken within:
         (1) 180 days after the complaint is filed with such state; or
         (2) a shorter period as prescribed by the regulations of such state; or
         (B) the Commission determines that such state program is no longer qualified for certification
under  64.605.
         (iii) Complaint procedures-(A) Content.  A complaint shall be in writing, addressed to the
Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau, TRS Complaints, Washington, DC
20554, or addressed to the appropriate state office, and shall contain:
         (1) the name and address of the complainant,
         (2) the name and address of the defendant against whom the complaint is made,
         (3) a complete statement of the facts, including supporting data, where available, showing that
such defendant did or omitted to do anything in contravention of this subpart, and
         (4) the relief sought.
         (B) Amended complaints. An amended complaint setting forth transactions, occurrences or
events which have happened since the filing of the original complaint and which relate to the original cause
of action may be filed with the Commission.
         (C) Number of copies.  An original and two copies of all pleadings shall be filed.
       (D) Service. (1) Except where a complaint is referred to a state pursuant to  64.604(c)(5)(i),
or where a complaint is filed directly with a state, the Commission will serve on the named party a copy of
any complaint or amended complaint filed with it, together with a notice of the filing of the complaint.
Such notice shall call upon the defendant to satisfy or answer the complaint in writing within the time
specified in said notice of complaint.
         (2) All subsequent pleadings and briefs shall be served by the filing party on all other parties
to the proceeding in accordance with the requirements of  1.47 of this chapter.  Proof of such service shall
also be made in accordance with the requirements of said section.
         (E) Answers to complaints and amended complaints.  Any party upon whom a copy of a
complaint or amended complaint is served under this subpart shall serve an answer within the time
specified by the Commission in its notice of complaint.  The answer shall advise the parties and the
Commission fully and completely of the nature of the defense and shall respond specifically to all material
allegations of the complaint.  In cases involving allegations of harm, the answer shall indicate what action
has been taken or is proposed to be taken to stop the occurrence of such harm.  Collateral or immaterial
issues shall be avoided in answers and every effort should be made to narrow the issues.  Matters alleged as
affirmative defenses shall be separately stated and numbered.  Any defendant failing to file and serve an
answer within the time and in the manner prescribed may be deemed in default.
         (F) Replies to answers or amended answers.  Within 10 days after service of an answer or an
amended answer, a complainant may file and serve a reply which shall be responsive to matters contained
in such answer or amended answer and shall not contain new matter.  Failure to reply will not be deemed
an admission of any allegation contained in such answer or amended answer.
         (G) Defective pleadings.  Any pleading filed in a complaint proceeding that is not in
substantial conformity with the requirements of the applicable rules in this subpart may be dismissed.