*Pages 1--92 from  Microsoft Word - 18853.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of  )  ) 
 Telecommunications  Relay  Services  )  CC  Docket  No.  98-  67  and  Speech-  to-  Speech  Services  for  ) 
 Individuals  with  Hearing  and  Speech  )  Disabilities  ) 


 REPORT  AND  ORDER  AND  FURTHER  NOTICE  OF  PROPOSED  RULEMAKING 
 Adopted:  February  17,  2000  Released:  March  6,  2000 
 Comment  Date:  May  5,  2000  Reply  Date:  July  5,  2000 


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


 I.  REPORT  AND  ORDER  ............................................................................................................  2  A.  INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................  2 
 B.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY..........................................................................................  5  C.  DISCUSSION  ...............................................................................................................  8 
 1.  Scope  of  TRS  ......................................................................................................  8  2.  Competition  in  Intrastate  Relay  Services........................................................  18 
 3.  Service  Quality  .................................................................................................  19  4.  Capability  of  Handling  Any  Type  of  Call  .......................................................  37 
 5.  Treatment  of  Enhanced  Services...................................................................  38  6.  Access  to  Emergency  Services  .......................................................................  43 
 7.  Outreach  ..........................................................................................................  46  8.  Enforcement  and  Certification  ......................................................................  47 
 9.  Advisory  Committee  .......................................................................................  52 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 2 
 II.  FURTHER  NOTICE  OF  PROPOSED  RULEMAKING  ..................................................  53  A.  OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................  53 
 B.  FURTHER  RULES  FOR  TRS  RELAY  SERVICE................................................  53  C.  AVAILABILITY  OF  SS7  TO  TRS  CENTERS.......................................................  54 
 D.  OUTREACH...............................................................................................................  56  E.  TECHNOLOGIES,  FEATURES  AND  SERVICES  ...............................................  57 
 F.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS  .....................................................................................  61 


 III.  ORDERING  CLAUSES  ......................................................................................................  62 
 APPENDIX  A:  List  of  Parties....................................................................................................  64 
 APPENDIX  B:  Final  Rules...........................................................................................................  68 
 APPENDIX  C:  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  and  Paperwork  Reduction  Analyses  ..............  81 
 APPENDIX  D:  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  .............................................................  86 
 APPENDIX  D:  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  .............................................................  86 


 I.  REPORT  AND  ORDER 
 A.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  With  this  Order,  we  amend  the  rules  governing  the  delivery  of  telecommunications  relay  services  to  expand  the  kinds  of  relay  services  available  to  consumers 
 and  to  improve  the  quality  of  relay  services,  based  on  our  ten  years  of  experience  with  Telecommunications  Relay  Service  (TRS)  and  changes  in  available  technologies.  Title  IV  of  the 
 Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  of  1990  (ADA),  which  is  codified  at  section  225  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (  Communications  Act),  requires  the  Commission  to 
 ensure  that  TRS  is  available,  to  the  extent  possible  and  in  the  most  efficient  manner,  to  individuals  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  in  the  United  States.  1  Section  225  defines  relay 


 1  Pub.  L.  No.  101-  336,    401,  104  Stat.  327,  366-  69  (1990)  (adding  section  225  to  the  Communications  Act  of 
 1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    225). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 3 
 service  to  be  a  telephone  transmission  service  that  provides  the  ability  for  an  individual  with  a  hearing  or  speech  disability  to  engage  in  communication  by  wire  or  radio  with  a  hearing 
 individual  in  a  manner  functionally  equivalent  to  someone  without  such  a  disability.  2  Section  225  requires  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  interstate  and  intrastate  relay  services  are  available 
 throughout  the  country  and  to  establish  regulations  to  ensure  the  quality  of  relay  service.  3  To  fulfill  this  mandate,  the  Commission  first  issued  rules  in  1991.  4  TRS  has  been  available  on  a 
 uniform,  nationwide  basis  since  July  26,  1993.  5 
 2.  TRS  enables  persons  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  to  communicate  by  telephone  with  persons  who  may  or  may  not  have  such  disabilities.  6  Today,  TRS  facilities  have 
 special  equipment  and  are  staffed  by  communications  assistants  (CAs)  who  relay  conversations  between  people  who  use  text  telecommunications  devices  and  people  who  communicate  by  voice. 
 The  caller  can  use  a  text  telephone  (TTY)  to  dial  the  telephone  number  of  the  local  TRS  center.  7  For  the  TTY  user,  this  first  step  -  the  inbound  call  to  the  TRS  center  -  is  functionally  equivalent  to 
 receiving  a  dial  tone.  The  CA  in  turn  places  an  outbound  voice  call  from  the  TRS  center  to  the  called  party.  The  CA  serves  as  the  link  in  the  conversation,  converting  all  typed  TTY  messages 
 from  the  TTY  caller  into  voice  messages,  and  all  voice  messages  from  the  called  party  into  typed  messages  for  the  TTY  user.  The  process  is  performed  in  reverse  when  a  voice  telephone  user 
 initiates  the  call  to  a  TTY  user.  This  form  of  TTY-  based  TRS  provides  a  valuable  link  between  TTY  users  and  users  of  conventional  voice  telephones.  However,  concerns  about  the  quality  of 
 these  TTY-  based  relay  services  have  grown  over  the  past  ten  years.  Additionally,  these  relay 


 2  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  a)(  3). 
 3  Id.  at    225(  b). 
 4  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604;  Telecommunications  Services  for  Individuals  with  Hearing  and  Speech  Disabilities,  and 
 the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  of  1990,  CC  Docket  No.  90-  571,  Report  and  Order  and  Request  for  Comments,  6  FCC  Rcd  4657  (1991)(  First  Report  and  Order). 


 5  Under  section  225,  common  carriers  providing  telephone  voice  transmission  services  were  required  to  begin 
 providing  TRS,  throughout  the  areas  they  served,  as  of  July  26,  1993.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  c).  Prior  to  this  time,  some  states  offered  relay  services,  but  the  services  offered  differed  from  state  to  state,  and  were  subject  to  many  limitations. 


 See  Strauss,  Title  IV  -  Telecommunications,  in  Implementing  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  at  156-  158  (Gostin  &  Beyer  ed.  1993). 


 6  47  C.  F.  R.    64.601  (5),  (7). 
 7  Individual  states  have  their  own  TRS  access  numbers  (usually  toll-  free  numbers).  In  addition,  some  state  TRS 
 programs  have  separate  numbers  for  voice  and  TTY  access.  Some  states  provide  access  to  TRS  through  an  abbreviated  dialing  arrangement  by  dialing  711.  In  addition  to  dialing  their  state  TRS  access  numbers  for  both  inter-  and  intrastate 


 relay  calls,  TRS  users  may  also  dial  a  toll-  free  number  to  reach  alternative  providers  of  interstate  service. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 4 
 services  do  not  address  the  telecommunications  needs  of  individuals  with  other  types  of  communication  disabilities.  This  Order  is  intended  to  improve  the  quality  of  traditional  relay 
 services  and  lead  to  the  widespread  establishment  of  new  types  of  relay  services.  As  a  result,  many  Americans  who  currently  have  limited  or  no  practical  access  to  telecommunications  networks  will 
 have  service  that  is  functionally  equivalent  to  the  access  enjoyed  by  Americans  without  disabilities. 
 3.  While  the  statutory  obligation  to  deliver  relay  services  falls  to  common  carriers,  the  law  gives  states  a  strong  role  by  considering  carriers  to  be  in  compliance  with  this  obligation  if  they 
 operate  in  a  state  that  has  a  relay  program  certified  as  compliant  by  this  Commission.  8  All  states  have  certified  programs  today.  In  general,  a  state  administrator,  or  a  statewide  trade  association  of 
 common  carriers,  contracts  with  a  relay  provider  for  relay  services  for  their  state.  The  costs  of  intrastate  relay  services  are  recovered  from  the  states  intrastate  TRS  fund,  to  which  all  intrastate 
 carriers  contribute  in  some  manner.  Similarly,  the  costs  of  interstate  relay  service  are  recovered  from  the  interstate  TRS  Fund,  to  which  all  interstate  carriers  contribute. 


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


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


 6.  According  to  the  U.  S.  Census  Bureau  1992  Survey  of  Income  and  Program  Participation,  10.9  million  Americans  have  a  functional  limitation  in  "[  h]  earing  what  is  said  in  a 


 8  47  U.  S.  C.    225  (a),  (c). 
 9  Prevalence  of  selected  chronic  conditions:  United  States,  1990-  1992.  National  Center  for  Health  Statistics. 
 Vital  Health  Stat.  10(  194),  1997. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 5 
 normal  conversation"  and  2.3  million  have  a  functional  limitation  in  "[  h]  aving  one's  speech  understood."  10 
 7.  TRS  is  a  critical  tool  for  employment.  If  people  with  hearing  or  speech  disabilities  cannot  communicate  by  telephone,  their  ability  to  compete  and  succeed  in  todays  job  market  is 
 threatened.  Being  able  to  place  a  phone  call  to  a  prospective  employer,  to  answer  an  advertisement  for  a  job,  to  receive  training,  and  to  advance  one's  career  through  formal  and  informal  networks 
 depends  largely  on  ones  ability  to  communicate  with  many  different  individuals  and  entities.  11  Improving  the  quality  of  TRS  will  enhance  employment  opportunities  for  people  with  hearing  and 
 speech  disabilities  and  may  contribute  to  a  decrease  in  their  unemployment  rate.  According  to  recent  statistics  on  employment  of  persons  with  disabilities,  there  are  significant  differences  between 
 working-  age  Americans  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  and  those  without  disabilities.  12  While  82.1  percent  of  the  general  working  age  population  (ages  21-  64)  is  employed,  only  52.3  percent  of 
 all  people  with  disabilities  are  employed.  13  This  figure  includes  persons  who  have  difficulty  performing  functional  activities,  such  as  hearing  or  having  their  speech  understood.  14  Among  those 
 with  severe  disabilities,  15  only  26.1  percent  are  employed.  16 
 8.  Today,  we  adopt  rules  that  will  greatly  improve  the  quality  of  TRS.  These  rules  fulfill  section  225s  mandate  by  increasing  the  availability  and  usefulness  of  the  telecommunications 
 system  for  Americans  with  speech  and  hearing  disabilities. 
 B.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 


 10  Presidents  Committee  on  Employment  of  People  with  Disabilities  Comments  at  4. 
 11  Id. 
 12  Id. 
 13  Id. 
 14  Id. 
 15  Id.  Severe  disability  is  defined  by  the  U.  S.  Census  survey  to  mean  someone  who  is  unable  to  perform  one 
 or  more  activities  of  daily  living,  or  has  one  or  more  specific  impairments,  and  may  include  persons  with  one  or  more  specific  impairments  such  as  inability  to  speak  or  hear. 


 16  Id. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 6 
 9.  In  January  1997,  we  released  a  Notice  of  Inquiry  (NOI)  on  the  quality  of  TRS  service.  17  Based  on  the  record  developed  in  the  NOI,  the  Commission  released  a  Notice  of 
 Proposed  Rulemaking  (Notice)  18  that  proposed  rules  to  enhance  the  quality  of  telecommunications  relay  service.  In  response,  the  Commission  received  numerous  suggestions 
 on  ways  to  improve  TRS.  After  considering  the  many  comments  received,  by  this  Order,  we: 
   find  that  the  statutory  definition  of  telecommunications  relay  services  is  not  limited  to  relay  services  using  a  TTY,  and  includes  STS,  VRI  and  non-  English  language  relay 
 services; 
   require  that  common  carriers  provide  STS  and  interstate  Spanish  relay  services  by  March  1,  2001; 


   do  not  require  VRI,  but  encourages  it  by  permitting  the  recovery  of  the  costs  of  both  intrastate  and  interstate  VRI  calls  from  the  interstate  TRS  Fund; 
   require  that  all  relay  services,  whether  mandatory  or  voluntary,  funded  by  intrastate  and  interstate  TRS  Funds  must  comply  with  minimum  service  quality  standards;  and  modifies 
 the  rules  to  accommodate  STS  and  VRI  service; 
   modify  the  speed  of  answer  requirement  so  that  consumers  will  reach  a  communications  assistant  more  quickly; 


   impose  a  minimum  typing  speed  of  60  wpm  for  CAs  in  order  to  speed  the  transmission  of  calls  using  TTYs; 
   amend  the  rules  to  minimize  disruption  during  relay  calls  by  establishing  a  minimum  time  that  a  CA  must  stay  with  a  call; 
   amend  the  rules  to  permit  an  STS  CA,  at  the  request  of  the  STS  user,  to  retain  information  beyond  the  duration  of  a  call  in  order  to  facilitate  the  completion  of 
 consecutive  calls; 


 17  Telecommunications  Relay  Services,  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  of  1990,  and  the 
 Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  CC  Docket  No.  90-  571,  Notice  of  Inquiry,  12  FCC  Rcd  1152  (1997)(  NOI). 
 18  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  and  Speech-  to-  Speech  Services  for  Individuals  with  Hearing  and 
 Speech  Disabilities,  CC  Docket  No.  98-  67,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  13  FCC  Rcd  14187  (1998)(  Notice). 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 7 
   permit  the  STS  CA  to  facilitate  a  call  for  a  user  with  a  speech  disability  so  long  as  the  CA  does  not  interfere  with  the  independence  of  the  user,  the  user  maintains  control  of  the 
 conversation,  and  the  user  does  not  object; 
   require  that  relay  providers  offer  STS  users  the  option  to  maintain  at  the  relay  center  a  list  of  frequently  called  names  and  telephone  numbers; 


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


   require  TRS  providers  to  automatically  and  immediately  transfer  emergency  calls  to  the  appropriate  911  operator  and  relay  the  callers  number  to  the  operator  orally; 
   clarify  that  the  existing  rule  requires  outreach  to  all  callers  and  for  all  forms  of  TRS; 
   conclude  that  section  225  by  its  terms  does  not  prohibit  us  from  requiring  relay  services  to  accommodate  enhanced  or  information  services; 


   require  relay  service  to  accommodate  interactive  menus  and  other  recorded  messages  by  requiring  CAs  to  alert  the  user  to  the  presence  of  a  recorded  message  through  a  hot  key 
 on  the  CAs  terminal,  and  to  record  recorded  messages; 
   require  relay  service  to  include  the  ability  to  make  pay-  per-  call  calls; 
   require  states  to  notify  the  Commission  about  substantive  changes  in  their  TRS  programs  within  60  days  of  when  they  occur; 


   require  states  and  providers  to  submit  to  the  Commission  a  contact  person  or  office  for  filing  consumer  complaints,  to  be  posted  on  the  Commissions  web  site; 
   adopt  the  Commissions  informal  complaint  process  for  TRS  complaints;  and 
   require  state  programs  and  interstate  TRS  providers  to  maintain  a  log  of  consumer  complaints  that  allege  a  violation  of  the  minimum  standards  and  annually  report  to  the 
 FCC  the  number  of  complaints  received. 
 10.  In  the  Further  Notice,  we  seek  comment  on: 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 8 
   the  establishment  of  a  national  education  campaign  to  increase  awareness  of  TRS  among  all  callers,  not  just  those  with  disabilities; 
   whether  there  should  be  a  separate,  nationwide  800  number  for  STS  relay  service;  and 
   whether  TRS  providers  should  have  access  to  SS7  technology  in  order  to  better  handle  emergency  calls,  be  compatible  with  Caller  ID  and  more  efficiently  bill  for  and  deliver 
 relay  services. 
 C.  DISCUSSION 
 1.  Scope  of  TRS 
 a.  Definition 
 11.  Background.  Section  225  and  the  Commission's  rules  define  telecommunications  relay  service  as: 


 [t]  elephone  transmission  services  that  provide  the  ability  for  an  individual  who  has  a  hearing  impairment  or  speech  impairment  to  engage  in  communication  by  wire  or  radio  with  a 
 hearing  individual  in  a  manner  that  is  functionally  equivalent  to  the  ability  of  an  individual  who  does  not  have  a  hearing  impairment  or  speech  impairment  to  communicate  using  voice 
 communication  services  by  wire  or  radio.  Such  term  includes  services  that  enable  two-  way  communication  between  an  individual  who  uses  a  TDD  [text  telephone  device]  or  other 
 nonvoice  terminal  device  and  an  individual  who  does  not  use  such  a  device.  19 
 12.  Until  now,  the  Commission  has  found  only  services  involving  TTY-  to-  speech  and  speech-  to-  TTY  to  be  TRS.  20  We  tentatively  concluded  in  the  Notice  that  telecommunications 
 relay  service  includes  any  wire  or  radio  communications  service  that  enables  persons  with  hearing  or  speech  disabilities  to  use  the  communications  network  to  communicate  with  others, 
 and  is  not  limited  to  services  using  TTYs.  21 


 19  47  U.  S.  C    225(  a)(  3);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.601(  7). 
 20  The  Commissions  rules  currently  contain  minimum  standards  only  for  TTY-  based  TRS.  See  Section  64.604 
 of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604  (  Mandatory  minimum  standards). 
 21  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14193. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 9 
 13.  Discussion.  We  adopt  our  tentative  conclusion  that  TRS  is  not  limited  to  services  using  TTYs.  Our  tentative  conclusion  was  unopposed  by  commenters.  The  language  of  the 
 statute  fully  supports  this  interpretation.  22  While  the  statute  refers  explicitly  to  text  telephones,  that  reference  is  merely  illustrative,  and  not  exhaustive,  of  the  kind  of  services  that  are  included 
 in  TRS.  23  The  first  sentence  of  section  225(  a)(  3)  by  its  express  terms  applies  broadly  to  any  communication  by  wire  or  radio.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  second  sentence,  providing  for 
 inclusion  of  TTY  services  as  TRS,  fairly  can  be  viewed  as  narrowing  the  generic  definition  set  forth  in  the  preceding  sentence.  Rather,  the  term  includes,  by  its  very  nature,  indicates  that 
 any  designations  following  that  word  are  illustrative,  rather  than  a  comprehensive  list  of  all  types  of  TRS.  24  Because  the  purpose  of  section  225  is  to  give  people  with  hearing  or  speech 
 disabilities  access  to  the  telephone  network,  and  because  Congress  realized  that  to  fully  participate  in  society  one  must  be  able  to  call  friends,  family,  businesses  and  employers,  section 
 225  must  be  read  to  apply  to  any  service  that  allows  individuals  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  to  communicate  by  wire  or  radio.  25  While  we  do  not  establish  a  single,  formal 
 process  for  determining  if  new  types  of  service  fit  the  statutory  definition  of  TRS,  we  do  consider  the  individual  services  that  are  currently  before  us.  As  new  services  develop,  parties 
 may  petition  us  for  a  determination  as  to  whether  a  service  falls  within  the  definition  of  telecommunications  relay  service. 


 b.  Speech-  to-  Speech  Relay  Service 


 22  See  AIM  Comments  at  1;  Dr.  Blackstone  Comments  at  1;  CPUC  Comments  at  2;  Ms.  Davis  Comments  at  1; 
 Mr.  Fleming  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Ladew  Comments  at  1;  MCI  Comments  at  2;  the  President's  Committee  Comments  at  4;  Dr.  Ratcliff  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Shipley  Comments  at  1;  ULS  Comments  at  1;  COR  Reply  at  4;  TDI  Reply  at  4;  Mr. 


 Travers  Reply  at  1;  Wynd  Reply  at  1.  But  see  SBC  Comments  at  4  (questions  the  Commission's  expansion  of  TRS  to  include  a  category  for  "improved"  services;  claims  this  is  not  supported  by  the  Act  or  regulations). 


 23  See  Dr.  Blackstone  Comments  at  1;  Mr.  Fleming  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Ladew  Comments  at  1;  Dr.  Ratcliff 
 Comments  at  1;  Dr.  Segalman  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Keller  Reply  at  1-  2.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  asked  that  comments  and  reply  comments  from  the  public  be  filed  by  July  20,  1998  and  September  14,  1998,  respectively.  As  a 


 member  of  the  public,  Dr.  Segalman  filed  comments  on  July  19,  1998  and  reply  comments  on  September  5,  1998.  From  January  1  through  June  of  1999,  Dr.  Segalman  served  the  Commission  as  a  part-  time  detailee  under  the  provisions  of  the 
 Intergovernmental  Personnel  Act  (5  U.  S.  C.    3371,  et  seq.).  During  that  period,  he  advised  the  Common  Carrier  Bureau  on  technical  and  training  issues  related  to  STS  relay. 


 24  Webster  defines  includes  as  to  take  in  or  comprise  as  part  of  a  whole.  Websters  Ninth  New  Collegiate 
 Dictionary,  1991. 
 25  See  University  Legal  Services  (ULS)  Comments  at  2. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 10 
 14.  Background.  Speech-  to-  speech  relay  service,  or  STS,  involves  the  use  of  specially  trained  CAs  who  understand  the  speech  patterns  of  persons  with  speech  disabilities  and 
 can  repeat  the  words  spoken.  We  tentatively  concluded  in  the  Notice  that  STS  falls  within  the  definition  of  TRS.  26  We  also  tentatively  concluded  that  all  common  carriers  providing  voice 
 transmission  services  must  ensure  that  STS  services  are  available  to  callers  with  speech  disabilities  throughout  their  service  areas  within  two  years  of  the  publication  in  the  Federal 
 Register  of  this  Report  and  Order.  27  The  availability  of  STS  gives  persons  with  certain  speech  disabilities  an  efficient  alternative  to  using  a  TTY,  which  requires  the  purchase  and  use  of  TTY 
 hardware  and  which  also  can  be  a  cumbersome  form  of  conversation  given  the  typing  involved.  We  also  noted  that  TRS  providers  would  have  an  opportunity  to  formulate  the  most  cost-effective 
 basis  on  which  STS  service  can  be  provided  (i.  e.,  by  coordinating  or  centralizing  the  service  in  regional  speech-  to-  speech  centers,  rather  than  by  attempting  to  provide  independent 
 services  on  a  state-  by-  state  basis).  28 
 15.  Discussion.  We  find  that  STS  services  fall  within  the  scope  of  section  225's  definition  of  "telecommunications  relay  services"  as  a  telephone  transmission  service  that 
 enables  an  individual  who  has  a  speech  disability  to  communicate  by  wire  or  radio  in  a  manner  that  is  functionally  equivalent  to  the  ability  of  a  person  who  does  not  have  a  speech  disability  to 
 communicate  using  voice  communication  services  by  wire  or  radio.  29  We  adopt  our  tentative  conclusion  that  all  common  carriers  must  provide  STS  relay  services  for  callers  with  speech 
 disabilities  throughout  their  service  areas.  The  majority  of  the  commenters,  including  TRS  providers,  GTE,  MCI,  and  Sprint,  support  this  conclusion.  30 


 26  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14193. 
 27  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  a)(  3). 
 28  Id. 
 29  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14196. 
 30  See  AIM  Comments  at  1;  American  Speech-  Language-  Hearing  Association  (ASHA)  Comments  at  2;  Dr. 
 Blackstone  Comments  at  1;  CPUC  Comments  at  2;  Ms.  Davis  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Fairman  Comments  at  1;  Mr.  Fleming  Comments  at  1;  GTE  Comments  at  4;  Dr.  Gurdin  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Ladew  Comments  at  1;  Maryland 


 Comments  at  2;  MCI  Comments  at  3;  Missouri  Comments  at  2;  National  Association  of  the  Deaf  and  the  Consumer  Action  Network  (NAD/  CAN)  Comments  at  4;  NCOD  Comments  at  1;  NVRC  Comments  at  1;  the  President's  Committee 
 Comments  at  5;  Dr.  Ratcliff  Comments  at  1;  Dr.  Segalman  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Shipley  Comments  at  1;  Sprint  Comments  at  5;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  2;  Telecommunications  for  the  Deaf,  Inc.  (TDI)  Comments  at  9-  10;  Self  Help 
 for  Hard  of  Hearing  People,  Inc.  (SHHH)  Comments  at  2-  3;  UCPA  Comments  at  2;  ULS  Comments  at  3-  4;  Mr.  Behnke  Reply  at  1;  COR  Reply  at  6;  Ms.  Curtis  Reply  at  1;  Mr.  Goldstein  Reply  at  1;  Ms.  Hoye  Reply  at  1;  Mr.  Kemp  Reply  at  1; 
 Mr.  Klibanow  Reply  at  1;  Ms.  Laughlin  Reply  at  1;  Mr.  Miller  Reply  at  1;  Ms.  Moore  Reply  at  1;  Dr.  Pray  Reply  at  1;  Mr.  Slay  Reply  at  1;  Ms.  Treece  Reply  at  1;  Mr.  Treece-  Sinclair  Reply  at  1;  Tri-  County  GLAD  Reply  at  1;  UCPP  Reply 
 at  1. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 11 
 16.  As  one  commenter  notes,  "STS  will  help  break  the  insularity  barriers  that  confine  members  of  the  community  of  people  with  speech  disabilities  and  offer  them  opportunities  for 
 education,  employment,  and  other,  more  intangible  benefits  (freedom,  joy,  self-  reliance)  that  are  concomitant  with  independence."  31  Further,  as  GTE  asserts,  STS  services  will  aid  those  with 
 hearing  or  speech  disabilities  that  also  have  physical  disabilities  that  make  the  use  of  a  TTY  difficult  or  impossible.  32  In  addition,  we  anticipate  that  the  provision  of  STS  will  enhance  the 
 user's  employment  and  educational  opportunities  and  reduce  the  frustration  experienced  by  individuals  with  speech  disabilities  when  they  cannot  be  understood  on  the  phone  and  when 
 others  do  not  take  time  to  communicate  with  them.  33  As  one  party  observes,  "STS  provides  an  optional  and  effective  communications  bridge  to  employment  options  and  opportunities  for 
 persons  with  speech  disabilities  who  may  experience  significant  disconnections  and  poor  service  response  when  placing  calls  via  routine  telephony."  34 


 17.  A  number  of  commenters  writing  during  the  comment  period  in  early  fall  of  1998  support  the  Commissions  proposal  to  implement  STS  two  years  after  the  publication  of  the  rules 
 in  the  Federal  Register.  35  Some  commenters  argue  for  a  longer  period.  36  A  number  of  commenters,  however,  believe  that  more  than  enough  time  has  passed  without  an  STS 
 requirement  and  urge  the  Commission  to  require  STS  within  six  months,  with  due  haste,  or  within  one  year.  37  For  example,  one  commenter  notes  that  two  years  is  too  long,  that  vendors 
 with  STS  capability  should  start  providing  STS  within  six  months;  and  that  where  the  vendor  does  not,  the  TRS  provider  should  contract  with  another  provider  immediately.  38  Given  that 


 31  See  Ms.  Keller  Reply  at  4. 
 32  See  GTE  Comments  at  4. 
 33  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14196-  97;  ULS  Comments  at  3-  4. 
 34  See  President's  Committee  Comments  at  6. 
 35  COR  Comments  at  6;  TDI  Comments  at  6. 
 36  See  Ameritech  Comments  at  3-  4  (extend  deadline  to  three  years;  FPSC  Comments  at  2  (implementation 
 should  coincide  with  current  contract  renewal  dates);  GTE  Comments  at  6  (schedule  implementation  based  on  states'  ability  to  provide  funding);  SBC  Comments  at  5  (if  mandatory  STS,  extend  implementation  to  at  least  five  years). 


 37  See  Ms.  Andrews  Comments  at  2  (implement  with  "due  haste");  Mr.  Nelson  Reply  at  2  (require  within  six 
 months);  Sprint  Reply  at  4  (reduce  implementation  to  one  year). 
 38  David  Nelson  Reply  Comments  at  1-  2. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 12 
 more  than  two  years  have  passed  since  we  adopted  the  Notice,  we  agree  with  commenters  that  waiting  another  two  years  to  require  STS  is  unnecessary  and  would  not  result  in  bringing  people 
 with  disabilities  functionally  equivalent  service  in  an  efficient  manner.  Implementation  of  STS  does  not  require  new  equipment.  We  believe  that  one  additional  year  will  be  adequate  for 
 providers  to  train  personnel  to  deliver  STS  services.  Parties  claiming  they  need  a  ramp-  up  period  can  use  the  time  prior  to  the  deadline  to  ensure  sufficient  staffing  is  available  in  the  STS 
 centers.  Ten  states  are  already  providing  STS,  and  therefore  presumably  already  have  qualified  personnel.  39  Moreover,  we  expect,  most  STS  service  will  be  provided  through  regional  centers, 
 thus  reducing  the  total  number  of  qualified  individuals  necessary  to  handle  the  expected  demand.  We  therefore  require  that  STS  be  provided  by  March  1,  2001. 


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


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


 39  States  currently  offering  STS  include  Arizona,  California,  Georgia,  Illinois,  Maryland,  Minnesota, 
 Nevada,  South  Carolina,  Washington  and  Wisconsin.  States  that  plan  to  offer  STS  in  the  near  future  include  North  Carolina  and  Texas. 
 40  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  4-  5;  Bell  Atlantic  Comments  at  3-  4;  IPUC  Comments  at  4-  5;  SBC  Reply  at  3. 


 41  See  TDI  Reply  at  5. 
 42  See  CPUCs  DDTP  Comments  at  2. 
 43  See  AIM  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Keller  Reply  at  4. 
 44  See  Sprint  Reply  at  2. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 13 
 20.  As  suggested  by  numerous  commenters,  we  encourage  states  to  consider  offering  the  service  through  regional  or  national  centers.  Maryland  indicates  that  its  STS  calls,  currently 
 totaling  less  than  1%  of  TRS  calls,  are  handled  effectively  through  a  regional  center  and  that  the  creation  of  regional  centers  is  the  most  cost  effective  method  to  provide  STS.  45  ASHA  suggests 
 that  STS  services  should  be  provided  in  national  or  regional  centers,  accessible  by  a  toll-  free  number,  so  that  CAs  can  be  "concentrated  and  counseled"  by  experts.  46 


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


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


 45  See  Maryland  Comments  at  2-  3. 
 46  See  ASHA  Comments  at  6. 
 47  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14201. 
 48  Id.  at  14200. 
 49  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  a)(  3). 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 14 
 23.  While  we  disagree  with  those  commenters  who  argue  that  we  should  require  VRI,  50  we  agree  with  commenters  who  argue  that  VRI  will  make  relay  services  functionally 
 equivalent  to  conventional  telephone  services  for  individuals  whose  first  language  is  American  Sign  Language.  51  We  do,  however,  share  the  concerns  of  those  parties  that  argue  that  there  are 
 technological  uncertainties  that  make  a  mandatory  requirement  for  VRI  premature.  52  VRI  is  under  development  using  a  number  of  equipment  configurations  and  there  may  be  unresolved 
 issues  of  compatibility  between  the  relay  centers  equipment  and  the  callers  equipment.  VRI  cannot  be  utilized  by  simply  dialing  a  number  from  the  telephone.  One  VRI  equipment 
 configuration,  for  example,  involves  the  use  of  personal  computer  and  videoconferencing  equipment  along  with  access  to  broadband  transmission  services.  We  are  concerned  that 
 mandating  VRI  on  a  widespread  basis  at  this  early  stage  in  its  technological  development  could  stymie  experimentation  with  different  technologies.  We  believe  that  allowing  experimentation 
 will  result  in  better  VRI,  and  therefore  complies  with  the  statutory  mandate  that  TRS  services  are  to  be  provided  to  "the  extent  possible"  and  in  the  "most  efficient  manner."  53  We  believe  that  the 
 approach  we  take  here  permits  market  forces,  not  the  Commission,  to  determine  the  technology  and  equipment  best  suited  for  the  provision  of  VRI,  and  allows  for  the  development  of  new  and 
 improved  technology. 
 24.  We  recognize  the  enormous  potential  VRI  holds  for  consumers.  In  order  to  encourage  this  new  technology,  as  is  our  statutory  mandate,  and  in  recognition  of  concerns  about 
 the  costs  of  the  service  and  the  potentially  inadequate  supply  of  qualified  interpreters,  54  we  intend  to  establish  special  funding  arrangements  for  VRI  to  speed  its  development.  During  the 
 development  of  this  new  relay  service,  we  will  permit  recovery  of  costs  associated  with  both  intrastate  and  interstate  calls  from  the  interstate  TRS  Fund.  Because  there  are  relay  centers 
 currently  providing  VRI  or  planning  to  provide  it  in  the  near  future,  55  our  approach  has  the 
 50  See  the  Federation  Comments  at  2;  MATP  Comments  at  2  (should  require  VRI  in  two  year  plan  proposed  for 
 STS);  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  5-  8  (VRI  should  be  phased  in,  rather  than  immediately  deployed);  NVRC  Comments  at  1  (support  phasing  in  of  VRI  immediately  and  supporting  it  24  hours  per  day);  TDI  Comments  at  6-  7;  Mr.  Nelson  Reply  at 


 2  (mandate  VRI  within  two  years). 
 51  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  5  (citing  NOI  Reply  Comments  of  NAD  at  7  (citing  Comments  of 
 Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company  at  5-  6;  GTE  at  9-  10;  Kansas  Relay  Service,  Inc.  at  4;  MCI  at  4)). 
 52  See,  e.  g.,  Ameritech  Comments  at  4,  GTE  Comments  at  7;  Sprint  Comments  at  9. 


 53  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  b)(  1). 
 54  See,  e.  g.,  Ameritech  Comments  at  4,  GTE  Comments  at  7;  Sprint  Comments  at  9. 
 55  David  Nelson  Reply  Comments  at  2. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 15 
 potential  to  quickly  give  all  consumers  who  can  access  it  the  benefit  of  video  relay  service.  We  also  believe  our  approach  will  reduce  costs  and  spur  industry  and  consumer  investment  in  the 
 equipment  and  technologies  necessary  to  use  VRI,  without  burdening  state  relay  programs  or  engendering  any  of  the  risks  associated  with  mandating  the  use  of  equipment  that  has  not  been 
 fully  tested  in  the  market  place.  56 
 25.  Given  that  demand  for  VRI  will  be  low  initially,  because  the  service  is  in  its  infancy,  we  believe  it  makes  sense  to  aggregate  demand  as  much  as  possible  to  those  centers 
 interested  in  offering  VRI.  It  is  not  efficient  to  have  relay  interpreters  associated  with  one  state  or  an  interstate  relay  center  with  down  time  while  there  are  people  throughout  the  country  who 
 want  to  make  calls  through  VRI  but  cannot  because  of  the  jurisdictional  cost  recovery  rules. 
 26.  The  statute  permits  this  action.  Section  225(  d)(  3)  states  that  the  Commissions  regulations  shall  generally  provide  that  costs  caused  by  interstate  telecommunications  relay 
 services  shall  be  recovered  from  all  subscribers  for  every  interstate  service  and  costs  caused  by  intrastate  telecommunications  relay  services  shall  be  recovered  from  the  intrastate  jurisdiction 
 (emphasis  added).  57  We  believe  the  word  generally  gives  to  the  Commission  some  discretion  to  fund  intrastate  service  from  the  interstate  jurisdiction.  We  believe  that  our  action,  intended  as 
 an  interim  arrangement,  is  an  appropriate  exercise  of  this  discretion.  First,  VRI  is  necessary  to  provide  many  people  with  disabilities  relay  service  that  is  functionally  equivalent  to  voice 
 communications.  Second,  this  action  is  consistent  with  our  statutory  mandate  to  encourage  the  use  of  existing  technology  and  not  to  discourage  or  impair  the  development  of  improved 
 technology  in  the  delivery  of  relay  services.  58  Third,  it  allows  us  to  asses  demand  and  let  market  forces  determine  the  technologies  of  choice  for  delivery  of  VRI,  while  not  depriving  any 
 consumer  who  is  willing  to  invest  in  new  technologies  the  ability  to  make  any  call,  not  just  an  interstate  call.  We  believe  that  this  temporary  cost  recovery  scheme  will  help  to  ensure  that  any 
 consumer  who  has  invested  in  the  necessary  video  equipment  and  broadband  services  will  be  able  to  use  VRI  to  call  his  own  doctor  locally,  as  well  as  make  long  distance  calls  that  may  not 
 be  as  critical  to  his  well-  being. 
 27.  This  funding  scheme  is  a  temporary  arrangement.  When  VRI  develops  to  the  point  where  it  can  be  required,  as  we  expect  it  will,  we  intend  to  revert  to  the  traditional  cost 
 recovery  mechanism.  We  will  not  establish  a  particular  date  for  that  transition.  Instead,  we  will 


 56  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  7. 
 57  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  d)(  3). 
 58  Id.  at    225(  c)(  2). 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 16 
 continue  to  assess  the  availability  of  the  service  and  its  technological  development  and  determine  at  some  point  in  the  future  when  it  best  can  be  funded  in  the  traditional  manner. 
 d.  Non-  English  Language  Relay  Services 
 28.  Background.  Non-  English  language  relay  services  59  allow  persons  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  who  use  languages  other  than  English  to  communicate  with  voice 
 telephone  users  in  a  shared  language  other  than  English,  through  a  CA  who  is  fluent  in  that  language.  In  the  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  such  services  are  "telecommunications 
 relay  services"  as  defined  in  section  225. 
 29.  Discussion.  As  is  supported  by  a  number  of  commenters,  we  find  that  any  non-English  language  relay  services  which  relay  conversations  in  a  shared  language  are 
 telecommunications  relay  services,  and  therefore  can  be  reimbursed  from  the  relay  funds.  In  addition,  we  will  require  interstate  common  carriers  to  provide  interstate  Spanish  relay  service 
 by  March  1,  2001.  60 
 30.  Just  as  the  voice  telephone  network  allows  for  a  Spanish  speaking  user  to  call  a  parent  and  speak  in  Spanish,  TRS  users  should  have  the  same  functional  equivalency.  As  this 
 Commission  has  previously  noted,  Spanish  is  the  most  widely  spoken  non-  English  language  in  the  United  States.  The  number  of  Spanish  speaking  persons  is  significantly  larger  than  any  other 
 non-  English  speaking  population  and  is  rapidly  growing.  61  We  believe  this  warrants  the  availability  of  interstate  Spanish  relay  service.  Both  intrastate  and  interstate  Spanish  relay 
 service  is  available  in  18  states  that  have  recognized  the  need  for  Spanish  language  relay  service.  We  decline  to  decide  at  this  time  whether  other  forms  of  non-  English  TRS  will  be  mandated. 
 While  we  are  mandating  only  interstate  Spanish  relay  service,  we  find  that  any  non-  English  language  relay  service  provided  by  an  interstate  relay  provider  is  reimbursable  from  the 
 interstate  TRS  Fund. 
 31.  We  are  not  requiring  each  state  to  offer  intrastate  Spanish,  or  any  other  non-English  language,  relay  services.  The  need  for  non-  English  relay  services  varies  greatly  by  state 


 59  We  referred  to  these  as  multilingual  relay  services  (MRS)  in  the  Notice. 
 60  See,  e.  g.,  UCPA  Comments  at  2  (Commission  should  mandate  multilingual  relay  service  while  giving  TRS 
 administrators  the  authority  to  decide  the  various  languages  offered  depending  on  state  needs  and  population  demographics). 


 61  In  the  Matter  of  Closed  Captioning  and  Video  Description  of  Video  Programming,  Order  on  Reconsideration, 
 13  FCC  Rcd  19973,  20015  (1998)  . 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 17 
 and  is  best  left  to  the  discretion  of  each  state.  We  do,  as  recommended  by  commenters,  urge  states  to  continue  to  be  sensitive  to  changes  in  local  demographics  that  may  warrant  the  addition 
 of  non-  English  relay  services.  62  We  agree  with  the  commenter  who  notes  that,  should  states  fail  to  act  when  the  need  arises,  there  will  be  an  adverse  effect  on  the  personal  and  economic  well-being 
 of  individuals  who  speak  a  language  other  than  English,  making  employment  and  education  more  difficult  for  them  to  attain.  63 


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


 33.  Discussion.  As  supported  by  commenters,  we  require  the  Fund  Administrator  and  the  interstate  TRS  Fund  Advisory  Council  develop  guidelines  for  cost-  recovery  based  on  this  Order 
 within  six  months  of  its  publication  in  the  Federal  Register.  65  The  Fund  Administrator  and  the  Council  should  consider  the  comments  regarding  the  guidelines  raised  in  this  rulemaking.  66  The 
 public  will  have  an  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  guidelines  before  the  Commission's  final  approval  is  given.  To  provide  this  opportunity  for  public  comment,  the  Commission  will  place  the 
 proposed  guidelines  it  receives  on  public  notice. 
 62  See  Ms.  Andrews  Comments  at  2. 


 63  Id. 
 64  See  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14194. 
 65  See  Ms.  Andrews  Comments  at  1;  AIM  Comments  at  1;  Dr.  Blackstone  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Fairman 
 Comments  at  1;  the  Federation  Comments  at  2;  Mr.  Fleming  Comments  at  1;  FPSC  Comments  at  2;  Mr.  Gregory  Comments  at  6;  Ms.  Ladew  Comments  at  1;  MCI  Comments  at  3;  NCOD  Comments  at  1;  NVRC  Comments  at  1;  the 


 President's  Committee  Comments  at  5;  Dr.  Ratcliff  Comments  at  1;  Dr.  Segalman  Comments  at  1;  Sprint  Comments  at  5;  Mr.  Stolz  Comments  at  2  (conditioning  his  support  upon  protection  against  the  funding  of  voluntary  projects  that  may  not 
 be  in  the  best  interest  of  improved  TRS  service);  Texas  PUC  Comments  at  3;  COR  Reply  at  5;  Mr.  Travers  Reply  at  2. 
 66  See  AIM  Comments  at  1. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 18 
 2.  Competition  in  Intrastate  Relay  Services 
 34.  Background.  Our  rules  allow  common  carriers  to  provide  TRS  within  their  service  areas  "individually,  through  a  competitively  selected  vendor,  or  in  concert  with  other  carriers."  67 
 Currently,  most  carriers  and  states  comply  with  this  rule  by  competitively  selecting  a  relay  provider  through  a  request  for  proposal  contracting  process.  The  cost  of  the  intrastate  TRS  service  contract 
 generally  is  recovered  from  all  ratepayers  in  the  state,  either  through  an  intrastate  subscriber  line  surcharge  or  through  the  general  ratemaking  process.  TRS  users  are  required  to  use  their  state's 
 chosen  TRS  provider  for  intrastate  calling.  Interstate  TRS  service  is  funded  by  a  nationwide,  interstate  TRS  Fund.  Callers  may  make  interstate  calls  through  their  states  provider  or  choose 
 another  TRS  provider  for  interstate  calls  by  dialing  one  of  several  national  toll-  free  numbers. 
 35.  In  the  Notice,  we  observed  that  many  commenters  representing  TRS  users  urged  the  Commission  to  take  steps  to  require  or  promote  competition  through  multivendoring. 
 Multivendoring  would  enable  multiple  vendors  to  receive  compensation  for  providing  TRS  in  the  same  jurisdiction  as  a  means  to  improve  TRS  service  quality.  68  While  our  Notice  did  not  propose 
 requiring  states  or  carriers  to  contract  with  more  than  one  TRS  provider,  we  invited  comment  on:  (a)  the  Commission's  jurisdiction  to  require  intrastate  multivendoring;  (b)  the  relationship,  if  any, 
 between  the  single-  vendor  model  and  perceived  problems  with  intrastate  TRS;  and  (c)  the  structuring  of  an  intrastate  multivendor  environment.  69 


 36.  Discussion.  We  agree  with  commenters  that  competitive  forces  are  generally  the  preferred  way  to  improve  service  quality  and  bring  new  services  to  customers.  70  Although  using  a 
 single  vendor  may  not  automatically  lead  to  poor  service  quality,  71  we  believe  that  giving  consumers  a  choice  among  different  TRS  providers  might  well  improve  the  quality  of  TRS  service  in  different 
 states.  We  note  that  nothing  in  the  statute  or  the  Commissions  rules  restricts  the  states  to  using  only  one  relay  provider.  Recognizing  that  one  purpose  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996  ("  1996 


 67  47  C.  F.  R.    64.603. 
 68  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14212  (citing  AGC  Comments  at  2;  ALDA  Comments  at  1-  2;  AOAC  Comments  at 
 2;  DCADC-  VAD  Comments  at  1-  2;  NAD  Comments  at  2;  NVRC  Comments  at  2;  SHHH  Comments  at  2). 
 69  Id.  at  14213. 


 70  See,  e.  g.,  AIM  Comments  at  2;  Federation  Comments  at  5;  NVRC  Comments  at  3;  Mr.  Sonnenstrahl 
 Comments  at  4-  5;  UCPA  Comments  at  3;  Mr.  Ching  Reply  at  5;  DADC  Reply  Comments  at  2. 
 71  Texas  PUC  Comments  at  15  (reporting  that  no  degradation  of  TRS  service  quality  has  been  caused  by  its  use 
 of  the  single-  vendor  model). 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 19 
 Act")  72  is  to  facilitate  the  introduction  of  competition  to  telecommunications  markets,  73  we  encourage  states  to  consider  whether  the  single-  or  the  multi-  vendoring  model  best  meets  their 
 constituents'  particular  needs.  74 
 37.  We  note  that  some  states  have  unsuccessfully  experimented  with  approaches  to  multivendoring.  California,  for  example,  contracted  for  relay  service  from  the  two  lowest-  cost  TRS 
 providers  in  the  state.  The  lowest  bidder  was  unable  to  provide  acceptable  relay  service  at  the  price  agreed  upon.  After  many  consumer  complaints,  the  state  increased  its  payments  to  that  provider  in 
 order  to  increase  the  quality  of  the  relay  service  to  minimum  levels.  75  Some  parties  have  contended  that  the  failure  of  Californias  approach  to  multivendoring  demonstrates  that  multivendoring  is  not 
 feasible  in  the  TRS  market.  We  are  not  convinced  by  these  arguments.  The  failure  of  this  experiment  may  instead  have  resulted  from  the  PSCs  acceptance  of  an  unrealistically  low  bid,  and 
 its  attempt  to  require  other  competitors  to  match  the  low  bidders  rates.  Thus,  we  encourage  states  to  continue  experimenting  with  ways  to  allow  competitive  forces  to  improve  the  quality  of  TRS 
 service. 
 3.  Service  Quality 
 a.  Minimum  Standards  Generally 
 38.  Background.  The  Commission's  rules  currently  provide  mandatory  minimum  service  quality  standards  for  the  provision  of  both  interstate  and  intrastate  TRS.  76  In  our  Notice,  we 
 tentatively  concluded  that  only  services  that  are  mandated  by  Commission  regulation  must  comply  with  the  Commission's  minimum  standards.  77  In  addition,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  some  relay 
 services  such  as  STS  might  have  operational  differences  that  make  compliance  with  current 


 72  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  104,  110  Stat.  96  (1996)  (codified  at  47  U.  S.  C.    151  et  seq.). 
 73  Through  the  1996  Act,  Congress  sought  to  establish  a  "pro-  competitive,  de-  regulatory  national  policy 
 framework"  for  the  United  States  telecommunications  industry.  See  Jt.  Statement  of  Managers,  S.  Conf.  Rep.  No.  104-  230,  104th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.  1  (1996). 


 74  KRSI  Comments  at  12;  Mr.  Nelson  Reply  Comments  at  5;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  5.  All  these  parties  assert 
 the  decision  of  how  many  intrastate  vendors  should  serve  a  state  is  a  matter  for  state  determination. 
 75  CAPUC  Comments  at  4-  5. 


 76  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604. 
 77  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14194. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 20 
 Commission  standards  infeasible,  or  require  different  standards.  78  Therefore,  we  requested  an  examination  of  the  Commission's  rules  governing  mandatory  minimum  standards  for  TRS,  and 
 sought  comment  upon  whether  any  specific  exceptions  to  those  rules  must  be  made  for  STS  service,  in  light  of  the  unique  nature  of  the  service.  79 


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


 40.  We  agree  with  many  commenters  that  not  all  of  our  existing  standards  will  be  appropriate  for  each  type  of  relay  service,  and  that  the  way  certain  services  are  provided  will 
 necessitate  somewhat  different  rules  for  these  different  services  .  81  With  respect  to  STS,  VRI,  and  non-  English  relay  service,  we  are  adapting  the  existing  minimum  standards  to  the  extent  necessary, 
 as  discussed  below,  to  make  them  appropriate  for  particular  services.  We  will  continue  to  address  the  applicability  of  the  mandatory  minimum  standards  to  new  offerings  in  the  context  of  approving 
 them  as  relay  services.  82 
 41.  We  conclude  that  STS  service  will  generally  be  subject  to  our  mandatory  minimum  standards  with  the  exception  of  the  following  standards:  competent  skills  in  typing  and  spelling  for 
 CAs;  83  capability  of  communicating  with  ASCII  and  Baudot  format,  at  any  speed  generally  in  use;  84 


 78  Id. 
 79  Id. 
 80  NAD  Comments  at  8. 
 81  See  Dr.  Blackstone  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Fairman  Comments  at  1;  Mr.  Fleming  Comments  at  1-  2;  KRSI 
 Comments  at  4;  Ms.  Ladew  Comments  at  1-  2;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  4;  Dr.  Ratcliff  Comments  at  1;  SBC  Comments  at  4-  5;  Dr.  Segalman  Comments  at  1-  2;  UCPA  Comments  at  3-  4. 


 82  Some  commenters  recommend  that  states  relax  the  service  quality  standards  during  the  first  six  months  of 
 offering  STS  to  develop  call  demand  information  from  which  to  forecast  staffing  needs.  After  the  six-  month  period,  they  argue  that  providers  should  be  able  to  meet  the  average  speed  of  answer  and  blockage  requirements  of  conventional  TRS. 


 See  CPUC's  Deaf  and  Disabled  Telecommunications  Program  (DDPT)  Comments  at  3.  We  disagree.  We  believe  that  it  is  appropriate  to  implement  minimum  standards  for  STS  at  this  time. 


 83  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a). 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 21 
 and  the  transmission  of  conversations  between  TTY  and  voice  callers  in  real  time.  85  These  requirements  cannot  practicably  be  applied  to  STS  because  of  the  significant  differences  in  the  way 
 this  service  is  provided  compared  to  TTY-  based  TRS. 
 42.  We  also  conclude  that  VRI  relay  will  generally  be  subject  to  our  mandatory  minimum  standards  with  the  exception  of  the  following  standards:  competent  skills  in  typing 
 and  spelling  for  CAs;  86  capability  of  communicating  with  ASCII  and  Baudot  format,  at  any  speed  generally  in  use;  87  the  transmission  of  conversations  between  TTY  and  voice  callers  in  real 
 time.  88  These  requirements  cannot  practicably  be  applied  to  VRI  because  of  the  significant  differences  in  the  way  this  service  is  provided  compared  to  TTY-  based  TRS.  And,  because  VRI 
 will  be  offered  on  a  voluntary  basis,  we  will  not  require  it  to  operate  every  day,  24  hours  a  day.  89  Other  changes  to  our  rules  are  discussed  below. 


 b.  Communications  Assistant 
 43.  Background.  The  current  rule  defines  a  communications  assistant  as  [  a]  person  who  transliterates  conversation  from  text  to  voice  and  from  voice  to  text  between  two  end  users 
 of  TRS.  90  In  the  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  the  current  definition  of  Communications  Assistant  is  too  restrictive  to  encompass  some  of  the  activities  that  may  be  required  of  a  CA 
 involved  in  some  TRS  offerings.  91  We  proposed  to  amend  the  current  definition  by  removing  the  words  from  text  to  voice  and  from  voice  to  text  while  maintaining  the  remainder  of  the 
 definition.  92 
 84  Id.  at    64.604(  b). 


 85  Id.  at    64.604(  b)(  4). 
 86  Id.  at    64.604(  a). 
 87  Id.  at    64.604(  b). 
 88  Id.  at    64.604(  b)(  4). 
 89  Id. 
 90  47  C.  F.  R.    64.601(  5).  According  to  Webster,  to  transliterate  is  to  represent  or  spell  in  the  characters  of 
 another  alphabet.  CAs  are  required  to  relay  all  conversation  verbatim  unless  the  relay  user  specifically  requests  summarization.  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  2)(  Confidentiality  and  Conversation  Content). 


 91  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14194. 
 92  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14195. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 22 
 44.  Discussion.  We  adopt  our  proposal,  supported  by  commenters,  to  remove  the  words  "from  text  to  voice  and  from  voice  to  text"  from  the  definition  of  CA.  93  We  also  adopt  Texas  PUC's 
 proposal  to  allow  CAs  to  transliterate,  or  interpret,  a  caller's  use  of  American  Sign  Language,  or  ASL,  to  English.  Thus,  the  new  definition  will  read,  "[  a]  person  who  transliterates  or  interprets 
 conversation  between  two  end  users  of  TRS."  We  believe  this  definition,  which  is  supported  by  commenters,  94  is  broad  enough  to  encompass  the  activities  performed  by  an  individual  assisting  in 
 the  provision  of  TRS  that  does  not  involve  a  TTY,  such  as  STS  or  VRI. 
 45.  We  also  note  that  this  definition  is  consistent  with  section  64.604(  a)  of  our  rules,  which  requires  that  CAs  have  competent  skills  in,  among  other  things,  interpretation  of  typewritten 
 ASL.  95  Our  TRS  rules  define  American  Sign  Language  as  a  visual  language  based  on  hand  shape,  position,  movement,  and  orientation  of  the  hands  in  relation  to  each  other  and  the  body.  96 
 ASL  is  not  a  written  or  text-  based  language  and  it  is  unique  to  the  deaf  community.  When  a  message  in  ASL  is  converted  to  typed  text,  the  words  are  typed  in  English,  but  the  sentence 
 structure  (grammar,  syntax,  etc.)  will  be  different  than  if  someone  fluent  in  spoken  English  had  typed  the  same  message. 


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


 c.  Qualified  Interpreter 


 93  See  ASHA  Comments  at  4-  5;  Missouri  Comments  at  2-  3. 
 94  See  AIM  Comments  at  1;  Sprint  Comments  at  7;  Mr.  Stolz  Comments  at  2. 
 95  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a). 
 96  Id.  at    64.601(  1). 
 97  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14202. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 23 
 47.  Background.  In  the  interest  of  ensuring  effective  communication  for  VRI  users,  we  proposed  to  incorporate  into  our  TRS  rules  the  definition  of  qualified  interpreter,  as  used 
 by  the  Department  of  Justice  in  its  Title  II  and  III  regulations,  and  require  the  use  of  qualified  interpreters  in  the  delivery  of  VRI  relay  service.  98  The  Department  of  Justice  defines  qualified 
 interpreter  under  its  regulations  as  an  interpreter  who  is  able  to  interpret  effectively,  accurately,  and  impartially,  both  receptively  and  expressively,  using  any  necessary  specialized 
 vocabulary.  99 


 48.  Discussion.  We  adopt  our  proposal,  supported  by  commenters,  to  apply  the  Department  of  Justices  definition  of  qualified  interpreter  to  VRI.  100  We  amend  our  rules  to 
 require  that  VRI  CAs  be  qualified  interpreters.  We  believe  that  this  requirement  will  protect  users  of  VRI  from  encountering  interpreters  who  do  not  have  the  skills  necessary  to  effectively 
 interpret  a  VRI  call.  We  do  not  believe  it  wise  to  have  each  state  determine  its  own  minimum  qualifications,  without  a  federal  minimum,  as  is  suggested  by  Sprint.  101  States  are  free  to  adopt 
 stronger  standards,  but,  as  with  other  areas  that  affect  service  quality,  we  have  an  obligation  to  establish  uniform,  minimum  standards.  In  addition,  the  federal  standard  will  encourage  efficient, 
 national  centers  for  the  delivery  of  VRI. 
 d.  Retention  of  a  Record  of  a  Call 
 49.  Background.  Section  225  requires  the  Commission  to  adopt  rules  that  "prohibit  relay  operators  from  keeping  records  of  the  content  of  any  such  conversation  beyond  the  duration  of  the 
 call."  102  To  implement  that  requirement,  our  current  rules  state  that  CAs  are  prohibited  from  keeping  records  of  the  content  of  any  conversation  beyond  the  duration  of  a  call.  103  Because  the 
 STS  user  often  speaks  slowly  and  with  difficulty,  commenters  propose  a  modification  to  this  rule  to  allow  the  STS  CA  to  retain  information  in  instances  where  a  STS  user  wants  to  use  the  same 
 information  to  make  consecutive  calls.  For  example,  a  person  with  a  speech  disability  may  want 
 98  Id.  at  14201. 
 99  28  C.  F.  R.    35.104. 
 100  See  ASHA  Comments  at  5;  AIM  Comments  at  1;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  8  (citing  Notice  at  paras.  34  and 
 17);  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  3;  COR  Reply  at  8;  the  Federation  Comments  at  2;  TDI  Reply  at  7;  ULS  Comments  at  4. 
 101  See  Sprint  Comments  at  9. 


 102  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  d)(  1)(  F). 
 103  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  2). 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 24 
 to  use  the  relay  service  to  call  several  different  doctors  to  find  out  which  doctor  accepts  a  particular  insurance  plan.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  caller  may  request  that  the  CA  retain 
 the  information  the  caller  gave  to  the  first  called  party  in  order  to  repeat  it  to  the  subsequent  called  parties. 


 50.  Discussion.  We  agree  with  commenters  that  an  STS  CA  should  be  permitted  to  retain  information  from  a  particular  call  in  order  to  facilitate  the  completion  of  consecutive  calls 
 at  the  request  of  the  calling  party.  104  We  therefore  amend  our  rule  accordingly.  Though  designed  to  protect  the  privacy  of  the  parties,  the  unamended  rule  substantially  reduced  the  efficiencies 
 that  could  be  attained  in  an  STS  call.  Under  the  amended  rule,  the  caller  may  ask  the  CA  to  retain  a  record  of  a  call.  Alternatively,  upon  realizing  that  the  caller  wants  to  convey  the  same 
 information  to  several  different  numbers,  the  CA  may  ask  the  caller  if  he  wants  the  CA  to  retain  a  record  in  order  to  repeat  the  same  information  in  subsequent  calls.  The  CA  may  retain  the 
 information  only  for  as  long  as  it  takes  to  complete  the  subsequent  calls. 
 51.  We  believe  that  this  kind  of  situation  is  consistent  with  the  statute  because  it  can  only  be  done  at  the  callers  request.  Without  this  amended  rule,  the  user,  who  has  difficulty 
 speaking,  would  have  to  repeat  the  information  several  times,  placing  a  burden  on  the  caller,  and  also  causing  the  calls  to  be  longer  than  necessary.  In  addition,  the  period  of  record  retention  is 
 limited,  the  confidentiality  and  privacy  of  the  caller  are  maintained,  and  the  choice  to  retain  the  record  is  made  by  the  caller. 


 e.  Frequently  Called  Numbers  for  STS  Users 
 52.  Based  on  commenters  requests,  we  believe  that  an  additional  minimum  standard  is  appropriate  for  STS.  As  suggested  by  commenters,  we  will  require  that  relay  providers  offer 
 STS  users  the  option  to  maintain  at  the  relay  center  a  list  of  names  and  telephone  numbers  which  the  STS  user  frequently  calls.  105  STS  CAs  may  have  difficulty  understanding  the  name  and 
 telephone  number  of  the  person  that  the  STS  user  is  calling  and,  unlike  other  utterances,  this  information  has  no  context.  Because  the  STS  CA  would  have  access  to  the  STS  users  list  of 
 frequently  called  names  and  phone  numbers,  the  STS  user  could  request  that  a  call  be  placed  to  a  particular  person  without  having  to  state  the  telephone  number.  After  the  STS  user  names  the 
 called  party,  the  STS  CA  shall  repeat  the  name  and  state  the  telephone  number  of  the  called  party  to  ensure  that  the  STS  CA  places  the  call  to  the  correct  party  and  phone  number.  Consistent  with 


 104  Dr.  Sarah  Blackstone  Comments  at  4;  Bruce  Fleming,  BSE,  Comments  at  4;  LuRetta  Fairman  Comments  at 
 3;  Rebecca  Ladew  Comments  at  4. 
 105  See,  e.  g.,  Rebecca  Ladew  Comments  at  6. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 25 
 our  discussion  of  customer  information,  supra,  this  information  shall  be  treated  as  customer  profile  information  and  therefore  must  be  transferred  to  a  new  provider  as  necessary. 
 f.  Confidentiality 
 53.  Background.  Section  225  requires  the  Commission  to  adopt  rules  that  prohibit  relay  operators  from  disclosing  the  content  of  any  relayed  conversation.  To  that  end,  our  current 
 rules  prohibit  a  CA  from  disclosing  the  content  of  any  relayed  conversation  regardless  of  content  even  if  to  do  so  would  be  inconsistent  with  state  or  local  law.  106  In  adopting  this  rule, 
 the  Commission  noted  that  it  believe[  s]  that  confidentiality  is  essential  to  [relay]  service,  and  that  users  of  TRS  can  have  confidence  in  the  basic  privacy  of  their  conversations.  107  With 
 respect  to  VRI,  there  are  additional  confidentiality  concerns  as  the  anonymity  of  the  traditional  TRS  conversation  is  lost  by  the  visual  contact  between  the  user  and  the  interpreter.  108  As  a 
 result,  with  VRI  the  probability  that  the  interpreter  will  be  able  to  identify  or  recognize  the  caller  is  much  greater  than  in  traditional  TRS.  Further,  if  the  interpreter  were  placed  in  a  position  in  which 
 others  could  see  her,  the  VRI  users  private  conversation  could  be  seen  by  others. 
 54.  Discussion.  We  are  persuaded  by  commenters  that  we  must  amend  our  rules  to  require  VRI  providers  to  take  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  that  the  confidentiality  of  VRI 
 users  is  maintained.  109  This  action  is  consistent  with  the  statutory  intent,  evidenced  in  section  225(  d)(  1)(  F),  to  preserve  confidentiality,  and  with  section  225s  requirement  of  functionally 
 equivalent  communications.  Further,  as  noted  above,  the  Commission  has  previously  recognized  that  confidentiality  and  privacy  are  essential  to  relay  service.  110  No  commenters  opposed  this 
 conclusion. 
 g.  Verbatim  Relay  of  Conversations 


 106  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604  (a)(  2). 
 107  See  First  Report  and  Order,  6  FCC  Rcd  at  4659. 
 108  See  ULS  Comments  at  4-  5. 
 109  See  AIM  Comments  at  1;  Ameritech  Comments  at  4-  5;  the  Federation  Comments  at  2;  Texas  PUC 
 Comments  at  8;  ULS  Comments  at  4;  COR  Reply  at  8;  TDI  Reply  at  7. 
 110  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  2),  (a)(  3);  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14201. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 26 
 55.  Background.  Section  225  requires  the  Commission  to  adopt  rules  that  prohibit  relay  operators  from  intentionally  altering  a  relayed  conversation.  111  Our  current  rules  add  an  additional 
 requirement  that  CAs  must  relay  all  conversations  verbatim  unless  the  relay  user  specifically  requests  summarization.  112 


 56.  This  requirement  is  intended  to  protect  the  user  by  ensuring  that  the  message  the  user  intends  to  convey  is  accurately  conveyed  to  the  other  party.  According  to  the  State  of 
 California,  which  currently  offers  STS  service,  the  STS  CA  works  best  if  she  facilitates  the  call  rather  than  simply  repeats  the  callers  message  verbatim.  113  This  is  an  important  distinction,  and 
 is  necessary  given  the  nature  of  the  STS  users  disability.  For  example,  if  an  STS  user  repeats  a  word  several  times  before  going  to  the  next  word,  the  CA  should  have  the  flexibility  to  eliminate 
 the  repetition.  Many  STS  users  also  suffer  from  short  term  memory  loss,  and  effective  CAs  can  remind  users  of  information  they  have  already  relayed  or  remind  a  user  to  leave  her  number  on 
 the  machine. 
 57.  Discussion.  We  are  persuaded  by  commenters,  who  base  their  comments  on  experience  with  STS  relay  service,  that  the  rule  should  be  amended  to  permit  the  STS  CA  some 
 flexibility  in  relaying  the  conversation.  We  will  eliminate  the  requirement  in  our  rules  that  the  CA  must  relay  the  conversation  verbatim  for  STS  calls.  This  requirement  is  a  barrier  to 
 effective  STS  relay  service.  CAs  handling  STS  calls  are  nevertheless  still  prohibited  from  intentionally  altering  a  relayed  conversation. 


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


 h.  Speed  of  Answer  Requirements 
 111  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  d)(  1)(  G). 
 112  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  2). 
 113  DDTP  Report  to  the  CPUC  at  3;  Dr.  Segalman  Comments  at  3. 
 114  See  Dr.  Sarah  Blackstone  Comments  at  3;  LuRetta  Fairman  Comments  at  2-  3;  Bruce  Fleming,  BSE, 
 Comments  at  3;  Rebecca  Ladew  Comments  at  3;  Dr.  Segalman  Comments  at  3. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 27 
 59.  Background.  Our  current  TRS  speed-  of-  answer  requirement  provides  that  85%  of  all  calls  shall  be  answered  within  ten  seconds,  and  that  no  more  than  30  seconds  may  elapse  between 
 receipt  of  dialing  information  and  the  dialing  of  the  requested  number.  In  response  to  our  concern  that  the  rule  did  not  result  in  adequate  speed  of  answer  times  due  to  inconsistencies  in  its 
 interpretation,  we  proposed  to  change  the  rule  to  require  TRS  providers  to  ensure  that  85%  of  all  calls  are  answered  within  ten  seconds  by  a  CA  prepared  to  place  the  TRS  call  at  that  time.  115  We 
 further  proposed  to  require  that  the  calculation  of  whether  a  provider  is  in  compliance  with  the  85%  -10  second  rule  must  be  performed  on  at  least  a  daily  basis,  and  that  the  10-  second  speed-  of-  answer 
 time  frame  must  begin  when  a  call  initially  arrives  at  the  TRS  provider's  network.  116  We  did  not  propose  to  require  that  all  abandoned  calls  117  be  counted  in  the  speed  of  answer  calculation,  but  did 
 seek  comment  on  how  we  could  ensure  that  relay  centers  were  properly  staffed  so  that  consumers  calls  were  not  placed  on  hold  waiting  attention  from  a  CA. 


 60.  Discussion.  For  a  TRS  user,  reaching  a  CA  to  place  a  relay  call  is  the  equivalent  of  picking  up  a  phone  and  getting  a  dial  tone.  Any  interpretation  of  our  rule  that  delays  a  customers 
 ability  to  place  a  call  through  the  relay  center  clearly  compromises  the  functional  equivalence  of  relay  service.  We  will  modify  our  rule  to  minimize  the  circumstances  under  which  customers 
 experience  delays  in  placing  their  calls  through  relay  services. 
 61.  While  many  commenters  supported  our  proposal  to  modify  the  rule  to  require  85%  of  all  calls  to  be  answered  in  ten  seconds  by  a  CA  prepared  to  handle  the  call  at  the  time,  118  others 
 pointed  out  that  this  requirement  would  prohibit  relay  providers  from  capturing  certain  call  setup  information  by  automated  processes  which  can,  in  fact,  speed  up  the  handling  of  calls.  119  We  did  not 
 intend  to  inhibit  the  use  of  automated  call  handling  processes.  We  will  modify  our  proposal  to  accommodate  automated  call  handling  and  adopt  a  rule  to  require  85%  of  all  calls  to  be  answered  in 
 ten  seconds  by  any  method  which  results  in  the  TRS  callers  call  immediately  being  placed,  not  put  in  a  queue  or  on  hold.  This  new  rule  replaces  the  requirement  that  no  more  than  thirty  seconds 


 115  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14207. 
 116  Id. 
 117  Abandoned  calls  are  those  calls  answered  by  a  relay  center,  but  never  handled  by  a  CA  because  the 
 customer  hangs  up. 
 118  See  AIM  Comments  at  2;  Ameritech  Comments  at  7;  Bell  Atlantic  Comments  at  6;  Mr.  Gregory  Comments 
 at  14;  KRSI  Comments  at  8;  MCI  Comments  at  6;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  14-  15;  NCOD  Comments  at  1;  SBC  Comments  at  9;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  3;  TDI  Comments  at  12;  Texas  PUC  Comments  at  11;  ULS  Comments  at  6; 


 COR  Reply  at  12. 
 119  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  10;  GTE  Comments  at  10;  Sprint  Comments  at  11-  12. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 28 
 elapse  between  the  receipt  of  dialing  information  and  the  dialing  of  the  requested  number,  and  replaces  it  with  the  requirement  that  the  call  must  be  immediately  handled,  whether  by  a  CA  or  an 
 automated  process,  but  not  placed  in  a  call  distribution  queue. 
 62.  We  will  also  adopt  the  requirement  that  the  10-  second  limit  begins  at  the  time  the  call  is  delivered  to  the  TRS  centers  network.  The  call  is  considered  delivered  to  the  TRS  centers 
 network  when  the  relay  centers  equipment  accepts  the  call  from  the  LEC  and  the  public  switched  network  actually  delivers  the  call  to  the  TRS  center.  Any  delays  in  the  TRS  center  accepting  the  call 
 from  the  local  carrier  will  be  captured  in  our  call  blocking  standard  discussed  below. 
 63.  A  providers  compliance  with  the  85%-  10  second  rule  will  be  measured  on  a  daily  basis.  We  disagree  with  Sprint  and  AT&  Ts  argument  that  the  measurement  should  be  performed 
 over  a  longer  time  frame  to  account  for  wide  daily  variations  in  traffic  loads.  120  The  burden  should  be  on  relay  services  to  manage  staffing  needs  based  on  the  fluctuations  in  traffic,  not  on  consumers 
 to  tolerate  delays  in  reaching  a  CA  when  traffic  is  high.  Just  like  voice  calls,  TRS  calls  should  be  answered  within  a  reasonable  time  period,  regardless  of  the  traffic  load.  We  are  not  persuaded  by 
 KRSIs  argument  that  it  should  not  be  measured  daily  because  it  does  not  now  generate  the  calculation  on  a  daily  basis.  121  Neither  KRSI  nor  any  other  party  claims  that  it  cannot  generate  the 
 needed  data. 
 64.  As  we  stated  in  the  Notice,  we  continue  to  be  concerned  about  the  exclusion  of  abandoned  calls    calls  answered  by  the  relay  center,  but  never  reaching  an  CA    from  the  85-  10 
 calculation.  As  no  other  solution  was  presented  in  the  record,  we  will  mandate  that  abandoned  calls  be  included  in  the  speed-  of-  answer  calculation.  While  we  continue  to  recognize  that  some  calls  will 
 be  abandoned  by  the  caller  for  reasons  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  length  of  time  it  takes  to  reach  a  CA,  we  believe  that  the  85%  minimum  allows  for  those  instances.  122  Compliance  with  the 
 85%  standard  will  be  measured  by  taking  all  calls  that  are  answered  within  ten  seconds  of  reaching  the  relay  centers  network  in  such  a  way  that  the  call  is  immediately  handled  and  dividing  it  by  all 
 calls  answered  by  the  relay  center.  Excluding  these  abandoned  calls  in  speed-  of-  answer  reports  can  distort  the  record  of  a  TRS  provider's  actual  performance  by  reducing  the  total  number  of  calls  from 
 which  the  average  speed-  of-  answer  is  calculated,  thus  indicating  that  the  TRS  provider's  average  speed  of  answer  meets  the  minimum  standard,  even  though  consumers  are  kept  waiting.  123 


 120  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  11;  Sprint  Reply  at  7. 
 121  See  KRSI  Comments  at  8. 
 122  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14208. 
 123  For  example,  if  a  provider  receives  a  total  of  1000  TRS  calls  a  day,  and  750  of  those  calls  were  answered 
 within  10  seconds  or  less,  the  provider's  speed-  of-  answer  rate  would  be  75%  and  below  the  required  minimum  standard. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 29 
 65.  We  note  that  even  with  these  changes,  customers  might  still  be  unable  to  reach  the  relay  center.  The  LEC  may  not  be  able  to  deliver  the  call  to  the  TRS  center  because  all  of  the 
 telephone  trunks  between  the  LEC  and  the  TRS  center  are  busy.  Also,  the  TRS  center  might  not  answer  the  call  because  all  CAs  are  busy  and  the  relay  centers  internal  queue  is  full.  We  agree  with 
 Californias  DDTP  that  we  should  add  another  component  to  the  speed-  of-  answer  measurement  that  will  address  these  sources  of  delay.  We  will  require  calculations  of  the  percentage  of  calls 
 "blocked,"  or  attempted  by  TRS  users  but  never  answered  by  the  TRS  center  at  all  because  of  inadequate  capacity  into  the  facility,  or  staffing  of  the  relay  center.  124  We  amend  our  rules  to  require 
 that  relay  centers  be  designed  to  a  P.  01  standard.  125  This  is  a  network  design  standard  used  to  ensure  that  no  more  than  1%  of  calls  at  the  busiest  hour  of  the  day  are  unable  to  be  delivered  to  the  relay 
 center  network  due  to  inadequate  facilities.  In  addition,  we  will  require  a  minimum  blockage  standard,  measured  daily,  of  no  greater  than  1%.  This  call  blockage  rate  shall  be  measured  by 
 dividing  the  number  of  blocked  and  not  answered  calls  by  the  number  of  total  call  attempts.  We  believe  that  the  blockage  rate  we  adopt  today  provides  an  attainable,  essential  standard  that  will 
 ensure  that  TRS  providers  meet  the  Commission's  85%-  10  second  requirement  without  preventing  calls  from  reaching  their  network,  or  not  answering  calls.  Failure  to  account  for  blocked  and 
 abandoned  calls  gives  an  incomplete  assessment  of  service  quality.  We  note  that  the  data  necessary  to  measure  call  attempt  and  blockage  rates  must  be  obtained  from  the  Local  Exchange  Carrier  (LEC) 
 that  serves  the  TRS  center.  Therefore,  our  rule  will  require  LECs  to  provide  the  call  attempt  rates  and  the  rates  of  calls  blocked  between  the  LEC  and  the  relay  center  to  relay  administrators  and  relay 
 centers  upon  request. 
 66.  These  new  rules  on  speed  of  answer  will  protect  consumers  from  delays  in  placing  calls  through  TRS  services.  These  new  measurements  will  ensure  calls  are  received  and  answered  by 


 But  if  200  of  those  calls  were  abandoned  by  the  caller  before  a  CA  came  on-  line  to  handle  the  call,  and  the  provider  were  allowed  to  exclude  these  200  abandoned  calls  from  its  speed-  of-  answer  calculation  (without  knowing  whether  the  calls 
 were  abandoned  by  the  TRS  user  because  no  response  was  obtained  from  the  TRS  center  within  10  seconds),  then  the  provider  could  report  an  answer  rate  of  94%  (750/  800). 


 124  See  CPUC's  DDPT  Comments  at  9. 
 125  P.  01  is  defined  as  follows:  "The  Grade  of  Service  for  a  telephone  system.  The  digits  following  the  P, 
 i.  e.,  nn,  indicate  the  number  of  calls  per  hundred  that  are  or  can  be  blocked  by  the  system.  It  is  a  goal  or  a  measure  of  an  event.  In  this  example,  P01  (also  spelled  P.  01)  means  one  call  in  a  hundred  (i.  e.,  one  divided  by  100)  can  be 


 blocked,  so  the  system  is  designed  to  meet  this  criterion."  Newton,  Harry,  Newton's  Telecom  Dictionary,  Flatiron  Publishing,  New  York,  N.  Y.  (14th.  ed.  1998),  at  p.  525.  As  it  is  used  in  the  context  of  TRS  quality,  however, 
 "P.  01"  requires  that  the  network  be  designed  to  block  only  one  call  in  one  hundred,  during  the  busy  hour.  For  an  explanation  of  traffic  engineering  techniques  and  quality  standards  to  accommodate  the  busy  hour,  See  Bates,  Regis 
 J.,  and  Gregory,  Donald,  Voice  and  Data  Communications  Handbook,  McGraw-  Hill  Company,  New  York  (Signature  Ed.  1997),  at  ch.  8. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 30 
 relay  centers  as  quickly  as  possible,  thereby  giving  TRS  users  functionally  equivalent  service.  We  believe  this  rule  will  result  in  more  calls  answered  quickly  than  if  we  simply  increase  the  percentage 
 from  85%  to  90%  or  95%,  as  suggested  by  some  commenters.  126  Of  course,  as  with  our  other  mandatory  minimum  standards  for  TRS,  state  TRS  authorities  remain  free  to  strengthen  this 
 minimum  requirement  at  their  discretion. 
 i.  In-  Call  Replacement  of  Communication  Assistants  and  Choice  of  Gender 
 67.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  we  should  amend  our  rules  to  require  that  a  CA  answering  and  placing  a  TRS  call  must  stay  with  that  call  for  at  least  ten 
 minutes  before  an  in-  call  CA  transfer  can  take  place.  In  particular,  we  asked  commenters  to  discuss  whether  a  ten-  minute  time  period  adequately  balances  the  need  to  minimize  call  disruptions  with  the 
 need  to  prevent  CA  fatigue,  or  whether  the  minimum  period  of  call  coverage  by  the  same  CA  should  be  shorter  (five  minutes)  or  longer  (fifteen  minutes).  127  We  also  sought  comment  on  whether  the 
 proposed  rule  regarding  CA  transfers  would  conflict  with  any  federal,  state,  or  local  labor  laws  or  regulations.  128  In  addition,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  we  should  not  establish  a  rule  to  permit 
 TRS  users  to  request  a  specific  CA  gender  during  a  CA  transfer,  although  we  strongly  encouraged  providers  to  offer  this  option.  129 


 68.  Discussion.  We  adopt  our  conclusion  to  require  that  a  CA  answering  and  placing  a  TTY  TRS  call  must  stay  with  the  call  for  a  minimum  of  ten  minutes,  as  preferred  by  a  majority  of 
 commenters.  130  The  ten-  minute  requirement  reduces  potential  disruption  and  will  make  the  call  more  functionally  equivalent  to  voice  telephone  calls.  Several  TRS  providers,  however,  oppose  this 
 requirement,  131  arguing  that  if  adopted,  this  requirement  will  mean  that  CAs  cannot  start  the 
 126  See  Ms.  Andrews  Comments  at  2  (increase  requirement  to  a  minimum  of  90%  of  TRS  calls);  the  Federation 
 Comments  at  3  (proposed  requirement  is  nowhere  near  being  functionally  equivalent);  FPSC  Comments  at  8  (increase  requirement  to  a  minimum  of  90%  of  TRS  calls);  SHHH  Comments  at  7  (standard  should  be  95%  within  10  seconds); 


 NVRC  Reply  at  2  (phase  in  standard  that  would  reduce  speed-  of-  answer  time  to  three  seconds  or  less). 
 127  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14211. 


 128  See  Id.  at  14211-  12. 
 129  See  Id.  at  14212. 
 130  See  AIM  Comments  at  2;  Ms.  Andrews  Comments  at  4;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  19;  SHHH  Comments  at 
 10;  Mr.  Sonnenstrahl  Comments  at  4;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  5;  TDI  Comments  at  16;  COR  Reply  at  14;  Mr.  Nelson  Reply  at  5. 


 131  See  Ameritech  Comments  at  9-  10;  AT&  T  Comments  at  13;  GTE  Comments  at  12;  KRSI  Comments  at  10; 
 SBC  Comments  at  10;  SBC  Reply  at  5. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 31 
 handling  of  calls  during  the  last  ten  minutes  of  their  shifts  and  that  the  next  shift  will  have  to  report  ten  minutes  earlier.  132  AT&  T  contends  that  this  requirement  is  not  supported  by  the  record  or  public 
 policy  and  will  interfere  with  the  providers'  ability  to  "deploy  their  CA  work  forces  so  as  to  properly  serve  their  customers'  call  volumes."  133  We  disagree.  CAs  answering  calls  during  the  last  ten 
 minutes  of  their  shifts  often  will  be  able  to  complete  those  calls  before  their  shifts  end,  or  very  shortly  thereafter. 


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


 70.  With  respect  to  STS  relay,  we  believe  that  it  is  appropriate  to  have  a  longer  limit.  Commenters  report  that  changing  CAs  can  be  particularly  disruptive  to  users  with  speech 
 disabilities.  139  Commenters  point  out  that,  during  the  initial  stages  of  a  call,  there  is  a  settling-in  time  wherein  the  caller  and  the  CA  get  accustomed  to  each  other.  140  During  this  time,  callers 
 with  speech  disabilities  develop  greater  assurance  that  the  CA  will  understand  them.  141  Rotation  of  a  CA  during  an  STS  call  disrupts  this  assurance,  and  may  even  cause  the  user  to  speak  less 


 132  See  AT&  T  Comments  at  12. 
 133  Id. 
 134  See  GTE  Comments  at  12;  NVRC  Comments  at  3. 
 135  See  Ameritech  Comments  at  10;  GTE  Comments  at  12. 
 136  See  the  Federation  Comments  at  4-  5;  NVRC  Comments  at  3;  ULS  Comments  at  8;  Ms.  Keller  Reply  at  11; 
 Mr.  Nelson  Reply  at  5. 
 137  In  the  future,  CA  fatigue  might  not  be  an  issue  because  of  advances  in  the  use  of  technology. 


 138  See  KRSI  Comments  at  10-  11. 
 139  DDTP  Comments  at  4;  Dr.  Segalman  Comments  at  8-  9. 
 140  Dr.  Sarah  Blackstone  Comments  at  7-  8;  LuRetta  Fairman  Comments  at  6;  Bruce  Fleming  Comments  at  8; 
 Rebecca  Ladew  Comments  at  8. 
 141  Id. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 32 
 clearly.  142  For  these  reasons,  we  find  that  STS  CAs  must  stay  with  a  call  for  at  least  fifteen  minutes. 
 71.  We  also  amend  our  rules  to  require  that  TRS  providers  make  best  efforts  to  accommodate  a  TRS  users  desired  CA  gender.  When  a  call  is  initiated,  or  during  a  transfer,  TRS 
 providers  must  attempt  to  accommodate  a  TRS  user  request  for  a  specific  CA  gender.  We  believe  this  is  necessary  in  order  to  have  functionally  equivalent  communications  because  voice  users  know 
 the  gender  of  the  party  they  are  conversing  with,  and  TRS  users  should  have  the  same  treatment.  143 
 j.  Minimum  Typing  Speed 
 72.  Background.  Currently,  our  rules  require  CAs  to  have  "competent  skills  in  typing,  grammar,  spelling,  interpretation  of  typewritten  ASL,  and  familiarity  with  hearing  and  speech 
 disability  cultures,  language  and  etiquette."  144  Although  we  were  very  concerned  about  allegations  of  variance  in  TRS  quality,  we  tentatively  concluded  in  the  Notice  that  a  federal  rule  imposing  a 
 minimum  typing  speed  for  CAs  was  not  appropriate.  145  We  based  this  tentative  conclusion  on  the  concern  that  a  federal  standard  could  constrain  the  labor  pool  for  CAs.  We  invited  comments  on 
 whether  TRS  providers  are  experiencing  any  labor  shortages  or  difficulties  in  hiring  and  retaining  competent  CAs,  and  the  extent  to  and  manner  in  which  TRS  providers  currently  screen  and  test 
 potential  CAs  for  typing  competency.  146  Finally,  we  agreed  with  comments  to  the  NOI  made  by  many  parties  that  new  technologies,  such  as  enhanced  TTY  protocols  and  enhanced  computer 
 software,  could  greatly  increase  TRS  transmission  times  and,  consequently,  CA  typing  speeds  would  increase  as  well.  We  sought  comment  on  the  extent  to  which  TRS  users  and  TRS  providers  have 
 adopted  such  technologies.  147 
 73.  Discussion.  We  are  convinced  by  the  comments  that  a  federal  rule  requiring  a  minimum  typing  speed  is  necessary.  It  is  not  possible  for  a  call  with  a  low  typing  speed  to  be 
 functionally  equivalent  to  a  voice  call.  We  agree  with  Californias  Deaf  and  Disabled 


 142  Dr.  Segalman  Comments  at  9. 
 143  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  19. 
 144  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  1). 
 145  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14210. 
 146  Id. 
 147  Id. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 33 
 Telecommunications  Program  that  slow  operator  typing  is  frustrating  to  users,  which  causes  hang-ups  leading  to  higher  costs  for  ratepayers  because  of  the  added  length  of  the  call  and  the  increase  in 
 multiple  calls.  148  We  are  persuaded  by  consumers  overwhelming  support  for  a  minimum  standard,  149  as  well  as  the  fact  that  no  commenter  provided  evidence  that  there  is,  or  would  be,  a 
 shortage  of  qualified  CAs.  In  addition,  as  commenters  note,  there  are  technological  solutions  that  are  now  available  that  can  increase  the  speed  of  the  transmission.  150 


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


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


 4  (suggesting  65  wpm). 
 150  Al  Sonnenstrahl  Comments  at  4;  SHHH  Comments  at  8;  TDI  Comments  at  14;  Ultratec  Comments  at  20. 


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


 (suggesting  65  wpm). 
 152  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  15-  19;  TDI  Comments  at  14;  COR  Reply  at  13. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 34 
 equivalency.  We  sought  comment  on  whether  to  amend  our  rules  to  address  the  need  for  clear  and  articulate  voice  communication  by  CAs  and,  in  particular,  how  to  evaluate  the  clarity  and 
 articulation  of  a  CA's  voice  communications.  153 
 76.  Discussion.  Clear  and  articulate  voice  communication  is  an  essential  skill  for  any  CA,  and  is  essential  to  the  concept  of  "functional  equivalency."  We  fully  expect  CAs  to  provide 
 clear  articulation  and  ease  of  understanding.  We  do  not,  however,  adopt  measurable  standards  for  clear  and  articulate  voice  communication  at  this  time.  We  find  that  the  record  provides  evidence  that 
 it  would  be  difficult  to  establish  standards  in  this  area  because  of  the  subjective  nature  of  such  a  standard.  154  For  example,  the  presence  of  an  accent  or  a  certain  manner  of  speaking,  which  to  one 
 listener  renders  the  speaker  inarticulate,  may  not  render  the  speaker  inarticulate  to  another  listener.  We  also  decline,  as  suggested  by  ASHA,  to  require  the  CA  to  be  able  to  relay  the  message  without 
 repetition  at  least  80%  of  the  time.  155  The  equipment,  not  the  CA,  could  be  the  cause  of  a  garbled  message  because  of  line  noise  or  other  network  interference.  We  will  revisit  this  issue  if  we  find  that 
 clear  articulation  and  ease  of  understanding  are  not  being  provided. 
 l.  Treatment  of  TRS  Customer  Information 
 77.  Background.  TRS  is  generally  offered  through  relay  providers  operating  under  an  exclusive  contract  with  a  state  or  other  authority  to  provide  statewide  TRS  for  a  specified  period  of 
 time,  e.  g.,  three  to  five  years.  To  deliver  efficient  relay  service,  relay  providers  generally  develop  databases  of  information  on  frequent  relay  customers  preferences,  such  as  the  TRS  users 
 interexchange  carrier  of  choice  and  whether  the  customer  uses  the  voice  or  hearing  carry-  over  features  156  This  information,  often  referred  to  as  "caller  profiles,"  is  used  by  the  TRS  provider  to 
 deliver  more  efficient  and  individualized  service  to  TRS  users.  157 
 153  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14210. 
 154  See  Ameritech  Comments  at  9;  Sprint  Comments  at  13.  But  see  the  Federation  Comments  at  4  (rules  should 
 address  clear  and  articulate  voice  communication);  ULS  Comments  at  7  (TRS  providers  should  ensure,  prior  to  hiring  and  subsequently  through  monitoring,  that  CAs  clearly  articulate  their  speech  so  that  it  is  easily  understandable  by  the 


 general  population). 
 155  See  ASHA  Comments  at  5. 


 156  Voice  carryover"  is  a  modified  form  of  TRS  in  which  a  person  with  a  hearing  disability  is  able  to  speak 
 directly  to  the  other  end  user,  and  the  CA  types  back  the  response  of  the  other  end  user.  47  C.  F.  R.    64.601(  9).  "Hearing  carryover"  is  a  modified  form  of  TRS  where  a  person  with  a  speech  disability  is  able  to  listen  to  the  other  end  user,  and, 


 in  reply,  the  CA  speaks  the  text  as  typed  by  the  person  with  the  speech  disability.  Id.    64.601(  6).  TRS  providers  are  required  by  the  Commission's  rules  to  offer  VCO  and  HCO.  Id.    64.604(  b)(  5). 


 157  Other  data  typically  included  in  the  customer  profile  includes  a  customers  blocking  preferences,  speed  dial 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 35 
 78.  States  have  experienced  difficulty  ensuring  a  smooth  transition  between  providers  during  a  change  in  TRS  vendor  when  the  outgoing  vendor  refuses  to  transfer  the  caller  profiles  to  the 
 new  vendor.  Outgoing  TRS  providers  have  asserted  that  the  information  is  either  customer  proprietary  network  information  (CPNI),  the  sharing  of  which  is  restricted  under  section  222  of  the 
 Communications  Act,  or  is  proprietary.  They  object  to  providing  the  database  to  the  incoming  TRS  provider.  158  If  a  new  vendor  cannot  receive  the  caller  profile  information  from  the  old  vendor, 
 however,  customers  experience  significant  disruption  of  service.  Callers  must  rebuild  the  profile  with  the  new  vendor,  and  risk  billing  and  other  problems.  In  addition,  the  new  vendor  must  spend 
 time  and  resources  to  obtain  the  customer  profile  information  from  the  TRS  users.  We  acknowledged  in  the  Notice  that  section  225  requires  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  TRS  is 
 available,  to  the  extent  possible  and  in  the  most  efficient  manner,  to  persons  with  hearing  or  speech  disabilities  in  the  United  States.  159  We  asked  parties  to  comment  on  the  use  of  caller  profiles, 
 including  whether  outgoing  vendors  should  transfer  the  profile  to  a  new  TRS  vendor  to  provide  TRS  in  the  "most  efficient  manner"  as  required  by  the  statute.  We  also  asked  whether  the  restrictions  on 
 the  use  of  CPNI  found  in  section  222  of  the  Communictions  Act  apply  to  these  profiles.  160 
 79.  Discussion.  We  find  that  section  222s  CPNI  requirements  do  not  apply  to  these  customer  profiles.  Section  222  applies  to  telecommunications  carriers.  161  Whether  TRS  providers 
 are  telecommunications  carriers  under  the  Act  depends  on  whether  TRS  is  considered  a  telecommunications  service.  The  Act  defines  a  telecommunications  carrier  as    any  provider  of 
 telecommunications  services.  A  telecommunications  carrier  shall  be  treated  as  a  common  carrier  under  this  Act  only  to  the  extent  that  it  is  engaged  in  telecommunications  services.  162 
 An  entity  is  engaged  in  telecommunications  services  if  it  offers  telecommunications  for  a  fee  directly  to  the  public.  163  Telecommunications  is  defined  as    the  transmission,  between  or  among 


 numbers,  long  distance  carrier  of  choice,  and  specific  instructions  to  follow  on  every  call.  Ex  Parte  Comments  of  the  Wisconsin  Department  of  Administration,  filed  November  16,  1999,  at  1-  2. 
 158  Sprint  Comments  at  13. 
 159  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  b)(  1)  (emphasis  added). 
 160  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14215. 
 161  47  U.  S.  C.    222(  a)  (  Every  telecommunications  carrier  has  a  duty..). 
 162  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  44). 
 163  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  46). 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 36 
 points  specified  by  the  user,  of  information  of  the  users  choosing,  without  change  in  the  form  or  content  of  the  information  as  sent  and  received  (emphasis  added).  164 
 80.  TRS  provides  individuals  with  hearing  or  speech  disabilities  the  ability  to  engage  in  communications  using  the  telecommunications  network.  The  Act  defines  telecommunications  relay 
 services  as: 
 ...  telephone  transmission  services  that  provide  the  ability  for  an  individual  who  has  a  hearing  impairment  or  speech  impairment  to  engage  in  communication  by  wire  or 
 radio  with  a  hearing  individual  in  a  manner  that  is  functionally  equivalent  to  the  ability  of  an  individual  who  does  not  have  a  hearing  impairment  or  speech 
 impairment  to  communicate  using  voice  communications  services  by  wire  or  radio.  165 


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


 82.  We  conclude  that  transferring  this  data  is  essential  to  fulfilling  our  statutory  mandate  to  ensure  that  TRS  is  available  in  the  most  efficient  manner.  The  transfer  of  TRS  user  profile 
 information  between  TRS  providers  does  not  violate  TRS  user  privacy  expectations,  because  the  user  has  agreed  to  give  the  data  to  the  TRS  provider.  In  addition,  the  reason  for  giving  this  data  to 
 the  TRS  provider  remains  even  if  there  is  a  change  in  TRS  providers.  Both  the  transferor  and  transferee  fall  under  the  same  confidentiality  requirements  and  thus  no  privacy  concerns  are  raised. 
 We  require,  therefore,  that  all  future  state  contracts  shall  provide  for  a  transfer  of  this  information.  When  entering  new  contracts,  states  must  include  language  that  requires  that  TRS 
 customer  profile  data  be  transferred  from  an  outgoing  TRS  vendor  to  the  incoming  TRS 


 164  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  43). 
 165  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  a)(  3). 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 37 
 vendor.  166  Such  data  must  be  transferred  in  usable  form  at  least  60  days  prior  to  the  provider's  last  day  of  service,  in  order  to  ensure  minimum  disruptions  to  customers'  calls.  167 
 83.  We  find  that  the  data  may  not  be  used  for  any  purpose  other  than  the  provision  of  TRS.  While  we  find  that  the  profile  information  should  be  transferred  during  a  change  in  vendor,  we 
 agree  with  commenters  that  argue  that  the  confidentiality  of  customer  profile  information  is  of  paramount  importance  to  TRS  users.  168  We  agree  that  unfettered  access  to  TRS  user  information 
 would  violate  the  reasonable  privacy  expectations  of  the  TRS  user.  To  safeguard  against  abuse,  we  adopt  NAD/  CAN  and  TDIs  suggestion  and  require  that  TRS  customer  profile  information  shall  not 
 be  used  for  any  purpose  other  than  to  connect  the  TRS  user,  for  whom  the  profile  exists,  with  the  called  parties  desired  by  that  TRS  user.  169  We  require  that  TRS  customer  profile  information  shall 
 not  be  sold,  distributed,  shared,  or  revealed  in  any  way  by  the  relay  center  or  its  employees,  unless  compelled  to  do  so  by  lawful  order  or  in  compliance  with  our  requirement  regarding  a  change  in 
 vendor. 
 84.  We  will  not  adopt  the  recommendation  of  KRSI  and  Mr.  Stoltz  to  require  TRS  providers  to  obtain  signed  approvals  from  customers  to  allow  the  outgoing  TRS  provider  to  transfer 
 the  customer  profile  information  to  the  incoming  TRS  provider.  170  Such  a  requirement  is  not  generally  supported  by  TRS  users  and  would  unnecessarily  disrupt  customers  each  time  the  vendor 
 is  changed.  Our  approach  maintains  privacy  by  requiring  that  both  the  old  and  new  vendors  are  similarly  restricted  and  cannot  use  the  information  for  any  purpose  other  than  as  an  aid  in  the 
 provision  of  TRS. 
 4.  Capability  of  Handling  Any  Type  of  Call 
 85.  Our  current  rules  require  TRS  to  be  capable  of  handling  any  type  of  call  normally  provided  by  common  carriers  and  the  burden  of  proving  the  infeasibility  of  handling 
 any  type  of  call  will  be  placed  on  the  carriers.  171  Our  rules  also  require  that  TRS  users  shall 
 166  The  requirements  in  our  TRS  rules  also  apply  to  any  carrier  within  a  state  that  does  not  have  a  TRS  program 
 that  has  been  certified  by  the  Commission  under  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  f)(  Certification).  See  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  c). 
 167  Ex  Parte  Comments  of  the  Wisconsin  Department  of  Administration,  filed  November  16,  1999,  at  3. 


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


 170  KRSI  Comments  at  13;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  6. 
 171  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  3). 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 38 
 pay  rates  no  greater  than  the  rates  paid  for  functionally  equivalent  voice  communication  services  .  172  In  spite  of  these  provisions,  TRS  users  continue  to  have  trouble  placing  relay  calls  when 
 using  wireless  service,  using  their  long  distance  carrier  of  choice  when  making  relay  calls,  and  receiving  the  benefits  of  special  pricing  plans  for  both  wireless  and  wireline  phone  calls  when 
 using  relay  service.  Some  of  these  problems  appear  to  be  due  to  carriers  failure  to  enter  into  the  necessary  billing  and  other  arrangements  with  TRS  providers.  173  Carriers  are  obligated  under 
 our  rules  to  take  the  action  necessary  for  TRS  providers  to  handle  any  type  of  call  under  equal  pricing  plans  or  to  demonstrate  the  infeasibility  of  handling  certain  calls.  TRS  users  must  be 
 able  to  place  all  wireless  and  wireline  calls  that  have  not  otherwise  been  proven  infeasible,  and  may  not  be  charged  rates  that  are  any  greater  than  rates  paid  for  functionally  equivalent  voice 
 communication  services  for  those  calls.  We  need  not  create  a  new  rule  to  address  this  situation  because  our  rules  already  establish  this  obligation.  174  We  remind  carriers  that  the  Commission 
 may  consider  enforcement  action,  including  forfeitures,  should  this  obligation  not  be  met.  175 
 5.  Treatment  of  Enhanced  Services 
 86.  Background.  Throughout  this  rulemaking,  many  commenters  have  requested  requiring  relay  service  to  accommodate  subscription  features  and  services,  such  as  Caller  ID,  as 
 well  as  features  and  services  that  TRS  users  typically  may  encounter,  such  as  interactive  menu  systems.  176  In  the  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  our  jurisdiction  under  section  225  does 
 not  permit  us  to  mandate  access  to  such  services.  We  asked  for  comment  on  how  to  approach  two  specific  services  raised  by  commenters:  interactive  menu  systems  and  pay-  per-  call 
 services.  177 
 87.  We  also  tentatively  concluded  that,  although  we  do  not  have  jurisdiction  to  require  access  to  such  services,  we  do  have  authority  to  establish  rules  to  govern  the  way  in 


 172  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  c)(  3). 
 173  See  Letter  from  Felecia  L.  Greer,  Executive  Secretary,  Maryland  Public  Service  Commission  dated  Sept.  22, 
 1999  (directing  Qwest  Communications  Corp.  to  provide  access  to  its  services  through  the  TRS  within  sixty  days). 
 174  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  3). 


 175  Common  Carrier  Bureau  Reminds  All  Common  Carriers  of  their  Obligation  to  Provide  Access  to  Their 
 Telecommunications  Services  via  Telecommunications  Relay  Services,  Public  Notice,  DA  99-  1871,  rel.  Sept.  14,  1999. 
 176  See,  e.  g.,  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  26-  27;  NCOD  Comments  at  1;  DSDHH  Reply  Comments  at  8. 


 177  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14205. 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 39 
 which  CAs  handle  recorded  messages  that  require  user  interaction  or  input.  178  The  current  rules  require  CAs  to  relay  all  conversation  verbatim  unless  the  relay  user  specifically  requests 
 summarization.  179  We  proposed  to  amend  our  rules  to  allow  CAs,  when  encountering  an  interactive  or  recorded  message  during  a  TRS  call,  to  use  a  hot  key  to  alert  the  TRS  user  to  the 
 presence  of  a  recorded  message.  180  We  stated  that  the  CA  should  be  permitted  to  inquire  as  to  whether  the  TRS  user  wishes  the  CA  to  summarize  the  message  or  to  listen  for  specific 
 information.  We  sought  comment  on  this  proposed  rule.  181 
 88.  Discussion.  Upon  further  analysis,  we  conclude  that  section  225  does  not  prohibit  us  from  requiring  relay  services  to  accommodate  enhanced  or  information  services.  We  find  that 
 section  225  does  not  limit  relay  service  to  telecommunications  services,  but  rather,  to  the  contrary,  expressly  reaches  enhanced  or  information  services.  In  fact,  section  225  specifically 
 defines  TRS  as  a  service  that  provides  the  ability  for  an  individual  who  has  a  hearing  impairment  or  speech  impairment  to  engage  in  communication  by  wire  or  radio    in  a  manner 
 that  is  functionally  equivalent  to  the  ability  of  an  individual  who  does  not  have  [such  an]  impairment  to  communicate  using  voice  communication  services  by  wire  or  radio. 
 Communication  by  wire  and  radio  encompasses  both  telecommunications  and  information  or  enhanced  services.  Both  communication  by  wire  and  communication  by  radio  are  broad 
 terms  defined  in  section  3  of  the  Communications  Act.  182  They  are  not  limited  to  telecommunications  services,  but  include  the  transmission  of  writing,  signs,  signals,  pictures 
 and  sounds  of  all  kinds  including  all  instrumentalities,  facilities,  apparatus,  and  services  (among  other  things,  the  receipt,  forwarding,  and  delivery  of  communications)  incidental  to  such 
 transmission.  183  This  latter  definition  sweeps  broadly  and  extends  to  information  services,  as  defined  in  section  3(  2)  of  the  Act. 


 178  See  47  U.  S.  C.    225  (a)(  3),  (b)(  1),  (d)(  1). 
 179  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  2). 
 180  A  hot  key  is  part  of  some  relay  software  programs  that  allows  the  CA  to  program  certain  phrases  (i.  e., 
 ringing  or  number  busy)  into  a  sequence  in  order  to  transmit  these  phrases  to  the  user  without  typing  the  entire  phrase.  Thus,  a  CA  can  type  an  entire  phrase  or  message  in  one  or  two  keystrokes  on  the  TTY  rather  than  by  typing 


 every  word  of  each  letter  of  an  entire  phrase  or  message.  The  TTY  user  can  then  respond  with  a  request  that  the  CA  summarize    or  not  summarize    the  message  being  relayed. 


 181  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14205-  6. 
 182  47  U.  S.  C.    153. 
 183  Id.  at    153(  33),  153  (51). 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 40 
 89.  Moreover,  we  find  that  an  interpretation  of  TRS  that  fails  to  follow  the  literal  meaning  of  the  statute  would  be  contrary  to  its  stated  purpose.  As  explained  below,  a  more 
 limited  reading  that  excludes  information  services  would  restrict  us  from  ensuring  that  TRS  is  provided  in  a  manner  functionally  equivalent  to  that  provided  users  of  voice  telecommunications 
 services,  as  the  definition  requires.  Thus,  a  narrow  interpretation  would  curtail  delivery  of  relay  services,  rather  than  facilitate  them,  as  Congress  has  expressly  directed  us  to  do  in  section 
 225(  b)(  1)(  requiring  us  to  ensure  that  relay  services  are  available,  to  the  extent  possible  and  in  the  most  efficient  manner).  Thus,  we  find  that  by  reading  the  statute  consistent  with  its  literal 
 meaning,  we  further  the  express  statutory  purpose. 
 90.  Notwithstanding  our  initial  cautionary  note  in  the  Notice  where  we  questioned  the  plain  meaning  of  this  definitional  provision  because  of  language  in  a  House  Report,  upon  further 
 review  we  conclude  that  in  fact  the  legislative  history  supports  our  reading  of  the  statute.  As  commenters  have  explained,  an  exchange  on  the  House  floor  after  the  House  Report  was  issued 
 persuasively  demonstrates  the  intent  of  the  drafters  to  reach  audiotext  services  at  a  later  date  when  future  technology  can  make  these  services  available  utilizing  a  relay  service.  184  This 
 colloquy  was  intended  to  clarify  that  the  inclusion  of  limiting  language  in  the  House  Report  was  only  intended  to  preclude  relay  of  audiotext  services  to  the  extent  not  then  technologically 
 possible.  We  therefore  disagree  with  the  few  parties  who  claimed,  without  substantiation,  that  the  statute  should  be  interpreted  more  narrowly.  185 


 91.  Not  only  is  the  definition  of  TRS  broad,  but  as  noted,  section  225  requires  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  interstate  and  intrastate  relay  services  are  available  to  the  extent 
 possible.  186  This  provision  requires  us  to  evaluate  the  state  of  technology  available  to  provide  relay  services,  and  determine  what  is  possible.  As  technology  improves,  relay  service  and  its 
 standard  offerings  should  also  improve.  In  sum,  given  the  clear  statutory  language  defining  TRS,  the  purpose  of  the  provision,  and  its  legislative  history,  we  reject  our  earlier  tentative 
 position.  Below  we  will  address  several  improvements  consumers  have  requested. 
 184  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  12  (citing  136  Cong.  Rec.  H2434  (May  17,  1990));  NVRC  Comments  at  2; 
 the  Federation  Comments  at  3.  The  colloquy  in  the  Congressional  Record  from  almost  a  decade  ago  is: 


 Mr.  Hoyer:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  concerned  about  a  provision  contained  in  the  report  filed  b  the  Committee  on  Energy  and  Commerce  which  states:  "It  is  not  the  function  of  this  legislation  to  facilitate  access  to  audiotext  services."  Is  it  the 
 gentleman's  understanding  that  this  bill  precludes  such  access?  Mr.  Thomas  A.  Luken:  The  gentleman  raises  a  good  question.  While  the  legislation  does  not  require  access  to 
 audiotext  services  at  this  time,  if  future  technology  can  make  these  services  available  utilizing  a  relay  service,  it  is  our  intent  to  ensure  such  access.  136  Cong.  Rec.  H2434  (May  17,  1990). 


 185  Ameritech  Comments  at  6-  7;  KRSI  Comments  at  7;  SBC  Comments  at  8;  Sprint  Comments  at  11. 
 186  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  b)(  1). 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 41 
 92.  Interactive  Menus  and  Voice  Mail.  We  are  convinced  by  the  record  that  today  relay  service  does  not  provide  consumers  with  a  hearing  or  speech  disability  the  ability  to  engage 
 in  communication  by  wire  or  radio  in  a  manner  that  is  functionally  equivalent  to  those  consumers  without  such  a  disability  when  the  communication  encounters  an  interactive  menu.  187  We  are 
 concerned,  as  are  many  TRS  users,  that  individuals  with  disabilities  are  being  excluded  from  access  to  these  ubiquitous  technologies.  188  In  order  to  provide  TRS  that  is  functionally 
 equivalent  to  telecommunications  service  provided  to  voice  users,  we  must  interpret  our  duty  under  section  225  to  include  the  authority  to  require  access  through  TRS  to  interactive  menus. 
 Interactive  menu  systems  and  recorded  messages  are  increasingly  used  by  businesses  and  services.  They  present  substantial  barriers  to  TRS  users  because  the  speed  at  which  information 
 is  provided  is  too  fast  to  allow  the  TRS  user  to  respond  within  the  system  response  time.  As  a  result,  TRS  users  are  either  unable  to  make  calls  that  encounter  interactive  menus  or  other 
 recorded  messages  or  must  frequently  place  a  succession  of  calls  to  leave  a  message  with,  or  access  the  information  provided  by,  such  systems.  189 


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


 94.  First,  we  will  adopt  our  proposal,  supported  by  commenters,  to  require  CAs  to  alert  the  user  to  the  presence  of  a  recorded  message  through  a  "hot  key"  on  the  CAs  terminal.  191 
 187  See,  e.  g.,  MATP  Comments  at  4;  Missouri  Assistive  Technology  Council  and  Project  Comments  at  5; 
 NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  4;  NCOD  Comments  at  1;  Presidents  Committee  on  Employment  of  People  with  Disabilities  Comments  at  9;  SHHH  Comments  at  6;  DSDHH  Reply  Comments  at  8. 


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


 189  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14205. 
 190  47  U.  S.  C.    255. 
 191  See  AIM  Comments  at  2;  Bell  Atlantic  Comments  at  6;  FPSC  Comments  at  7;  KRSI  Comments  at  7;  MCI 
 Comments  at  5;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  3;  the  President's  Committee  Comments  at  9-  10;  TDI  Comments  at  11;  Texas  PUC  Comments  at  10-  l1;  Mr.  Gregory  Reply  at  7;  SBC  Reply  at  4. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 42 
 The  hot  key  would  send  text  from  the  CA  to  the  consumers  TTY  indicating  that  a  recording  or  interactive  menu  has  been  encountered.  The  consumer  can  respond  by  typing  back  instructions 
 on  how  he  or  she  wishes  to  proceed.  Commenters  correctly  point  out  that  our  current  rules  permit  the  consumer  to  ask  the  CA  to  summarize  a  message.  192  Because  some  relay  facilities 
 may  be  technically  incapable  of  receiving  interrupt  messages,  a  caller  using  a  TTY  who  does  not  request  summarization  before  the  CA  begins  typing  a  lengthy  recorded  message  would  have 
 no  choice  but  to  receive  the  entire  recorded  message  verbatim.  Our  amendment  gives  these  TTY  users  an  opportunity  to  request  summarization.  We  encourage  relay  providers  to  consider 
 whether  a  users  preference  to  summarize  messages  should  be  included  in  the  users  customer  profile. 


 95.  Second,  we  adopt  the  suggestion  of  some  commenters  that  we  require  relay  centers  to  record  these  recorded  messages,  which  could  be  retained  for  the  length  of  the  call.  193 
 This  will  allow  the  CA  to  record  the  message  at  the  relay  center  and  rewind  the  message  as  needed  to  complete  relaying  of  the  message  to  the  TRS  user.  Because  the  CA  would  have  a 
 recording  of  the  lengthy  message,  the  CA  would  be  able  to  finish  relaying  the  message  to  the  TRS  user  without  having  to  redial  the  requested  telephone  number  to  hear  the  message  time  and 
 again  as  she  types  it  to  the  TRS  user.  194 
 96.  Finally,  oftentimes,  consumers  are  unable  to  complete  calls  to  interactive  menus  without  repeating  those  calls.  We  agree  with  consumers  who  argue  that  the  statute  prohibits 
 consumers  from  being  charged  for  repeated  calls.  195  The  statute  and  our  current  rules  state  that  users  of  telecommunications  relay  services  should  pay  rates  no  greater  than  the  rates  paid  for 
 functionally  equivalent  voice  communication  services.  196  Because  voice  callers  can  expect  to  complete  their  interaction  with  an  interactive  menu  system  in  one  call,  relay  users  shall  not  be 
 charged  for  additional  calls  needed  to  complete  their  interactions  with  recorded  messages  or 
 192  See  Ms.  Andrews  Comments  at  2  (CA,  not  caller,  should  initiate  summarizing);  FPSC  Comments  at  5  (CA 
 should  summarize  all  calls  upon  request);  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  13  (citing  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  2)  to  substantiate  its  claim  that  the  Commission's  rules  already  allow  for  such  an  exception);  NVRC  Comments  at  2  (Commission  should 


 continue  the  current  policy  that  TRS  be  verbatim  unless  requested  by  the  consumer). 
 193  See,  e.  g.,  MATP  Comments  at  4;  COR  Reply  at  10    11;  NAD/  CAN  Reply  at  7;  Mr.  Nelson  Reply  at  3; 
 NVRC  Comments  at  2;  TDI  Reply  at  10;  Texas  PUC  Reply  at  11. 
 194  See  MATP  Comments  at  4. 


 195  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  14;  MCI  Rely  at  8.  Because  a  charge  is  not  associated  with  completing  the 
 first  leg  of  a  relay  call  to  the  TRS  center,  multiple  charges  occur  only  for  toll  calls. 
 196  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  c)(  1)(  D). 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 43 
 interactive  menu  systems.  We  anticipate  that  TRS  providers  will  include  these  added  costs  of  completing  these  interactions  in  their  overall  costs  of  providing  relay  service,  for  reimbursement 
 from  the  state  and  interstate  TRS  Funds. 
 97.  A  few  commenters  suggested  requiring  access  to  a  live  operator  in  lieu  of  a  menu  or  recorded  message.  197  Section  225,  however,  does  not  give  us  any  express  authority  over  the 
 entities  employing  menus  and  recorded  messages.  As  noted  above,  however,  we  do  expect  that  these  features  will  become  increasingly  available  as  equipment  manufacturers  and  service 
 providers  comply  with  our  rules  recently  issued  under  section  255  of  the  Communications  Act. 
 98.  Pay-  Per-  Call  Services.  Commenters  have  also  asked  us  to  require  that  pay-  per-call  services  be  offered  through  TRS.  198  The  record  clearly  indicates  that  it  is  technically 
 feasible  for  relay  centers  to  accommodate  calls  to  pay-  per-  call  services.  199  Pay-  per-  call  services  are  services  that  are  accessible  through  use  of  a  900  number.  200  The  record  shows  that  some 
 relay  providers  already  offer  pay-  per-  call  services,  201  so  we  require  relay  service  to  offer  pay-per-  call  as  another  component  of  functional  equivalency. 


 6.  Access  to  Emergency  Services 
 99.  Background.  While  Department  of  Justice  regulations  require  state  and  local  government  entities  to  make  emergency  services  directly  accessible  to  TTY  users,  202  some 
 individuals  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  continue  to  contact  emergency  services  via  a  TRS  center.  Our  current  rules  provide  that  emergency  calls  should  be  handled  in  the  same 
 manner  as  any  other  TRS  call.  203  In  the  Notice,  we  expressed  our  concern  that  the  current 
 197  See  Bell  Atlantic  Comments  at  6;  Mr.  LaPointe  Comments  at  1(  suggesting  all  menus  should  be  programmed 
 to  allow  a  caller  to  access  a  live  operator  or  to  select  a  slower  voice  menu);  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  3;  SBC  Reply  at  4. 
 198  NCOD  at  1. 


 199  See  Maryland  Comments  at  8-  9;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  12. 
 200  Pay-  per-  call  services  cannot  be  accessed  using  a  toll-  free  dialing  sequence,  such  as  a  1-  800  number.  A 
 consumer  can  use  a  charge  card  to  pay  for  the  calls  when  they  are  made.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    228  (  Regulation  of  Carrier  Offering  of  Pay-  Per-  Call  Services);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.1600  et  seq.  (  Interstate  Pay-  Per-  Call  and  Other  Information 


 Services). 
 201  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14204. 


 202  28  C.  F.  R.    35.162. 
 203  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  a)(  3). 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 44 
 handling  of  emergency  calls  may  jeopardize  public  safety,  and  we  noted  that  TRS  users  should  be  informed  as  to  how  emergency  calls  will  be  handled.  204  We  asked  TRS  providers  for  a 
 description  of  their  current  operating  procedures  for  incoming  emergency  calls,  and  sought  comment  on  whether  TRS  centers  should  be  required  to  pass  a  caller's  Automatic  Number 
 Identification  (ANI)  information  to  an  emergency  services  operator,  and  how  "emergency  calls"  should  be  defined  for  the  purposes  of  TRS.  205 


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


 204  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14203. 
 205  Id. 
 206  A  PSAP,  or  Public  Safety  Answering  Point,  contacts  police,  fire  or  ambulance  service  when  it  receives 
 calls  through  its  emergency  service  number. 
 207  AT&  T  Comments  at  7-  8.  AT&  T  concludes  the  centers  can  receive  ANI  information  through  the  telephone 
 network,  but  the  PBX  cannot  automatically  pass  the  information  to  an  emergency  center  because  it  is  not  equipped  with  required  network  signaling  protocol. 


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


 209  See  TX-  ACSEC  Comments  at  2-  3;  Texas  PUC  Comments  at  10;  GTE  Reply  at  2;  NAD/  CAN  Reply  at  10; 
 TDI  Reply  at  8. 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 45 
 the  call.  210  When  a  voice  caller  dials  911,  his  phone  number  is  automatically  transmitted  to  the  appropriate  PSAP. 
 101.  Second,  as  requested  by  commenters,  we  will  require  that  CAs  pass  along  the  callers  telephone  number  to  the  PSAP  orally  even  when  the  caller  disconnects  before  being 
 connected  to  emergency  services.  211  With  a  voice  caller,  a  PSAP  will  automatically  receive  the  callers  telephone  number  even  if  the  call  is  disconnected,  and  the  PSAP  will  normally  return  the 
 call  if  the  caller  hangs  up  or  if  the  call  is  disconnected.  We  believe  our  requirement  is  necessary  to  ensure  functionally  equivalent  service  and  will  allow  the  PSAP  to  follow  its  normal 
 procedures  for  a  call  that  disconnects  before  being  handled  by  an  operator.  212  We  would  prefer  to  require  that  callers  telephone  numbers  automatically  be  relayed  to  the  911  operator  from  the 
 relay  operator,  as  suggested  by  many  commenters,  213  but  believe  it  would  be  premature  to  do  so  as  no  provider  has  demonstrated  that  capability  and  several  have  raised  questions  about  its 
 feasibility.  214  We  will  address  some  of  the  technical  issues  that  would  make  this  possible  in  our  Further  Notice. 


 102.  With  respect  to  a  definition  of  emergency  call,  parties  offered  numerous  suggestions.  215  We  agree,  however,  with  those  commenters  who  argue  that  no  definition  of 
 emergency  is  necessary,  and  that  the  TRS  operator  should  simply  be  instructed  to  refer  calls  to  emergency  services  when  appropriate.  216  We  believe  that  this  approach  is  reasonable  and 


 210  See  SBC  Reply  at  7. 
 211  See  AIM  Comments  at  1;  APCO  and  NENA  Comments  at  2;  Bell  Atlantic  Comments  at  5;  the  Federation 
 Comments  at  3;  Mr.  Gregory  Comments  at  10-  11;  MATP  Comments  at  3;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  10-  11;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  3;  TDI  Comments  at  16-  17;  TX-  ACSEC  Comments  at  3-  4;  COR  Reply  at  9;  Mr.  Nelson  Reply  at  3. 


 212  Relay  service  has  often  been  referred  to  as  a  provider  of  dial  tone.  By  completing  the  call  to  the  PSAP, 
 the  CA  is  simply  providing  a  dial  tone  connection  equivalent  to  that  which  would  occur  with  a  voice  user. 
 213  See  APCO  and  NENA  Comments  at  2;  Sprint  Comments  at  10;  TX-  ACSEC  Comments  at  4;  NAD/  CAN 
 Reply  at  10. 
 214  See  Sprint  Comments  at  10. 


 215  See  AIM  Comments  at  1  (where  one  or  more  persons  are  faced  with  death  or  injury  or  if  there  is  a  risk  of 
 serious  property  damage);  APCO  and  NENA  Comments  at  3;  Federation  Comments  at  3;  NVRC  Comments  at  2;  SBC  Reply  at  7  (include  calls  expressly  requesting  connection  to  911  or  requesting  assistance  from  "a  public  agency  of  the 


 type  typically  accessed  via  a  911  system  by  persons  without  hearing  or  speech  impairments  (e.  g.,  police,  fire,  and  ambulance  or  emergency  squads)"). 


 216  See  Bell  Atlantic  Comments  at  5;  KRSI  Comments  at  6;  SBC  Comments  at  8;  NAD/  CAN  Reply  at  11;  SBC 
 Reply  at  6. 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 46 
 recognizes  that  at  times  there  may  need  to  be  a  judgment  made  about  when  the  caller  is  in  distress  and  in  need  of  emergency  assistance.  217 
 7.  Outreach 
 103.  Our  current  rule  states  that  carriers,  through  publication  in  their  directories,  periodic  bill  inserts,  placement  of  TRS  instructions  in  telephone  directories,  through  directory 
 assistance  services,  and  incorporation  of  TTY  numbers  in  telephone  directories,  shall  assure  that  callers  in  their  service  areas  are  aware  of  the  availability  and  use  of  TRS."  218  Despite  the 
 Commission's  decision  in  the  Notice  that  we  would  not  seek  comment  on  outreach  activities,  several  parties  provided  lengthy  comments  on  the  need  for  more  effective  outreach  activities  and 
 strongly  encouraged  the  Commission  to  propose  rules  concerning  the  effectiveness  of  information  and  outreach  programs.  219 


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


 105.  While  we  have  not  given  public  notice  sufficient  to  change  the  rules  in  this  Order,  we  will  propose  further  changes  for  comment.  We  clarify  that  the  current  rule  obligates  carriers 
 to  assure  that  callers  in  their  service  areas  are  aware  of  TRS.  222  The  term  "callers  refers  to  the  general  public,  not  just  consumers  with  speech  and  hearing  disabilities.  It  is  crucial  for  everyone 
 to  be  aware  of  the  availability  of  TRS  for  it  to  offer  the  functional  equivalence  required  by  the 
 217  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  11. 


 218  47  C.  F.  R.    225. 
 219  Maryland  Comments  at  12;  TDI  Comments  at  20;  NAD/  CAN  Reply  Comments  at  12;  and  NVRC  Reply 
 Comments  at  3. 
 220  NAD/  CAN  Reply  Comments  at  12. 


 221  NAD/  CAN  Reply  Comments  at  12;  TDI  Reply  Comments  at  15. 
 222  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  c)(  2). 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 47 
 statute.  As  Congress  has  stated,  TRS  was  designed  to  help  bridge  the  gap  between  people  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  and  people  without  such  disabilities  with  respect  to 
 telecommunications  services.  The  lack  of  public  awareness  prevents  TRS  from  achieving  this  Congressionally  mandated  objective.  We  also  note  that,  as  we  have  determined  that  TRS 
 includes  services  other  than  traditional  TTY-  based  relay  service,  outreach  efforts  should  now  include  information  about  these  relay  services  as  well. 


 8.  Enforcement  and  Certification 
 a.  Substantive  Changes  to  Certified  TRS  Programs 
 106.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  to  improve  Commission  oversight  of  certified  state  TRS  programs.  First,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  states  must  notify  the 
 Commission  of  substantive  changes  in  their  state  TRS  program  within  sixty  days  of  the  effective  date  of  the  change  and  file  documentation  demonstrating  that  the  state  TRS  program  remains  in 
 compliance  with  the  Commission's  mandatory  minimum  standards.  223 
 107.  Discussion.  We  adopt  our  tentative  conclusion  to  require  that  states  notify  the  Commission,  in  writing,  about  substantive  changes  in  their  TRS  programs  within  60  days  of 
 when  they  occur,  as  is  supported  by  most  parties.  224  Such  notification  shall  include  a  summary  of  the  action  taken,  the  reason  for  the  change,  and  a  certification  that  the  state  TRS  program 
 continues  to  meet  federal  minimum  standards  after  implementing  the  substantive  change.  Substantive  changes  include  but  are  not  limited  to:  change  in  state  vendor,  change  in  a  state  TRS 
 program  to  allow  a  multiple  vendor  environment,  and  changes  in  state  rules  related  to  any  of  the  federal  minimum  standards  for  TRS.  We  would  also  consider  a  major  change  in  technology  used 
 by  a  state  program  to  be  a  substantive  change.  225 
 108.  The  record  indicates  that  most  parties  support  our  proposals  to  strengthen  the  Commission's  oversight  and  enforcement  of  standards  regarding  the  state  TRS  programs,  and  we 


 223  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14216. 
 224  See  AIM  Comments  at  2;  KRSI  Comments  at  14;  MATP  Comments  at  5;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  23; 
 SHHH  Comments  at  11;  ;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  6;  TDI  Comments  at  19;  COR  Reply  Comments  at  13-  14;  NVRC  Reply  Comments  at  3;  TRS  Advisory  Council  Reply  Comments  at  5.  Sprint  states  that  it  believes  that  the  proposed  rule 


 amendment  will  help  the  Commission  ensure  that  interstate  and  intrastate  TRS  are  available  to  the  extent  possible  and  in  the  most  efficient  manner  to  people  in  the  United  States  with  hearing  or  speech  disabilities.  See  Sprint  Comments  at  14- 
 15. 
 225  See  Mr.  Gregory  Comments  at  19. 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 48 
 disagree  with  commenters  who  say  that  the  Commission  already  has  adequate  oversight  of  state  TRS  programs  under  its  current  rules.  226  States  make  changes  to  their  TRS  programs  throughout 
 the  five  year  certification  period.  Providing  the  Commission  notice  of  substantive  changes  will  help  ensure  that  such  changes  do  not  affect  the  state  TRS  programs  compliance  with 
 Commission  rules.  This  minimal  notification  requirement  will  ensure  that  current  information  relating  to  TRS  programs  is  available  and  will  also  ensure  that  state  TRS  programs  continue  to 
 provide  high  quality  TRS  throughout  the  five-  year  certification  period.  In  addition,  informing  the  Commission  of  changes  will  help  the  Commission    and  other  relay  administrators  and 
 consumers    be  informed  of  developments  in  relay  services  as  they  occur  throughout  the  nation.  227 


 109.  We  do  not  believe  that  this  notification  requirement  will  require  states  to  make  burdensome  filings,  or  that  such  filings  will  affect  their  "ability  and  willingness"  to  make  such 
 changes  to  their  TRS  programs,  or  modify  their  programs  to  meet  specific  state  needs.  228  First,  we  require  notification  only  for  changes  that  are  "substantial,"  which  suggests  that  these  changes 
 will  not  occur  often.  Second,  the  filing  should  be  brief  because  state  relay  administrators  need  only  explain  the  change  they  have  made  and  certify  continued  compliance  with  the  federal 
 minimum  standards. 
 b.  Information  on  Complaint  Procedures 
 110.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  we  should  amend  our  rules  to  require  that,  as  a  condition  of  certification,  a  state  TRS  program  must  demonstrate  that 
 its  program  makes  available  to  TRS  users  informational  materials  on  state  and  Commission  complaint  procedures  sufficient  for  users  to  know  the  proper  procedures  for  filing  complaints.  229 


 111.  Discussion.  We  will  adopt  our  tentative  conclusion,  supported  by  commenters,  that  state  TRS  programs  must  make  available  to  TRS  users  information  on  state  and  Commission 
 complaint  procedures.  230  We  will  adopt  a  rule  to  require  such  efforts  as  a  minimum  standard. 
 226  See  the  Board  Comments  at  2,  4;  FPSC  Comments  at  11. 


 227  Mr.  Gregory  Comments  at  19. 
 228  See  the  Board  Comments  at  3-  4. 
 229  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  14216-  7. 
 230  See  AIM  Comments  at  2;  KRSI  Comments  at  14;  MATP  Comments  at  5;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  23; 
 SHHH  Comments  at  11;  Sprint  Comments  at  14;  Mr.  Stoltz  Comments  at  6;  COR  Reply  Comments  at  13-  14;  NVRC  Reply  Comments  at  3. 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 49 
 112.  We  will  also  require,  as  suggested  by  several  parties,  that  states  provide  contact  information  to  the  Commission,  which  will  be  posted  on  the  Commissions  web  site.  231  We 
 agree  that  providing  an  Internet  reference  would  enable  customers  to  easily  find  the  appropriate  forum  for  filing  their  complaints.  232  We,  therefore,  require  that  state  TRS  administrators,  by 
 June  30,  2000,  submit  the  name  and  address  of  a  contact  person  or  office  for  filing  consumer  complaints  about  intrastate  TRS  service  to  the  Consumer  Information  Bureau,  Disability  Rights 
 Office,  445  12  th  Street  SW,  Suite  6-  A207,  Washington,  DC,  20554.  The  state  complaint  contacts  will  be  on  file  at  our  reference  center  located  at  Commission  headquarters  and  will  be  posted  on 
 the  Internet  at  the  Commission's  web  site  at  http://  www.  fcc.  gov.  Each  state's  contact  information  shall  include,  at  a  minimum:  the  name  and  address  of  the  state  office  that  receives  complaints, 
 grievances,  inquiries  and  suggestions,  along  with  the  relevant  voice  and  TTY  telephone  number(  s),  fax  number,  e-  mail  address,  and  physical  address  to  which  correspondence  should  be 
 sent.  It  should  also  include  information  on  the  relay  provider  and  how  to  contact  the  provider  directly. 


 113.  We  also  require  that  interstate  relay  providers  submit  to  the  Commission,  by  June  30,  2000,  the  name  and  address  of  a  contact  person  or  office  to  receive  input  and  inquiries 
 regarding  interstate  TRS  service.  The  Commission  also  will  post  this  information  on  the  Internet.  We  require  that  similar  information  be  on  file  for  all  relay  providers  having  state  TRS 
 contracts. 
 114.  We  remind  relay  users  that  the  statute  requires  that  complaints  about  intrastate  service  be  filed  first  with  the  state.  233  Having  state  contact  information  and  state  complaint 
 procedures  on  file  at  the  Commission  and  on  the  Commission's  web  site  will  help  disseminate  information  that  enables  TRS  users  to  direct  their  complaints  or  suggestions  on  how  to  improve 
 the  quality  of  TRS  to  the  proper  forum. 
 c.  Complaint  Procedures 
 115.  Background.  Section  225(  g)  directs  the  Commission  to  refer  complaints  about  intrastate  TRS  to  those  states  which  have  certified  TRS  programs;  states  have  180  days  to 


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


 233  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  g). 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 50 
 resolve  the  complaints,  unless  a  shorter  time  is  prescribed  by  state  law.  234  Other  complaints  filed  with  the  Commission,  either  about  interstate  TRS  or  about  intrastate  TRS  in  states  without  a 
 certified  program,  must  be  resolved  by  the  Commission  within  180  days  of  their  filing.  235  In  1991,  the  Commission  promulgated  rules  prescribing  the  manner  in  which  complaints  will  be 
 either  referred  to  a  state  as  required  under  section  225(  g)  or,  if  exclusively  within  our  jurisdiction,  resolved  by  the  Commission.  236  In  the  Notice,  we  requested  comment  on  whether 
 modifications  to  our  complaint  rules  are  needed  to  better  serve  the  needs  of  TRS  users.  237 
 116.  Discussion.  The  record  indicates  that  there  is  considerable  consumer  dissatisfaction  with  the  speed  and  effectiveness  of  both  state  and  federal  complaint  processes.  238 
 With  respect  to  federal  complaint  processes,  we  agree  with  commenters  that  the  existing  formal  process  is  simply  too  unwieldy  for  most  consumers. 


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


 234  Id. 
 235  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  c)(  1). 
 236  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604(  c)(  5). 
 237  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14217. 
 238  See,  e.  g.,  the  Federation  Comments  at  5-  6;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  23-  24;  NVRC  Comments  at  4;  SHHH 
 Comments  at  11;  COR  Reply  Comments  at  14. 
 239  47  U.  S.  C.    225. 


 240  See  47  C.  F.  R.    6.16. 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 51 
 118.  The  new  rules  will  make  it  easy  for  consumers  to  lodge  complaints  and  facilitate  cooperative  efforts  between  consumers  and  TRS  providers  to  resolve  them  quickly  without 
 extensive  involvement  by  the  Commission.  At  the  same  time,  the  rules  position  Commission  staff  to  be  pro-  active  in  handling  complaints  that  raise  troublesome  compliance  questions  or 
 which  otherwise  may  not  be  susceptible  to  informal  resolution  by  the  parties.  241  For  example,  Commission  staff  will  have  the  authority  to  require  a  response  to  an  informal  complaint  in  less 
 than  thirty  days  if  warranted  under  the  circumstances  of  a  complaint.  In  addition,  the  staff  may,  in  its  discretion,  require  a  TRS  provider  to  appear  before  it,  via  telephone  conference  or  in 
 person,  to  bring  and  give  evidence  relevant  to  a  complaint.  Finally,  if  the  nature  or  number  of  complaints  against  a  particular  TRS  provider  evinces  an  underlying  compliance  problem,  the 
 staff  may  initiate  on  its  own  motion,  or  recommend  to  the  Commission  if  appropriate,  prompt  and  decisive  enforcement  actions.  242 


 119.  With  respect  to  state  complaint  processes,  Section  225  contemplates  that  intrastate  complaints  filed  under  that  section  will  be  resolved  by  the  state  within  180  days  after 
 the  complaint  is  filed.  We  believe  that,  regardless  of  whether  a  complaint  is  filed  with  the  state  relay  administrator,  a  state  PUC,  the  relay  provider,  or  with  any  other  state  entity,  the  consumer's 
 complaint  should  be  resolved  within  180  days  of  the  date  it  is  filed  with  a  state  entity.  Where  a  relay  complaint  is  filed  with  a  provider,  administrator,  or  other  entity  that  is  not  the  state  entity 
 designated  to  handle  relay  complaints,  the  entity  receiving  such  complaint  shall  forward  such  complaints  they  receive  from  consumers  to  the  appropriate  state  entity.  The  state  entity 
 designated  to  resolve  complaints  should  develop  a  means  by  which,  regardless  of  which  state  entity  receives  the  complaint,  the  complaint  is  resolved  within  180  days.  This  should  address 
 consumers'  comments  that  complaints  are  neither  being  resolved  nor  being  forwarded  to  the  appropriate  state  agency,  243  because  the  designated  entity  will  have  an  interest  in  ensuring  that 
 the  party  receiving  the  complaint  resolves  it  promptly. 
 d.  Improving  the  Monitoring  of  Service  Quality 
 241  We  note  that  in  administering  our  rules  pertaining  to  informal  complaints  against  common  carriers  under 
 section  208  of  the  Act,  Commission  staff  works  cooperatively  with  consumers  and  companies  to  promote  meaningful  solutions  to  problems  raised  by  consumers  and  to  address  underlying  compliance  concerns.  In  addition,  the  staff 


 routinely  meets  with  consumer  groups  and  company  representatives  to  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  the  process  and  explore  improvements  that  will  better  serve  the  needs  of  consumers  and  the  industry.  We  expect  the  staff  to  use  a  similar 
 approach  in  administering  our  TRS  rules. 
 242  The  Act  gives  the  Commission,  and  its  staff  pursuant  to  delegated  authority,  broad  powers  to  inquire  into  or 
 investigate  the  activities  and  practices  of  parties  who  are  subject  to  the  Acts  requirements.  See,  e.  g.,  sections  4  (i)  and  403  of  the  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  403. 


 243  TDI  Comments  at  19. 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 52 
 120.  Background.  We  asked  commenters  to  discuss  whether  we  should  adopt  specific  guidelines  to  assess  whether  a  state  TRS  program  provides  "adequate  procedures  and  remedies 
 for  enforcing  the  requirements  of  the  state  program"  as  is  required  by  the  statue.  244 
 121.  Discussion.  We  agree  with  parties  that  requiring  state  applicants  for  TRS  certification  and  interstate  TRS  providers  to  maintain  a  log  of  consumer  complaints  that  allege  a 
 violation  of  the  federal  minimum  standards  would  substantially  help  the  Commission  monitor  the  service  quality  of  the  relay  programs.  245  We  will  adopt  such  a  requirement.  The  logs  must 
 include  all  complaints  alleging  a  breach  of  TRS  rules,  whether  they  were  filed  with  the  TRS  provider  or  the  State,  and  must  be  retained  until  the  next  application  for  certification  is  granted. 
 The  log  shall  include,  at  a  minimum,  the  date  that  the  complaint  was  lodged,  the  nature  of  the  complaint,  the  date  of  resolution  and  how  it  was  resolved.  If  state  TRS  programs  and  providers 
 are  in  compliance  with  federal  minimum  standards,  maintaining  the  log  should  not  be  burdensome.  246  In  addition,  we  will  require  that  summaries  of  these  logs  indicating  the  number 
 of  complaints  received  must  be  submitted  annually  to  the  Consumer  Information  Bureau,  Disability  Rights  Office,  445  12  th  Street  SW,  Washington,  DC,  20554,  and  at  the  time  of 
 certification. 
 122.  This  information  will  provide  an  early  warning  system  to  the  Commission  of  possible  service  quality  problems  during  the  five-  year  certification  period.  In  addition,  it  will 
 allow  the  Commission  to  determine  whether  the  state  has  appropriately  addressed  consumer  complaints  during  the  certification  process.  247  It  will  also  enable  the  Commission  to  spot 
 national  trends  that  may  lend  themselves  to  coordinated  solutions.  Finally,  the  information  will  be  available  to  enable  states  to  communicate  with  one  another  to  learn  how  other  states  have 
 resolved  certain  complaints. 
 9.  Advisory  Committee 
 123.  Background.  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  stated  that  a  number  of  parties  had  recommended  in  their  comments  to  the  NOI  that  we  consider  establishing  an  advisory  committee  to 
 monitor  TRS  quality  issues,  or  expand  the  role  of  the  Interstate  TRS  Fund  Advisory  Council  to 
 244  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  f)(  2)(  B). 
 245  Mr.  Gregory  Comments  at  19-  20;  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  23;  TDI  Comments  at  19. 
 246  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  23. 
 247  See  Mr.  Gregory  Comments  at  20. 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 53 
 allow  that  body  to  consider  also  TRS  quality  issues  in  addition  to  funding  issues.  248  We  recognized  the  importance  of  efforts  to  ensure  the  quality  of  TRS,  but  specifically  declined  to  propose  creation 
 of  an  advisory  committee.  249 
 124.  Discussion.  We  recognize  the  importance  of  obtaining  feedback  from  TRS  users  in  order  to  realize  our  statutory  obligations.  We  recognize  the  need  for  facilitating  ongoing  dialogue 
 with  consumers,  state  relay  administrators,  and  relay  providers.  We  will  be  exploring  various  possibilities  for  establishing  such  a  dialogue,  including  the  possibility  of  establishing  an  advisory 
 committee  under  the  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act.  250 
 II.  FURTHER  NOTICE  OF  PROPOSED  RULEMAKING 
 A.  OVERVIEW 
 125.  As  part  of  our  ongoing  efforts  to  evaluate  technology  and  the  needs  of  the  disability  community,  we  raise  additional  issues  here  for  further  review.  There  are  emerging 
 and  existing  technologies  that  we  have  not  yet  fully  evaluated  for  inclusion  in  relay  service. 


 B.  FURTHER  RULES  FOR  TRS  RELAY  SERVICE 
 126.  Some  commenters  have  suggested  that  STS  relay  service  should  have  its  own  separate  national  800  number  that  contains  as  many  identical  digits  as  possible.  251  Commenters 
 suggest  that  this  is  particularly  important  for  STS  relay  because  many  people  with  speech  disabilities  have  memory  problems  and,  consequently,  find  it  easier  to  say  one  number  over 
 again  than  to  say  different  numbers.  We  ask  for  comment  on  whether  a  separate  nationwide  access  number  for  STS  relay  service  is  desirable.  We  have  set  aside  711  for  use  with  TRS,  and 
 are  now  moving  towards  implementing  711  nationwide.  252  We  ask  whether  nationwide  access  to 
 248  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14217. 
 249  Id. 
 250  Federal  Advisory  Committee  Act,  5  U.  S.  C.,  App.  (1988). 
 251  Id. 
 252  The  Use  of  N11  Codes  and  Abbreviated  Dialing  Arrangements,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  105,  First  Report  and 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 54 
 relay  services  through  711  can  meet  this  need.  We  also  ask  parties  for  any  other  proposals  that  would  make  TRS  more  functionally  equivalent  for  TRS  users.  We  ask  parties  who  suggest 
 additional  rules  to  provide  specific  language. 
 C.  AVAILABILITY  OF  SS7  TO  TRS  CENTERS 
 127.  There  are  several  areas  where  relay  provider  access  to  information  normally  only  available  to  common  carriers  may  significantly  improve  the  quality  of  relay  services. 
 Information  such  as  the  presubscribed  carrier  and  the  originating  number  are  normally  passed  along  from  carrier  to  carrier  with  the  call  through  Signaling  System  7  (SS7)  technology.  If  relay 
 providers  had  access  to  this  information,  they  may  be  able  to  provide  Caller  ID,  improved  access  to  911,  and  eliminate  the  need  to  collect  some  of  information  collected  manually  today  through 
 caller  profiles.  Currently  our  rules  do  not  allow  entities  other  than  common  carriers  to  purchase  SS7  service.  TRS  centers,  therefore,  do  not  receive  information  normally  transferred  through  the 
 out-  of-  band  signaling  SS7  provides.  Specifically,  47  C.  F.  R.  64.1600(  f)  defines  SS7  service  as  a  carrier  to  carrier  out-  of-  band  signaling  network  used  for  call  routing,  billing,  and 
 management  [italics  added].  253  We  seek  comment  on  whether  47  C.  F.  R.  64.1600  should  be  amended  to  include  TRS  providers  as  lawful  recipients  and  users  of  SS7  data.  We  also  seek 
 comment  on  whether  the  Commission  has  jurisdiction  to  allow  TRS  centers  access  to  SS7  technology. 


 128.  In  the  accompanying  Report  and  Order,  we  describe  the  process  used  by  TRS  centers  to  manually  collect  information  about  their  callers  in  order  to  efficiently  handle  calls. 
 CAs  create  and  maintain  personal  profiles  on  TRS  users  so  that  CAs  can  correctly  and  efficiently  handle  the  call.  Some  of  the  information  regularly  collected  overlaps  a  callers  subscriber  list 
 information  which  is  included  in  SS7  data.  254  TRS  providers  current  practice  of  building  databases  manually  by  interviewing  each  TRS  user  does  not  appear  to  be  the  most  efficient 
 manner  of  providing  TRS.  255  Accordingly,  we  seek  comment  on  making  available  to  TRS  centers  SS7  technology  to  allow  the  same  information  that  is  transferred  from  one  common 
 carrier  to  another,  to  be  transferred  from  common  carrier  to  TRS  provider,  and  from  TRS  provider  to  common  carrier.  In  doing  so,  we  seek  to  obviate  the  need  for  TRS  centers  to 


 Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  12  FCC  Rcd  5572  (1997). 
 253  47  C.  F.  R.    1600. 


 254  47  C.  F.  R.    64.2003(  c)(  2)  and  (g)  defines  subscriber  list  information,  and  excludes  it  from  the  definition  of 
 CPNI. 
 255  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  b)(  1). 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 55 
 manually  collect  the  overlapping  information  that  normally  resides  in  the  public  switched  telephone  network.  The  transmission  of  SS7  will  not  obviate  the  need  to  collect  all  caller 
 information  specific  to  making  a  TRS  call,  such  as  a  users  preference  for  voice  carryover,  but  we  tentatively  conclude  that  use  of  SS7  will  render  provision  of  relay  service  more  functionally 
 equivalent  to  service  provided  to  voice  users.  We  ask  parties  to  provide  comments  on  these  issues. 


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


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


 256  NAD  Comments  at  26-  27;  TDI  Comments  at  21-  22. 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 56 
 display  screen.  Until  this  issue  is  finally  resolved,  we  strongly  encourage  carriers  and  providers  to  do  all  that  is  possible  to  implement  this  solution. 
 131.  If  parties  disagree  with  our  tentative  conclusion,  we  ask  them  to  propose  an  alternative  solution.  We  also  ask  parties  to  comment  on  whether  moving  from  Feature  Group  D 
 to  SS7  signaling  is  necessary  or  desirable  to  implement  this  or  an  alternative  solution.  Finally,  since  the  same  ANI  signaling  information  is  frequently  used  by  both  billing  systems  and  Caller 
 ID  systems,  we  ask  whether  it  would  be  possible  to  implement  this  or  an  alternative  solution. 
 132.  In  addition,  we  ask  for  comment  on  the  impact  of  the  Reveal  and  Anonymous  Call  Rejection  (ACR)  features  on  TTY-  to-  TTY  calls.  The  Commission  staff  is  in  receipt  of 
 information  that  these  features  block  TTY  calls,  where  the  called  party  has  a  TTY  attached  to  his  or  her  line  and  also  subscribes  to  Reveal  and  ACR.  The  calling  TTY  signal  is  blocked  even 
 where  the  calling  party's  line  does  not  block  Caller  ID  information.  In  addition,  we  ask  for  comment  on  whether  access  to  SS7  technology  will  allow  relay  providers  to  transfer  emergency 
 calls,  with  the  originating  number,  to  911  operators.  Finally,  we  ask  for  comment  on  what  new  services  and  features  SS7  could  make  available  to  TRS  users  and  TRS  centers. 


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


 D.  OUTREACH 
 134.  We  tentatively  conclude  that  TRS  service  would  be  improved  with  a  nationwide  awareness  campaign  that  would  reach  the  groups  suggested  by  commenters  -  all  potential  TRS 
 users,  257  consumers  with  disabilities,  258  senior  citizens  who  have  lost  their  hearing  late  in  life,  259 


 257  See  Maryland  Comments  at  13;  NAD/  CAN  Reply  Comments  at  12;  NVRC  Reply  Comments  at  3;  TDI 
 Reply  Comments  at  15. 
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 57 
 potential  STS  users,  260  and  the  general  public.  We  seek  comment  on  the  suggestion  made  by  a  number  of  commenters  that  the  outreach  effort  be  supported  by  the  interstate  TRS  Fund  and  that 
 the  interstate  TRS  Fund  administrator  administer  the  funding  for  educational  outreach  programs.  261  We  further  propose  to  amend  the  mission  of  the  Intersate  TRS  Fund  Advisory 
 Council  to  include  establishing  guidelines  and  a  procedure  to  fund  a  coordinated  national  outreach  campaign.  We  base  this  recommendation  on  the  success  of  Marylands  apparently 
 effective  advertising  campaign,  which  included  television  advertisements.  Maryland  asserts  that  as  a  result  of  its  campaign,  public  awareness  is  at  an  all-  time  high,  telephone  inquiries  to  the 
 state's  Maryland  Relay  customer  service  department  for  information  regarding  relay  have  risen  dramatically,  and  call  volumes  to  the  relay  center  have  increased.  262  We  propose  that  the 
 campaign  address  all  types  of  relay  services  and  be  based  on  the  experience  of  the  Maryland  Department  of  Management  and  Budget  efforts.  263  We  propose  that  the  Advisory  Council 
 develop  its  plan  with  input  from  all  stakeholders. 
 135.  We  believe  this  proposal  will  be  more  cost-  effective  than  individual  plans  developed  by  each  state,  as  some  commenters  suggest.  264  We  would  not  expect  this  plan  to  be 
 implemented  in  isolation  from  the  state  relay  programs,  however.  A  good  plan  may  well  have  different  emphasis  in  different  states  or  regions,  but  we  believe  it  can  be  efficiently  developed 
 and  coordinated  nationally. 
 136.  Finally,  we  request  comment  on  whether  we  should  require  a  states  certification  program  to  include,  and  budget  for,  outreach  efforts. 


 E.  TECHNOLOGIES,  FEATURES  AND  SERVICES 
 258  See  the  President's  Committee  Comments  at  7. 
 259  See  NAD/  CAN  Reply  Comments  at  12. 
 260  See  COR  Reply  Comments  at  6. 
 261  See  Maryland  Comments  at  13;  NAD/  CAN  Reply  Comments  at  12;  TDI  Reply  Comments  at  15. 
 262  Maryland  Comments  at  12-  13. 
 263  See  FCC  Public  Forum  on  711  Access  to  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  CC  Docket  No.  92-  105 
 September  8,  1999,  Comment  by  Gil  Becker  (Education  Segment),  Comment  by  Brenda  Battat  (Education  Segment). 
 264  See  Mr.  Behnke  Reply  Comments  at  1;  Ms.  Curtis  Reply  Comments  at  1;  Mr.  Kemp  Reply  Comments  at  1; 
 Ms.  Moore  Reply  Comments  at  1;  and  Dr.  Pray  Reply  Comments  at  1. 
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 58 
 137.  The  language  in  section  225(  d)(  2)  requires  us  to  ensure  that  rules  prescribed  to  implement  section  225  encourage,  consistent  with  section  7(  a)  of  the  Act,  the  use  of  existing 
 technology  and  do  not  discourage  or  impair  the  development  of  improved  technology.  265  In  keeping  with  the  statute,  our  rules  specify  that  no  TRS  provision  set  forth  in  the  Commission's 
 rules  is  intended  to  discourage  or  impair  the  development  of  improved  technology  that  fosters  the  availability  of  telecommunications  to  persons  with  disabilities.  In  addition,  as  noted  above, 
 the  functionally  equivalent  standard  is  a  continuing  goal  which  requires  periodic  reassessment.  Commenters  argue  strenuously  that  the  services  and  features  offered  by  the  relay  system  must 
 keep  up  with  changes  and  improvements  in  technologies  and  service  offerings  available  to  nondisabled  users.  266 


 138.  In  response  to  the  Notice,  consumers  urged  the  Commission  to  require  a  number  of  relay  features  as  part  of  its  minimum  technical  standards,  asserting  that  they  are  technically 
 feasible  and  would  further  efforts  to  provide  functionally  equivalent  service.  267  We  seek  comment  on  these  and  similar  features  which  would  enable  consumers  with  disabilities  to 
 communicate  through  the  relay  service.  We  seek  comment  on  equipment  configurations,  the  extent  to  which  these  features  are  available  or  can  be  offered  immediately  through  TRS,  and  any 
 other  relevant  technical  or  economic  factors,  including  any  limitations  that  currently  exist  and  how  to  transcend  them.  A  number  of  these  features  and  services  are  already  offered  in  some 
 states.  We  seek  comment  on  what  services  states  are  providing  and  how  they  are  providing  them.  These  features  include  two-  line  VCO,  268  voice  to  text  (VTT),  269  two  line  HCO,  reverse 
 VCO,  reverse  HCO,  VCO  to  TTY,  VCO  to  VCO,  HCO  to  TTY,  and  HCO  to  HCO.  We  also  seek  comment  on  features  such  as  call  release,  270  automatic  call  forwarding,  271  interrupt 


 265  47  U.  S.  C.    225  (d)(  2). 
 266  See  AIM  Comments  at  2;  ATAP  Comments  at  3;  CTIA  Comments  at  1-  2. 
 267  We  recognized  in  the  Notice  that,  in  response  to  our  original  NOI,  commenters  requested  that  the 
 Commission  require  call  release,  Caller  ID,  conference  calling  through  TRS,  two  line  VCO,  and  automatic  call  forwarding.  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14218. 
 268  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  24-  27;  NVRC  Comments  at  3;  TDI  Comments  at  21-  22;  NVRC  Reply  at  1; 
 TDI  Reply  at  17.  Two-  line  voice  carryover  (VCO)  enables  consumers  to  use  one  line  for  voicing  and  the  other  for  receiving  TTY  transmissions  in  conference  calls. 


 269  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  24-  27;  TDI  Comments  at  21-  22.  Voice-  to-  text  (VTT)  permits  relay  calls  to 
 take  place  between  VCO  users  and  TTY  users. 
 270  See  NAD/  CAN  Comments  at  24-  27;  Mr.  Nelson  Reply  Comments  at  7;  TDI  Comments  at  21-  22;  TDI 
 Reply  Comments  at  17.  Call  release  prevents  erroneous  disconnections  when  a  TTY  caller  must  go  through  a  switchboard  at  a  hotel  or  hospital  to  reach  the  private  room  of  the  recipient  of  the  TTY  call. 
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 59 
 capability,  272  answering  machine  retrieval,  extended  community  call  blocking,  pay  per  use  feature  blocks,  call  waiting,  return  call  and  call  back,  three  way  calling,  speed  dialing,  distinctive 
 ring,  and  repeat  dialing.  We  tentatively  conclude  that  these  various  features  and  services  are  capable  of  being  provided  to  relay  users  and  that  they  must  be  provided  in  order  for  TRS  to 
 remain  functionally  equivalent.  We  seek  comment  on  this  tentative  conclusion  and  are  especially  interested  in  hearing  from  relay  providers.  We  note  that  our  rules  require  that  TRS  be 
 capable  of  handling  any  type  of  call  normally  provided  by  common  carriers  and  that  the  burden  of  proving  the  infeasibility  of  handling  any  type  of  call  will  be  placed  on  the  carrier.  We  hope  to 
 receive  specific  information  as  to  how  to  make  these  services  and  features  available  to  TRS  users.  Parties  that  disagree  with  our  tentative  conclusion  that  these  services  must  be  made 
 available  should  explain  their  position  in  detail,  providing  technical  and  specific  explanations  as  to  the  infeasibility  of  providing  any  of  these  features.  We  also  seek  comment  on  improved 
 transmission  speed,  273  wireless  messaging  services,  274  use  of  the  World  Wide  Web  for  voice  communications,  internet  telephony,  and  any  other  technologies  or  changes  to  technology  that 
 may  improve  relay  services  or  should  be  available  via  TRS. 
 139.  Some  parties  filed  comments  urging  the  Commission  to  address  the  issue  of  enhanced  protocol,  such  as  the  V.  18  protocol  standard  275  ,  suggesting  that,  with  the  standard, 
 improved  interconnectivity  between  TTYs  and  digital  wireless  devices  is  technically  feasible.  276  Since  initial  guidelines  for  TRS  were  established  by  the  Commission,  new  transmission 
 protocols  for  TTY  have  evolved.  Although  45.45  bps  Baudot  is  still  the  dominant  protocol  and  the  one  present  in  all  TTYs,  Bell  103  ASCII,  V-  series  ASCII  protocols,  and  proprietary 
 protocols  are  also  used  in  TTY  products.  Many  TRS  centers  support  all  of  the  open  protocols,  and  some  support  TurboCode  by  Ultratec,  which  is  a  proprietary  protocol. 


 140.  In  addition,  international  and  domestic  standards  have  been  written  since  the  initial  guidelines  were  established.  ITU-  T  V.  18  is  an  interworking  procedure  between  data 
 271  See  Mr.  Nelson  Reply  at  7. 
 272  See  NVRC  Comments  at  3;  NVRC  Reply  Comments  at  1. 
 273  See  Mr.  Gregory  Comments  at  7. 
 274  See  Wynd  Reply  at  1. 
 275  According  to  the  International  Telecommunications  Union,  the  V.  18  protocol  standard  is  intended  for  use 
 in  text  telephone,  in  interworking  units,  in  text  relay  service,  in  emergency  centers,  and  in  computers  to  be  used  for  text  telephony  in  the  PSTN.  See  CTIA  Comments  at  5. 


 276  CTIA  Comments  at  2-  3;  TDI  Comments  at  4-  5;  GTE  Reply  Comments  at  5. 
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 60 
 communications  equipment  and  the  text  telephones  used  throughout  the  world.  It  is  intended  to  unify  the  various  protocols  under  one  standard  and  to  provide  a  bridge  between  TTYs  and  digital 
 communications  equipment.  We  also  ask  parties  to  describe  the  extent  that  V.  18  currently  exists  in  the  marketplace. 


 141.  A  draft  standard  for  domestic  FSK  modems  (Baudot  at  45.45  bps)  is  now  undergoing  balloting  within  the  Telecommunications  Industry  Association  TR-  30  committee. 
 142.  All  of  these  technologies  and  standards  are  intended  for  analog  telecommunications  environments.  Telecommunications  is  evolving  into  digital  technologies. 
 In  preparation  for  the  evolution  of  telecommunications  devices  from  analog  to  digital,  standards  have  been  written  for  basic  text  communication.  For  example,  ITU-  T  T.  140  specifies  a  plain 
 text  chat  protocol  with  an  international  character  set  as  the  basis  for  TTY-  type  chat  in  a  digital  telecommunications  environment.  It  has  to  date  not  been  implemented  in  the  nations 
 telecommunications  marketplace. 
 143.  To  date,  the  Commission  has  left  decisions  about  technology  for  relay  platforms  to  the  discretion  of  the  relay  provider,  as  long  as  both  Baudot  and  ASCII  are  supported  at  any 
 speed  generally  in  use.  277 
 144.  In  order  to  assure  that  TRS  is  meeting  the  statutory  obligation  to  use  existing  technology,  we  seek  comment  on  V.  18  and  TTY  protocols.  Specifically,  we  ask  whether  TTY 
 users  who  have  digital  telecommunications  services  and  equipment  can  access  TRS  through  direct  digital  connections,  or  must  they  use  analog  devices  through  digital  telecommunications 
 services.  We  seek  comment  on  how  industry  is  prepared  to  address  the  transition  from  analog  to  digital  terminals  and  services.  We  also  seek  comment  on  how  digital  services  will  be  supported 
 and  what  will  the  implications  be  for  relay  services.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  industry  standards,  such  as  T.  140,  are  being  considered  or  used  in  planning  for  digital  service  delivery. 


 145.  We  ask  for  input  on  the  advantages  or  disadvantages  to  TRS  users  of  implementing  V.  18  in  a  TRS  environment.  We  also  seek  comment  on  the  effect  of  V.  18 
 implementation  in  such  required  services  as  VCO. 
 146.  The  Commission  is  also  interested  in  comments  as  to  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  V.  18  to  TRS  providers,  and  additionally,  if  there  are  advantages  in  using  V.  18 
 to  other  segments  of  the  telecommunications  industry,  such  as  the  wireless  industry,  for  improving  their  interface  to  TRS. 


 277  47  C.  F.  R.    64.604  (b)  (1). 
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 61 
 F.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS 
 147.  Ex  Parte  Presentations.  This  matter  shall  be  treated  as  a  permit-  but-  disclose  proceeding  in  accordance  with  the  Commissions  ex  parte  rules.  278  Persons  making  oral  ex  parte 
 presentations  are  reminded  that  memoranda  summarizing  the  presentations  must  contain  summaries  of  the  substance  of  the  presentations  and  not  merely  a  listing  of  the  subjects 
 discussed.  More  than  a  one  or  two  sentence  description  of  the  views  and  arguments  presented  is  generally  required.  279 


 148.  Comment  Filing  Procedures:  General  Requirements.  Pursuant  to  applicable  procedures  set  forth  in  sections  1.415  and  1.419  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.415 
 and  1.419,  interested  parties  may  file  comments  on  or  before  May  5,  2000,  and  reply  comments  on  or  before  July  5,  2000.  Comments  may  be  filed  using  the  Commissions  Electronic  Comment 
 Filing  System  (ECFS)  or  by  filing  paper  copies.  See  Electronic  Filing  of  Documents  in  Rulemaking  Proceedings,  63  Fed.  Reg.  24,  121  (1998).  Comments  filed  through  the  ECFS  can 
 be  sent  as  an  electronic  file  via  the  Internet  to  http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  e-  file/  ecfs.  html.  Generally,  only  one  copy  of  an  electronic  submission  must  be  filed.  In  completing  the  transmittal  screen, 
 commenters  should  include  their  full  name,  Postal  Service  mailing  address,  and  the  applicable  docket  or  rulemaking  number,  which  in  this  instance  is  CC  Docket  No.  98-  67.  Parties  may  also 
 submit  an  electronic  comment  by  Internet  e-  mail.  To  get  filing  instructions  for  e-  mail  comments,  commenters  should  send  an  e-  mail  to  ecfs@  fcc.  gov,  and  should  include  the  following  words  in 
 the  body  of  the  message,  get  form  <your  e-  mail  address>.  A  sample  form  and  directions  will  be  sent  in  reply. 


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


 150.  Comment  Filing  Procedures:  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 


 278  See  Amendment  of  47  C.  F.  R.  1.1200  et  seq.  Concerning  Ex  Parte  Presentation  in  Commission  Proceedings, 
 Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  7348,  7356-  57  (citing  47  C.  F.  R.  1.1204(  b)(  1)). 
 279  See  47  C.  F.  R.  1.1206(  b)(  2),  as  revised. 
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 62 
 applicable  sections  of  the  Commissions  rules.  280  We  also  direct  all  interested  parties  to  include  the  name  of  the  filing  party  and  the  date  of  the  filing  on  each  page  of  their  comments  and  reply 
 comments.  All  parties  are  encouraged  to  utilize  a  table  of  contents,  regardless  of  the  length  of  their  submission. 


 151.  Parties  who  choose  to  file  paper  should  submit  their  comments  on  diskette.  These  diskettes  should  be  submitted  to  Arlene  Alexander,  Consumer  Information  Bureau,  445  Twelfth 
 Street,  S.  W.,  Room  4-  B452,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554.  Such  a  submission  should  be  on  a  3.5-  inch  diskette  formatted  in  an  IBM  compatible  format  using  Word  for  Windows  or  compatible 
 Software.  The  diskette  should  be  accompanied  by  a  cover  letter  and  should  be  submitted  in  read  only  mode.  The  diskette  should  be  clearly  labeled  with  the  commenters  name, 
 proceeding  (including  the  docket  number),  type  of  pleading  (comment  or  reply  comment),  date  of  submission,  and  the  name  of  the  electronic  file  on  the  diskette. 


 152.  Regardless  of  whether  parties  choose  to  file  electronically  or  by  paper,  parties  should  also  file  one  copy  of  any  documents  filed  in  this  docket  with  the  Commissions  copy 
 contractor,  International  Transcription  Services,  Inc.,  1231  20th  Street,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554.  Comments  and  reply  comments  will  be  available  for  public  inspection  during  regular 
 business  hours  in  the  FCC  Reference  Center,  445  Twelfth  Street,  S.  W.  Washington,  D.  C.  20554. 
 III.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 153.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  authority  found  in  sections  1,  4(  i)  and  4(  j),  201-  205,  218  and  225  of  the  Communications  Act  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  Sections  151, 
 154(  i),  154(  j),  201-  205,  218  and  225,  this  Report  and  Order  IS  ADOPTED,  and  Part  64  of  the  Commission's  rules  ARE  AMENDED  as  set  forth  in  the  attached  Appendix  B. 


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


 280  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.49. 
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 63 
 155.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commission's  Consumer  Information  Bureau,  Reference  Information  Center,  SHALL  SEND  a  copy  of  this  Report  and  Order  and 
 Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  including  the  Initial  and  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analyses,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  Small  Business  Administration. 


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


 Magalie  Roman  Salas  Secretary 
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 64 
 APPENDIX  A:  List  of  Parties 
 Comments 
 1.  Access  to  Independence  and  Mobility  (AIM)  2.  Advisory  Commission 
 3.  American  Speech-  Language-  Hearing  Association  (ASHA)  4.  Ameritech 
 5.  Andrews,  Joan  6.  Association  of  Tech  Art  Projects  (ATAP) 
 7.  AT&  T  Corp.  (AT&  T)  8.  Bell  Atlantic 
 9.  Blackstone,  Sarah,  Ph.  D.  10.  California  Public  Utilities  Commission  (CAPUC) 
 11.  Cellular  Telecommunications  Industry  Association  (CTIA)  12.  Coco,  David 
 13.  Connors,  Tom,  Ph.  D.  14.  Davis,  Sally  F. 
 15.  Dunbar,  Bob  16.  Eulenberg,  John  B.,  Ph.  D. 
 17.  Fairman,  LuRetta,  M.  Div.  18.  Fleming,  Bruce,  BSE 
 19.  Florida  Public  Service  Commission  (FPSC)  20.  Goldstein,  Augusta 
 21.  Gregory,  Stephen  A.  22.  GTE  Service  Corporation  (GTE) 
 23.  Gurdin,  Barry  J.,  Ph.  D.  24.  Heppner,  Cheryl  A. 
 25.  Idaho  Public  Utilities  Commission  (IPUC)  26.  Kansas  Relay  Service,  Inc.  (KRSI) 
 27.  Ladew,  Rebecca  28.  LaPointe,  Leo  A. 
 29.  MacInnes,  J.  Roderick  30.  Maryland  Department  of  Budget  and  Management  (Maryland) 
 31.  Massachusetts  Assistive  Technology  Partnership  (MATP)  32.  MCI  Telecommunications  Corporation  (MCI) 
 33.  Missouri  Assistive  Technology  Council  and  Project  34.  National  Association  of  the  Deaf  and  the  Consumer  Action  Network  (NAD/  CAN) 
 35.  National  Catholic  Office  for  the  Deaf  (NCOD) 
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 65 
 36.  New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  37.  North  Carolina  Association  of  the  Deaf,  Inc. 
 38.  Northern  Virginia  Resource  Center  for  Deaf  and  Hard  of  Hearing  Persons  (NVRC)  39.  Pennsylvania  Public  Utility  Commission  (PA  PUC) 
 40.  President's  Committee  on  Employment  of  People  with  Disabilities  (Presidents  Committee) 
 41.  Puerto  Rico  Telecommunications  Regulatory  Board  (the  Board)  42.  Ratcliff,  Ann,  Ph.  D. 
 43.  Segalman,  Bob,  Ph.  D.  44.  Self  Help  for  Hard  of  Hearing  People,  Inc.  (SHHH) 
 45.  Shipley,  Donna  46.  Sonnenstrahl,  Alfred 
 47.  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Company,  Pacific  Bell  and  Nevada  Bell  (SBC)  48.  Sprint  Corporation  (Sprint) 
 49.  Stoltz,  James  H.  50.  Telecommunications  for  the  Deaf,  Inc.  (TDI) 
 51.  Texas  Advisory  Commission  on  State  Emergency  Communications  (TX-  ACSEC)  52.  Texas  Public  Utility  Commission  (Texas  PUC) 
 53.  Ultratec,  Inc.  54.  United  Cerebral  Palsy  Associations  (UCPA) 
 55.  University  Legal  Services  (ULS)  56.  USA  Deaf  Sports  Federation  (Federation) 


 Reply  Comments 
 1.  Aber,  Robert  M.  2.  Ashly,  Colleen 
 3.  Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  and  the  National  Emergency  Number  Association  (APCO  and  NENA) 
 4.  AT&  T  5.  Behnke,  Kirk 
 6.  Buell,  Stephanie  7.  Ching,  Winston 
 8.  Council  of  Organizational  Representatives  on  National  Issues  Concerning  People  Who  Are  Deaf  or  Hard  of  Hearing  (COR) 
 9.  Curtis,  Cindy  10.  Damon  Brooks  Associates 
 11.  D.  C.  Association  of  Deaf  Citizens  (DCADC)  12.  Duboiz,  Robert 
65
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 66 
 13.  Fairman,  LuRetta,  M.  Div.  14.  Fleming,  Bruce 
 15.  Goldstein,  Augusta  16.  Gregory,  Stephen  A. 
 17.  GTE  18.  Gurdin,  Barry  J.,  Ph.  D. 
 19.  Hoye,  Pamela  K.  20.  Interstate  TRS  Advisory  Council 
 21.  Keller,  Katherine  22.  Keltz,  Lynn 
 23.  Kemp,  John  D.  24.  Kilbanow,  David  W. 
 25.  Ladew,  Rebecca  26.  LaPointe,  Leo  A. 
 27.  Laughlin,  Lisa  M.  28.  Leigh,  Tom 
 29.  MCI  30.  Miller,  Craig  E. 
 31.  Miller,  Lisa  A.  32.  Moore,  Kate 
 33.  NAD/  CAN  34.  Nelson,  David  J. 
 35.  North  Carolina  Division  of  Services  for  the  Deaf  and  the  Hard  of  Hearing  36.  NVRC 
 37.  PA  PUC  38.  Pray,  Jackie  E.,  Ph.  D. 
 39.  Segalman,  Bob,  Ph.  D.  40.  Slay,  Robert 
 41.  SBC  42.  Sprint 
 43.  TDI  44.  Travers,  Mitchell  D. 
 45.  Treece,  Phyllis  46.  Treece-  Sinclair,  Les 
 47.  Treece-  Sinclair,  Pamela  48.  Tri-  County  GLAD 
 49.  United  Cerebral  Palsy  of  Pennsylvania  50.  Varnado-  Evans,  Mary 
 51.  Viera,  Judith  A.  52.  Wisconsin  Office  for  the  Deaf  and  Hard  of  Hearing  (WDHH) 
66
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 67 
 53.  Wynd  Communications  Corporation  (Wynd)  54.  Young,  Sarah 
 Ex  Parte  Comments 
 1.  Benziger,  Thomas  2.  LaPointe,  Leo 
 3.  Maryland  Department  of  Budget  &  Management  4.  Maryland  Public  Service  Commission 
 5.  Minnesota  Relay  Services  6.  Segalman,  Bob,  Ph.  D. 
 7.  Sonnenstrahl,  Alfred  8.  Sprint 
 9.  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  Coalition  10.  Wisconsin  Department  of  Administration 
67
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 68 
 APPENDIX  B:  Final  Rules 
 Part  64,  Subpart  F  of  Title  47  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  revised  as  follows 
 PART  64    MISCELLANEOUS  RULES  RELATING  TO  COMMON  CARRIERS 
 Subpart  F    Telecommunications  Relay  Services  and  Related  Customer  Premises  Equipment  for  Persons  with  Disabilities 


 1.  The  authority  citation  for  Part  64  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 
 AUTHORITY:  47  U.  S.  C.    154,  47  U.  S.  C.    225 


 2.  Sections  64.601    64.605  are  revised  to  read  as  follows: 
   64.601  Definitions. 
 As  used  in  this  subpart,  the  following  definitions  apply:  (1)  American  Sign  Language  (ASL).  A  visual  language  based  on  hand  shape,  position, 
 movement,  and  orientation  of  the  hands  in  relation  to  each  other  and  the  body.  (2)  ASCII.  An  acronym  for  American  Standard  Code  for  Information  Interexchange  which 
 employs  an  eight  bit  code  and  can  operate  at  any  standard  transmission  baud  rate  including  300,  1200,  2400,  and  higher. 
 (3)  Baudot.  A  seven  bit  code,  only  five  of  which  are  information  bits.  Baudot  is  used  by  some  text  telephones  to  communicate  with  each  other  at  a  45.5  baud  rate. 
 (4)  Common  carrier  or  carrier.  Any  common  carrier  engaged  in  interstate  communication  by  wire  or  radio  as  defined  in  section  3(  h)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the 
 Act),  and  any  common  carrier  engaged  in  intrastate  communication  by  wire  or  radio,  notwithstanding  sections  2(  b)  and  221(  b)  of  the  Act. 
 (5)  Communications  assistant  (CA).  A  person  who  transliterates  or  interprets  conversation  between  two  end  users  of  TRS.  CA  supersedes  the  term  "TDD  operator." 
 (6)  Hearing  carry  over  (HCO).  A  reduced  form  of  TRS  where  the  person  with  the  speech  disability  is  able  to  listen  to  the  other  end  user  and,  in  reply,  the  CA  speaks  the  text  as  typed  by 
 the  person  with  the  speech  disability.  The  CA  does  not  type  any  conversation.  (7)  Telecommunications  relay  services  (TRS).  Telephone  transmission  services  that  provide  the 
 ability  for  an  individual  who  has  a  hearing  or  speech  disability  to  engage  in  communication  by  wire  or  radio  with  a  hearing  individual  in  a  manner  that  is  functionally  equivalent  to  the  ability 
 of  an  individual  who  does  not  have  a  hearing  or  speech  disability  to  communicate  using  voice 
68
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 69 
 communication  services  by  wire  or  radio.  Such  term  includes  services  that  enable  two-  way  communication  between  an  individual  who  uses  a  text  telephone  or  other  nonvoice  terminal 
 device  and  an  individual  who  does  not  use  such  a  device,  speech-  to-  speech  services,  video  relay  interpreting  services  and  non-  English  relay  services.  TRS  supersedes  the  terms  "dual  party  relay 
 system,"  "message  relay  services,  "and  "TDD  Relay."  (8)  Text  telephone  (TTY).  A  machine  that  employs  graphic  communication  in  the  transmission  of 
 coded  signals  through  a  wire  or  radio  communication  system.  TTY  supersedes  the  term  "TDD"  or  "telecommunications  device  for  the  deaf,"  and  TT. 
 (9)  Voice  carry  over  (VCO).  A  reduced  form  of  TRS  where  the  person  with  the  hearing  disability  is  able  to  speak  directly  to  the  other  end  user.  The  CA  types  the  response  back  to  the  person  with 
 the  hearing  disability.  The  CA  does  not  voice  the  conversation.  (10)  Speech-  to-  speech  relay  service  (STS).  A  telecommunications  relay  service  that  allows  people 
 with  speech  disabilities  to  communicate  with  voice  telephone  users  through  the  use  of  specially  trained  CAs  who  understand  the  speech  patterns  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  can  repeat  the 
 words  spoken  by  that  person.  (11)  Video  relay  interpreting  service  (VRI).  A  telecommunications  relay  service  that  allows 
 people  with  hearing  or  speech  disabilities  who  use  sign  language  to  communicate  with  voice  telephone  users  through  video  equipment.  The  video  link  allows  the  CA  to  view  and  interpret 
 the  partys  signed  conversation  and  relay  the  conversation  back  and  forth  with  a  voice  caller.  (12)  Non-  English  language  relay  service.  A  telecommunications  relay  service  that  allows 
 persons  with  hearing  or  speech  disabilities  who  use  languages  other  than  English  to  communicate  with  voice  telephone  users  in  a  shared  language  other  than  English,  through  a  CA 
 who  is  fluent  in  that  language.  (13)  Qualified  interpreter.  An  interpreter  who  is  able  to  interpret  effectively,  accurately,  and 
 impartially,  both  receptively  and  expressively,  using  any  necessary  specialized  vocabulary. 
   64.602  Jurisdiction. 
 Any  violation  of  this  subpart  by  any  common  carrier  engaged  in  intrastate  communication  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  remedies,  penalties,  and  procedures  as  are  applicable  to  a  violation  of  the 
 Act  by  a  common  carrier  engaged  in  interstate  communication. 
   64.603  Provision  of  Services. 
 Each  common  carrier  providing  telephone  voice  transmission  services  shall  provide,  not  later  than  July  26,  1993,  in  compliance  with  the  regulations  prescribed  herein,  throughout  the  area  in 
 which  it  offers  services,  telecommunications  relay  services,  individually,  through  designees,  through  a  competitively  selected  vendor,  or  in  concert  with  other  carriers.  Speech-  to-  speech 
 relay  service  and  interstate  Spanish  language  relay  service  shall  be  provided  by  March  1,  2001.  A  common  carrier  shall  be  considered  to  be  in  compliance  with  these  regulations: 
69
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 70 
 (a)  With  respect  to  intrastate  telecommunications  relay  services  in  any  state  that  does  not  have  a  certified  program  under    64.605  and  with  respect  to  interstate  telecommunications  relay 
 services,  if  such  common  carrier  (or  other  entity  through  which  the  carrier  is  providing  such  relay  services)  is  in  compliance  with    64.604;  or 
 (b)  With  respect  to  intrastate  telecommunications  relay  services  in  any  state  that  has  a  certified  program  under    64.605  for  such  state,  if  such  common  carrier  (or  other  entity  through  which  the 
 carrier  is  providing  such  relay  services)  is  in  compliance  with  the  program  certified  under    64.605  for  such  state. 


   64.604  Mandatory  Minimum  Standards. 
 (a)  Operational  standards. 
 (1)  Communications  assistant  (CA).  TRS  providers  are  responsible  for  requiring  that  CAs  be  sufficiently  trained  to  effectively  meet  the  specialized  communications  needs  of  individuals  with 
 hearing  and  speech  disabilities;  and  that  CAs  have  competent  skills  in  typing,  grammar,  spelling,  interpretation  of  typewritten  ASL,  and  familiarity  with  hearing  and  speech  disability  cultures, 
 languages  and  etiquette.  CAs  must  possess  clear  and  articulate  voice  communications.  CAs  must  provide  a  typing  speed  of  a  minimum  of  60  words  per  minute.  Technological  aids  may  be  used 
 to  reach  the  required  typing  speed.  Providers  must  give  oral-  to-  type  tests  of  CA  speed.  TRS  providers  are  responsible  for  requiring  that  VRI  CAs  are  qualified  interpreters.  A  qualified 
 interpreter  is  able  to  interpret  effectively,  accurately,  and  impartially,  both  receptively  and  expressively,  using  any  necessary  specialized  vocabulary. 
 (2)  Confidentiality  and  conversation  content.  (i)  Except  as  authorized  by  section  705  of  the  Communications  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.    605,  CAs  are  prohibited  from  disclosing  the  content  of  any 
 relayed  conversation  regardless  of  content,  and  with  a  limited  exception  for  STS  CAs,  from  keeping  records  of  the  content  of  any  conversation  beyond  the  duration  of  a  call,  even  if  to  do  so 
 would  be  inconsistent  with  state  or  local  law.  STS  CAs  may  retain  information  from  a  particular  call  in  order  to  facilitate  the  completion  of  consecutive  calls,  at  the  request  of  the  user.  The 
 caller  may  request  the  STS  CA  to  retain  such  information,  or  the  CA  may  ask  the  caller  if  he  wants  the  CA  to  repeat  the  same  information  during  subsequent  calls.  The  CA  may  retain  the 
 information  only  for  as  long  as  it  takes  to  complete  the  subsequent  calls.  (ii)  CAs  are  prohibited  from  intentionally  altering  a  relayed  conversation  and,  to  the  extent  that  it  is  not  inconsistent 
 with  federal,  state  or  local  law  regarding  use  of  telephone  company  facilities  for  illegal  purposes,  must  relay  all  conversation  verbatim  unless  the  relay  user  specifically  requests  summarization,  or 
 if  the  user  requests  interpretation  of  an  ASL  call.  An  STS  CA  may  facilitate  the  call  of  an  STS  user  with  a  speech  disability  so  long  as  the  CA  does  not  interfere  with  the  independence  of  the 
 user,  the  user  maintains  control  of  the  conversation,  and  the  user  does  not  object.  Appropriate  measures  must  be  taken  by  relay  providers  to  ensure  that  confidentiality  of  VRI  users  is 
 maintained. 
70
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 71 
 (3)  Types  of  calls.  Consistent  with  the  obligations  of  common  carrier  operators,  CAs  are  prohibited  from  refusing  single  or  sequential  calls  or  limiting  the  length  of  calls  utilizing  relay 
 services.  TRS  shall  be  capable  of  handling  any  type  of  call  normally  provided  by  common  carriers  and  the  burden  of  proving  the  infeasibility  of  handling  any  type  of  call  will  be  placed  on 
 the  carriers.  Providers  of  TRS  are  permitted  to  decline  to  complete  a  call  because  credit  authorization  is  denied. 
 (4)  Handling  of  emergency  calls.  Providers  must  use  a  system  for  incoming  emergency  calls  that,  at  a  minimum,  automatically  and  immediately  provides  the  nearest  Public  Safety  Answering 
 Point  (PSAP)  with  the  callers  telephone  number.  In  addition,  a  CA  must  pass  along  the  callers  telephone  number  to  the  PSAP  when  a  caller  disconnects  before  being  connected  to  emergency 
 services.  (5)  In-  call  replacement  of  CAs.  CAs  answering  and  placing  a  TTY-  based  TRS  or  VRI  call  must 
 stay  with  the  call  for  a  minimum  of  ten  minutes.  CAs  answering  and  placing  an  STS  call  must  stay  with  the  call  for  a  minimum  of  fifteen  minutes. 
 (6)  CA  gender  preferences.  TRS  providers  must  make  best  efforts  to  accommodate  a  TRS  users  requested  CA  gender  when  a  call  is  initiated  and,  if  a  transfer  occurs,  at  the  time  the  call  is 
 transferred  to  another  CA.  (7)  STS  called  numbers.  Relay  providers  must  offer  STS  users  the  option  to  maintain  at  the  relay 
 center  a  list  of  names  and  telephone  numbers  which  the  STS  user  calls.  When  the  STS  user  requests  one  of  these  names,  the  CA  must  repeat  the  name  and  state  the  telephone  number  to  the 
 STS  user.  This  information  must  be  transferred  to  any  new  STS  provider. 


 (b)  Technical  standards. 
 (1)  ASCII  and  Baudot.  TRS  shall  be  capable  of  communicating  with  ASCII  and  Baudot  format,  at  any  speed  generally  in  use. 
 (2)  Speed  of  answer.  TRS  shall  include  adequate  staffing  to  provide  callers  with  efficient  access  under  projected  calling  volumes,  so  that  the  probability  of  a  busy  response  due  to  CA 
 unavailability  shall  be  functionally  equivalent  to  what  a  voice  caller  would  experience  in  attempting  to  reach  a  party  through  the  voice  telephone  network.  TRS  shall,  except  during 
 network  failure,  answer  85%  of  all  calls  within  10  seconds  by  any  method  which  results  in  the  callers  call  immediately  being  placed,  not  put  in  a  queue  or  on  hold.  The  ten  seconds  begins  at 
 the  time  the  call  is  delivered  to  the  TRS  centers  network.  The  call  is  considered  delivered  when  the  relay  centers  equipment  accepts  the  call  from  the  local  exchange  carrier  and  the  public 
 switched  network  actually  delivers  the  call  to  the  TRS  center.  Abandoned  calls  shall  be  included  in  the  speed-  of-  answer  calculation.  A  providers  compliance  with  this  rule  shall  be  measured  on 
 a  daily  basis.  The  system  shall  be  designed  to  a  P.  01  standard.  A  LEC  shall  provide  the  call  attempt  rates  and  the  rates  of  calls  blocked  between  the  LEC  and  the  relay  center  to  relay 
 administrators  and  relay  centers  upon  request. 
71
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 72 
 (3)  Equal  access  to  interexchange  carriers.  TRS  users  shall  have  access  to  their  chosen  interexchange  carrier  through  the  TRS,  and  to  all  other  operator  services,  to  the  same  extent  that 
 such  access  is  provided  to  voice  users.  (4)  TRS  facilities.  TRS  shall  operate  every  day,  24  hours  a  day.  TRS  shall  have  redundancy 
 features  functionally  equivalent  to  the  equipment  in  normal  central  offices,  including  uninterruptible  power  for  emergency  use.  TRS  shall  transmit  conversations  between  TTY  and 
 voice  callers  in  real  time.  Adequate  network  facilities  shall  be  used  in  conjunction  with  TRS  so  that  under  projected  calling  volume  the  probability  of  a  busy  response  due  to  loop  trunk 
 congestion  shall  be  functionally  equivalent  to  what  a  voice  caller  would  experience  in  attempting  to  reach  a  party  through  the  voice  telephone  network.  Relay  services  that  are  not  mandated  by 
 this  Commission  are  not  required  to  be  provided  every  day,  24  hours  a  day.  (5)  Technology.  No  regulation  set  forth  in  this  subpart  is  intended  to  discourage  or  impair  the 
 development  of  improved  technology  that  fosters  the  availability  of  telecommunications  to  person  with  disabilities.  VCO  and  HCO  technology  are  required  to  be  standard  features  of  TRS. 
 (6)  Voice  mail  and  interactive  menus.  CAs  must  alert  the  TRS  user  to  the  presence  of  a  recorded  message  and  interactive  menu  through  a  hot  key  on  the  CAs  terminal.  The  hot  key  will  send 
 text  from  the  CA  to  the  consumers  TTY  indicating  that  a  recording  or  interactive  menu  has  been  encountered.  Relay  providers  shall  electronically  capture  recorded  messages  and  retain  them  for 
 the  length  of  the  call.  Relay  providers  may  not  impose  any  charges  for  additional  calls  which  must  be  made  by  the  relay  user  in  order  to  complete  calls  involving  recorded  or  interactive 
 messages.  Relay  services  shall  be  capable  of  handling  pay-  per-  call  calls. 
 (c)  Functional  standards. 
 (1)  Consumer  complaint  logs.  (i)  States  must  maintain  a  log  of  consumer  complaints  including  all  complaints  about  TRS  in  the  state,  whether  filed  with  the  TRS  provider  or  the  State,  and  must 
 retain  the  log  until  the  next  application  for  certification  is  granted.  The  log  shall  include,  at  a  minimum,  the  date  the  complaint  was  filed,  the  nature  of  the  complaint,  the  date  of  resolution, 
 and  an  explanation  of  the  resolution.  (ii)  Summaries  of  logs  must  be  submitted  annually  to  the  Commission  and  at  the  time  of  certification. 


 (2)  Contact  persons.  (i)  States  must  submit  to  the  Commission  a  contact  person  or  office  for  TRS  consumer  information  and  complaints  about  intrastate  TRS.  This  submission  must  include, 
 at  a  minimum,  the  name  and  address  of  the  state  office  that  receives  complaints,  grievances,  inquiries  and  suggestions,  voice  and  TTY  telephone  numbers,  fax  number,  e-  mail  address,  and 
 physical  address  to  which  correspondence  should  be  sent.  (ii)  Providers  of  interstate  TRS  must  submit  to  the  Commission  a  contact  person  or  office  for  TRS  consumer  information  and 
 complaints  about  the  providers  service.  This  submission  must  include,  at  a  minimum,  the  name  and  address  of  the  office  that  receives  complaints,  grievances,  inquiries  and  suggestions,  voice 
72
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 73 
 and  TTY  telephone  numbers,  fax  number,  e-  mail  address,  and  physical  address  to  which  correspondence  should  be  sent. 
 (3)  Public  access  to  information.  Carriers,  through  publication  in  their  directories,  periodic  billing  inserts,  placement  of  TRS  instructions  in  telephone  directories,  through  directory 
 assistance  services,  and  incorporation  of  TTY  numbers  in  telephone  directories,  shall  assure  that  callers  in  their  service  areas  are  aware  of  the  availability  and  use  of  all  forms  of  TRS.  Efforts  to 
 educate  the  public  about  TRS  should  extend  to  all  segments  of  the  public,  including  individuals  who  are  hard  of  hearing,  speech  disabled,  and  senior  citizens  as  well  as  members  of  the  general 
 population. 
 (4)  Rates.  TRS  users  shall  pay  rates  no  greater  than  the  rates  paid  for  functionally  equivalent  voice  communication  services  with  respect  to  such  factors  as  the  duration  of  the  call,  the  time  of 
 day,  and  the  distance  from  the  point  of  origination  to  the  point  of  termination. 
 (5)  Jurisdictional  separation  of  costs.  (i)  General.  Where  appropriate,  costs  of  providing  TRS  shall  be  separated  in  accordance  with  the 
 jurisdictional  separation  procedures  and  standards  set  forth  in  the  Commission's  regulations  adopted  pursuant  to    410  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended. 
 (ii)  Cost  recovery.  Costs  caused  by  interstate  TRS  shall  be  recovered  from  all  subscribers  for  every  interstate  service,  utilizing  a  shared-  funding  cost  recovery  mechanism.  Except  as  noted 
 below  with  respect  to  VRI,  costs  caused  by  intrastate  TRS  shall  be  recovered  from  the  intrastate  jurisdiction.  In  a  state  that  has  a  certified  program  under    64.605,  the  state  agency  providing 
 TRS  shall,  through  the  state's  regulatory  agency,  permit  a  common  carrier  to  recover  costs  incurred  in  providing  TRS  by  a  method  consistent  with  the  requirements  of  this  section.  Costs 
 caused  by  the  provision  of  interstate  and  intrastate  VRI  shall  be  recovered  from  all  subscribers  for  every  interstate  service,  utilizing  a  shared-  funding  cost  recovery  mechanism. 
 (iii)  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  Fund.  Effective  July  26,  1993,  an  Interstate  Cost  Recovery  Plan,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  TRS  Fund,  shall  be  administered  by  an  entity 
 selected  by  the  Commission  (administrator).  The  initial  administrator,  for  an  interim  period,  will  be  the  National  Exchange  Carrier  Association,  Inc. 
 (A)  Contributions.  Every  carrier  providing  interstate  telecommunications  services  shall  contribute  to  the  TRS  Fund  on  the  basis  of  interstate  end-  user  telecommunications  revenues  as 
 described  herein.  Contributions  shall  be  made  by  all  carriers  who  provide  interstate  services,  including,  but  not  limited  to,  cellular  telephone  and  paging,  mobile  radio,  operator  services, 
 personal  communications  service  (PCS),  access  (including  subscriber  line  charges),  alternative  access  and  special  access,  packet-  switched,  WATS,  800,  900,  message  telephone  service  (MTS), 
 private  line,  telex,  telegraph,  video,  satellite,  intraLATA,  international  and  resale  services.  (B)  Contribution  computations.  Contributors'  contribution  to  the  TRS  fund  shall  be  the  product 
 of  their  subject  revenues  for  the  prior  calendar  year  and  a  contribution  factor  determined 
73
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 74 
 annually  by  the  Commission.  The  contribution  factor  shall  be  based  on  the  ratio  between  expected  TRS  Fund  expenses  to  interstate  end-  user  telecommunications  revenues.  In  the  event 
 that  contributions  exceed  TRS  payments  and  administrative  costs,  the  contribution  factor  for  the  following  year  will  be  adjusted  by  an  appropriate  amount,  taking  into  consideration  projected 
 cost  and  usage  changes.  In  the  event  that  contributions  are  inadequate,  the  fund  administrator  may  request  authority  from  the  Commission  to  borrow  funds  commercially,  with  such  debt 
 secured  by  future  years  contributions.  Each  subject  carrier  must  contribute  at  least  $25  per  year.  Carriers  whose  annual  contributions  total  less  than  $1,200  must  pay  the  entire  contribution  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  contribution  period.  Service  providers  whose  contributions  total  $1,200  or  more  may  divide  their  contributions  into  equal  monthly  payments.  Carriers  shall  complete  and  submit, 
 and  contributions  shall  be  based  on,  a  Telecommunications  Reporting  Worksheet  (as  published  by  the  Commission  in  the  Federal  Register).  The  worksheet  shall  be  certified  to  by  an  officer  of 
 the  contributor,  and  subject  to  verification  by  the  Commission  or  the  administrator  at  the  discretion  of  the  Commission.  Contributors'  statements  in  the  worksheet  shall  be  subject  to  the 
 provisions  of    220  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended.  The  fund  administrator  may  bill  contributors  a  separate  assessment  for  reasonable  administrative  expenses  and  interest 
 resulting  from  improper  filing  or  overdue  contributions.  The  Chief  of  the  Common  Carrier  Bureau  may  waive,  reduce,  modify  or  eliminate  contributor  reporting  requirements  that  prove 
 unnecessary  and  require  additional  reporting  requirements  that  the  Bureau  deems  necessary  to  the  sound  and  efficient  administration  of  the  TRS  Fund. 
 (C)  Data  collection  from  TRS  Providers.  TRS  providers  shall  provide  the  administrator  with  true  and  adequate  data  necessary  to  determine  TRS  fund  revenue  requirements  and  payments.  TRS 
 providers  shall  provide  the  administrator  with  the  following:  total  TRS  minutes  of  use,  total  interstate  TRS  minutes  of  use,  total  TRS  operating  expenses  and  total  TRS  investment  in  general 
 accordance  with  Part  32  of  the  Communications  Act,  and  other  historical  or  projected  information  reasonably  requested  by  the  administrator  for  purposes  of  computing  payments  and 
 revenue  requirements.  The  administrator  and  the  Commission  shall  have  the  authority  to  examine,  verify  and  audit  data  received  from  TRS  providers  as  necessary  to  assure  the  accuracy 
 and  integrity  of  fund  payments.  (D)  The  TRS  Fund  will  be  subject  to  a  yearly  audit  performed  by  an  independent  certified 
 accounting  firm  or  the  Commission,  or  both.  (E)  Payments  to  TRS  Providers.  TRS  Fund  payments  shall  be  distributed  to  TRS  providers  based 
 on  formulas  approved  or  modified  by  the  Commission.  The  administrator  shall  file  schedules  of  payment  formulas  with  the  Commission.  Such  formulas  shall  be  designed  to  compensate  TRS 
 providers  for  reasonable  costs  of  providing  interstate  TRS,  and  shall  be  subject  to  Commission  approval.  Such  formulas  shall  be  based  on  total  monthly  interstate  TRS  minutes  of  use.  TRS 
 minutes  of  use  for  purposes  of  interstate  cost  recovery  under  the  TRS  Fund  are  defined  as  the  minutes  of  use  for  completed  interstate  TRS  calls  placed  through  the  TRS  center  beginning  after 
 call  set-  up  and  concluding  after  the  last  message  call  unit.  In  addition  to  the  data  required  under  paragraph  (c)(  5)(  iii)(  C)  of  this  section,  all  TRS  providers,  including  providers  who  are  not 
74
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 75 
 interexchange  carriers,  local  exchange  carriers,  or  certified  state  relay  providers,  must  submit  reports  of  interstate  TRS  minutes  of  use  to  the  administrator  in  order  to  receive  payments.  The 
 administrator  shall  establish  procedures  to  verify  payment  claims,  and  may  suspend  or  delay  payments  to  a  TRS  provider  if  the  TRS  provider  fails  to  provide  adequate  verification  of 
 payment  upon  reasonable  request,  or  if  directed  by  the  Commission  to  do  so.  The  TRS  Fund  administrator  shall  make  payments  only  to  eligible  TRS  providers  operating  pursuant  to  the 
 mandatory  minimum  standards  as  required  in    64.604,  and  after  disbursements  to  the  administrator  for  reasonable  expenses  incurred  by  it  in  connection  with  TRS  Fund 
 administration.  TRS  providers  receiving  payments  shall  file  a  form  prescribed  by  the  administrator.  The  administrator  shall  fashion  a  form  that  is  consistent  with  Parts  32  and  36 
 procedures  reasonably  tailored  to  meet  the  needs  of  TRS  providers.  The  Commission  shall  have  authority  to  audit  providers  and  have  access  to  all  data,  including  carrier  specific  data,  collected 
 by  the  fund  administrator.  The  fund  administrator  shall  have  authority  to  audit  TRS  providers  reporting  data  to  the  administrator.  The  formulas  should  appropriately  compensate  interstate 
 providers  for  the  provision  of  VRI,  whether  intrastate  or  interstate.  (F)  TRS  providers  eligible  for  receiving  payments  from  the  TRS  Fund  are: 
 (1)  TRS  facilities  operated  under  contract  with  and/  or  by  certified  state  TRS  programs  pursuant  to    64.605;  or 
 (2)  TRS  facilities  owned  by  or  operated  under  contract  with  a  common  carrier  providing  interstate  services  operated  pursuant  to    64.604;  or 
 (3)  Interstate  common  carriers  offering  TRS  pursuant  to    64.604.  (G)  Any  eligible  TRS  provider  as  defined  in  paragraph  (c)(  5)(  iii)  (F)  of  this  section  shall  notify 
 the  administrator  of  its  intent  to  participate  in  the  TRS  Fund  thirty  (30)  days  prior  to  submitting  reports  of  TRS  interstate  minutes  of  use  in  order  to  receive  payment  settlements  for  interstate 
 TRS,  and  failure  to  file  may  exclude  the  TRS  provider  from  eligibility  for  the  year.  (H)  Administrator  reporting,  monitoring,  and  filing  requirements.  The  administrator  shall 
 perform  all  filing  and  reporting  functions  required  under  paragraphs  (c)(  5)(  iii)  (A)  through  (J)  of  this  section.  TRS  payment  formulas  and  revenue  requirements  shall  be  filed  with  the 
 Commission  on  May  1  of  each  year,  to  be  effective  for  a  one-  year  period  beginning  the  following  July  1.  The  administrator  shall  report  annually  to  the  Commission  an  itemization  of 
 monthly  administrative  costs  which  shall  consist  of  all  expenses,  receipts,  and  payments  associated  with  the  administration  of  TRS  Fund.  The  administrator  is  required  to  keep  the  TRS 
 Fund  separate  from  all  other  funds  administered  by  the  administrator,  shall  file  a  cost  allocation  manual  (CAM),  and  shall  provide  the  Commission  full  access  to  all  data  collected  pursuant  to 
 the  administration  of  the  TRS  Fund.  The  administrator  shall  establish  a  non-  paid,  voluntary  advisory  committee  of  persons  from  the  hearing  and  speech  disability  community,  TRS  users 
 (voice  and  text  telephone),  interstate  service  providers,  state  representatives,  and  TRS  providers,  which  will  meet  at  reasonable  intervals  (at  least  semi-  annually)  in  order  to  monitor  TRS  cost 
 recovery  matters.  Each  group  shall  select  its  own  representative  to  the  committee.  The  administrator's  annual  report  shall  include  a  discussion  of  advisory  committee  deliberations. 
75
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 76 
 (I)  Information  filed  with  the  administrator.  The  administrator  shall  keep  all  data  obtained  from  contributors  and  TRS  providers  confidential  and  shall  not  disclose  such  data  in  company-  specific 
 form  unless  directed  to  do  so  by  the  Commission.  Subject  to  any  restrictions  imposed  by  the  Chief  of  the  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  the  TRS  Fund  administrator  may  share  data  obtained  from 
 carriers  with  the  administrators  of  the  universal  support  mechanisms  (See  47  C.  F.  R.    54.701),  the  North  American  Numbering  Plan  administration  cost  recovery  (See  47  C.  F.  R.    52.16),  and 
 the  long-  term  local  number  portability  cost  recovery  (See  47  C.  F.  R.    52.32).  The  TRS  Fund  administrator  shall  keep  confidential  all  data  obtained  from  other  administrators.  The 
 administrator  shall  not  use  such  data  except  for  purposes  of  administering  the  TRS  Fund,  calculating  the  regulatory  fees  of  interstate  common  carriers,  and  aggregating  such  fee  payments 
 for  submission  to  the  Commission.  The  Commission  shall  have  access  to  all  data  reported  to  the  administrator,  and  authority  to  audit  TRS  providers.  Contributors  may  make  requests  for 
 Commission  nondisclosure  of  company-  specific  revenue  information  under    0.459  of  this  Chapter  by  so  indicating  on  the  Telecommunications  Reporting  Worksheet  at  the  time  that  the 
 subject  data  are  submitted.  The  Commission  shall  make  all  decisions  regarding  nondisclosure  of  company-  specific  information. 
 (J)  The  administrator's  performance  and  this  plan  shall  be  reviewed  by  the  Commission  after  two  years. 
 (K)  All  parties  providing  services  or  contributions  or  receiving  payments  under  this  section  are  subject  to  the  enforcement  provisions  specified  in  the  Communications  Act,  the  Americans  with 
 Disabilities  Act,  and  the  Commission's  rules. 
 (6)  Complaints.  (i)  Referral  of  complaint.  If  a  complaint  to  the  Commission  alleges  a  violation  of  this  subpart 
 with  respect  to  intrastate  TRS  within  a  state  and  certification  of  the  program  of  such  state  under    64.605  is  in  effect,  the  Commission  shall  refer  such  complaint  to  such  state  expeditiously. 
 (ii)  Intrastate  complaints  shall  be  resolved  by  the  state  within  180  days  after  the  complaint  is  first  filed  with  a  state  entity,  regardless  of  whether  it  is  filed  with  the  state  relay  administrator,  a  state 
 PUC,  the  relay  provider,  or  with  any  other  state  entity.  (iii)  Jurisdiction  of  Commission.  After  referring  a  complaint  to  a  state  entity  under  paragraph 
 (c)(  6)(  i)  of  this  section,  or  if  a  complaint  is  filed  directly  with  a  state  entity,  the  Commission  shall  exercise  jurisdiction  over  such  complaint  only  if: 
 (A)  Final  action  under  such  state  program  has  not  been  taken  within:  (1)  180  days  after  the  complaint  is  filed  with  such  state  entity;  or 
 (2)  A  shorter  period  as  prescribed  by  the  regulations  of  such  state;  or  (B)  The  Commission  determines  that  such  state  program  is  no  longer  qualified  for  certification 
 under    64.605.  (iv)  The  Commission  shall  resolve  within  180  days  after  the  complaint  is  filed  with  the 
 Commission  any  interstate  TRS  complaint  alleging  a  violation  of  section  225  of  the  Act  or  any  complaint  involving  intrastate  relay  services  in  states  without  a  certified  program.  The 
76
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 77 
 Commission  shall  resolve  intrastate  complaints  over  which  it  exercises  jurisdiction  under  paragraph  (c)(  6)(  ii)  of  this  section  within  180  days. 
 (v)  Complaint  Procedures.  Complaints  against  TRS  providers  for  alleged  violations  of  this  subpart  may  be  either  informal  or  formal. 
 (A)  Informal  Complaints.  (1)  Form.  An  informal  complaint  may  be  transmitted  to  the  Consumer  Information  Bureau  by 
 any  reasonable  means,  such  as  letter,  facsimile  transmission,  telephone  (voice/  TRS/  TTY),  Internet  e-  mail,  or  some  other  method  that  would  best  accommodate  a  complainants  hearing  or 
 speech  disability.  (2)  Content.  An  informal  complaint  shall  include  the  name  and  address  of  the  complainant;  the 
 name  and  address  of  the  TRS  provider  against  whom  the  complaint  is  made;  a  statement  of  facts  supporting  the  complainants  allegation  that  the  TRS  provided  it  has  violated  or  is  violating   
 225  of  the  Act  and/  or  requirements  under  the  Commissions  rules;  the  specific  relief  or  satisfaction  sought  by  the  complainant;  and  the  complainants  preferred  format  or  method  of 
 response  to  the  complaint  by  the  Commission  and  the  defendant  TRS  provider  (such  as  letter,  facsimile  transmission,  telephone  (voice/  TRS/  TTY),  Internet  e-  mail,  or  some  other  method  that 
 would  best  accommodate  the  complainants  hearing  or  speech  disability).  (3)  Service;  designation  of  agents.  The  Commission  shall  promptly  forward  any  complaint 
 meeting  the  requirements  of  this  subsection  to  the  TRS  provider  named  in  the  complaint.  Such  TRS  provider  shall  be  called  upon  to  satisfy  or  answer  the  complaint  within  the  time  specified  by 
 the  Commission.  Every  TRS  provider  shall  file  with  the  Commission  a  statement  designating  an  agent  or  agents  whose  principal  responsibility  will  be  to  receive  all  complaints,  inquiries,  orders, 
 decisions,  and  notices  and  other  pronouncements  forwarded  by  the  Commission.  Such  designation  shall  include  a  name  or  department  designation,  business  address,  telephone  number 
 (voice  and  TTY),  facsimile  number  and,  if  available,  internet  e-  mail  address.  (B)  Review  and  disposition  of  informal  complaints. 
 (1)  Where  it  appears  from  the  TRS  providers  answer,  or  from  other  communications  with  the  parties,  that  an  informal  complaint  has  been  satisfied,  the  Commission  may,  in  its  discretion, 
 consider  the  matter  closed  without  response  to  the  complainant  or  defendant.  In  all  other  cases,  the  Commission  shall  inform  the  parties  of  its  review  and  disposition  of  a  complaint  filed  under 
 this  subpart.  Where  practicable,  this  information  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  complainant  and  defendant  in  the  manner  requested  by  the  complainant  (e.  g.,  letter,  facsmile  transmission, 
 telephone  (voice/  TRS/  TTY)  or  Internet  e-  mail.  (2)  A  complainant  unsatisfied  with  the  defendants  response  to  the  informal  complaint  and  the 
 staffs  decision  to  terminate  action  on  the  informal  complaint  may  file  a  formal  complaint  with  the  Commission  pursuant  to  subsection  (v)(  C)  below. 
 (C)  Formal  Complaints.  A  formal  complaint  shall  be  in  writing,  addressed  to  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  Enforcement  Bureau,  Telecommunications  Consumer  Division, 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554  and  shall  contain:  (1)  The  name  and  address  of  the  complainant, 
77
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 78 
 (2)  The  name  and  address  of  the  defendant  against  whom  the  complaint  is  made,  (3)  A  complete  statement  of  the  facts,  including  supporting  data,  where  available,  showing  that 
 such  defendant  did  or  omitted  to  do  anything  in  contravention  of  this  subpart,  and  (4)  The  relief  sought. 
 (D)  Amended  complaints.  An  amended  complaint  setting  forth  transactions,  occurrences  or  events  which  have  happened  since  the  filing  of  the  original  complaint  and  which  relate  to  the 
 original  cause  of  action  may  be  filed  with  the  Commission.  (E)  Number  of  copies.  An  original  and  two  copies  of  all  pleadings  shall  be  filed. 
 (F)  Service.  (1)  Except  where  a  complaint  is  referred  to  a  state  pursuant  to  64.604(  c)(  6)(  i),  or  where  a 
 complaint  is  filed  directly  with  a  state  entity,  the  Commission  will  serve  on  the  named  party  a  copy  of  any  complaint  or  amended  complaint  filed  with  it,  together  with  a  notice  of  the  filing  of 
 the  complaint.  Such  notice  shall  call  upon  the  defendant  to  satisfy  or  answer  the  complaint  in  writing  within  the  time  specified  in  said  notice  of  complaint. 
 (2)  All  subsequent  pleadings  and  briefs  shall  be  served  by  the  filing  party  on  all  other  parties  to  the  proceeding  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of    1.47  of  this  chapter.  Proof  of  such 
 service  shall  also  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  said  section.  (G)  Answers  to  complaints  and  amended  complaints.  Any  party  upon  whom  a  copy  of  a 
 complaint  or  amended  complaint  is  served  under  this  subpart  shall  serve  an  answer  within  the  time  specified  by  the  Commission  in  its  notice  of  complaint.  The  answer  shall  advise  the  parties 
 and  the  Commission  fully  and  completely  of  the  nature  of  the  defense  and  shall  respond  specifically  to  all  material  allegations  of  the  complaint.  In  cases  involving  allegations  of  harm, 
 the  answer  shall  indicate  what  action  has  been  taken  or  is  proposed  to  be  taken  to  stop  the  occurrence  of  such  harm.  Collateral  or  immaterial  issues  shall  be  avoided  in  answers  and  every 
 effort  should  be  made  to  narrow  the  issues.  Matters  alleged  as  affirmative  defenses  shall  be  separately  stated  and  numbered.  Any  defendant  failing  to  file  and  serve  an  answer  within  the 
 time  and  in  the  manner  prescribed  may  be  deemed  in  default.  (H)  Replies  to  answers  or  amended  answers.  Within  10  days  after  service  of  an  answer  or  an 
 amended  answer,  a  complainant  may  file  and  serve  a  reply  which  shall  be  responsive  to  matters  contained  in  such  answer  or  amended  answer  and  shall  not  contain  new  matter.  Failure  to  reply 
 will  not  be  deemed  an  admission  of  any  allegation  contained  in  such  answer  or  amended  answer.  (I)  Defective  pleadings.  Any  pleading  filed  in  a  complaint  proceeding  that  is  not  in  substantial 
 conformity  with  the  requirements  of  the  applicable  rules  in  this  subpart  may  be  dismissed. 
 (7)  Treatment  of  TRS  customer  information.  All  future  contracts  between  the  TRS  administrator  and  the  TRS  vendor  shall  provide  for  the  transfer  of  TRS  customer  profile  data  from  the 
 outgoing  TRS  vendor  to  the  incoming  TRS  vendor.  Such  data  must  be  disclosed  in  usable  form  at  least  60  days  prior  to  the  providers  last  day  of  service  provision.  Such  data  may  not  be  used 
 for  any  purpose  other  than  to  connect  the  TRS  user  with  the  called  parties  desired  by  that  TRS 
78
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 79 
 user.  Such  information  shall  not  be  sold,  distributed,  shared  or  revealed  in  any  other  way  by  the  relay  center  or  its  employees,  unless  compelled  to  do  so  by  lawful  order. 
   64.605  State  Certification. 
 (a)  State  documentation.  Any  state,  through  its  office  of  the  governor  or  other  delegated  executive  office  empowered  to  provide  TRS,  desiring  to  establish  a  state  program  under  this 
 section  shall  submit,  not  later  than  October  1,  1992,  documentation  to  the  Commission  addressed  to  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau,  TRS  Certification 
 Program,  Washington,  DC  20554,  and  captioned  "TRS  State  Certification  Application."  All  documentation  shall  be  submitted  in  narrative  form,  shall  clearly  describe  the  state  program  for 
 implementing  intrastate  TRS,  and  the  procedures  and  remedies  for  enforcing  any  requirements  imposed  by  the  state  program.  The  Commission  shall  give  public  notice  of  states  filing  for 
 certification  including  notification  in  the  Federal  Register.  (b)  Requirements  for  certification.  After  review  of  state  documentation,  the  Commission  shall 
 certify,  by  letter,  or  order,  the  state  program  if  the  Commission  determines  that  the  state  certification  documentation: 
 (1)  Establishes  that  the  state  program  meets  or  exceeds  all  operational,  technical,  and  functional  minimum  standards  contained  in    64.604; 
 (2)  Establishes  that  the  state  program  makes  available  adequate  procedures  and  remedies  for  enforcing  the  requirements  of  the  state  program,  including  that  it  makes  available  to  TRS  users 
 informational  materials  on  state  and  Commission  complaint  procedures  sufficient  for  users  to  know  the  proper  procedures  for  filing  complaints;  and 
 (3)  Where  a  state  program  exceeds  the  mandatory  minimum  standards  contained  in    64.604,  the  state  establishes  that  its  program  in  no  way  conflicts  with  federal  law. 
 (c)  Certification  period.  State  certification  shall  remain  in  effect  for  five  years.  One  year  prior  to  expiration  of  certification,  a  state  may  apply  for  renewal  of  its  certification  by  filing 
 documentation  as  prescribed  by  paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  this  section.  (d)  Method  of  funding.  Except  as  provided  in    64.604,  the  Commission  shall  not  refuse  to 
 certify  a  state  program  based  solely  on  the  method  such  state  will  implement  for  funding  intrastate  TRS,  but  funding  mechanisms,  if  labeled,  shall  be  labeled  in  a  manner  that  promote 
 national  understanding  of  TRS  and  do  not  offend  the  public.  (e)  Suspension  or  revocation  of  certification.  The  Commission  may  suspend  or  revoke  such 
 certification  if,  after  notice  and  opportunity  for  hearing,  the  Commission  determines  that  such  certification  is  no  longer  warranted.  In  a  state  whose  program  has  been  suspended  or  revoked, 
 the  Commission  shall  take  such  steps  as  may  be  necessary,  consistent  with  this  subpart,  to  ensure  continuity  of  TRS.  The  Commission  may,  on  its  own  motion,  require  a  certified  state  program  to 
 submit  documentation  demonstrating  ongoing  compliance  with  the  Commissions  minimum  standards  if,  for  example,  the  Commission  receives  evidence  that  a  state  program  may  not  be  in 
 compliance  with  the  minimum  standards. 
79
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 80 
 (f)  Notification  of  substantive  change.  States  must  notify  the  Commission  of  substantive  changes  in  their  TRS  programs  within  60  days  of  when  they  occur,  and  must  certify  that  the  state 
 TRS  program  continues  to  meet  federal  minimum  standards  after  implementing  the  substantive  change. 
80
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 81 
 APPENDIX  C:  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  and  Paperwork  Reduction  Analyses 
 A.  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis 
 157.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  (RFA),  281  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  was  incorporated  in  the  Notice  in  this  docket.  282  The  Commission 
 sought  written  public  comment  on  the  proposals  in  the  Notice,  including  comment  on  the  IRFA.  This  present  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (FRFA)  conforms  to  the  RFA.  283 


 158.  This  rulemaking  proceeding  was  initiated  in  order  to  improve  the  level  and  quality  of  service  provided  through  TRS  for  the  benefit  of  the  community  of  TRS  users.  The  Commissions 
 goal  was  to  improve  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  TRS  program,  and  to  improve  the  Commissions  oversight  of  certified  state  TRS  programs  and  its  ability  to  compel  compliance  with  the  federal 
 mandatory  minimum  standards  for  TRS. 
 B.  Summary  of  Significant  Issues  Raised  by  Public  Comments  in  Response  to  the  IRFA 


 159.  None. 
 C.  Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  to  Which  the  Rules  Will  Apply 


 160.  The  RFA  directs  agencies  to  provide  a  description  of,  and,  where  feasible,  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  small  entities  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted.  284 
 The  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  defines  the  term  small  entity  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  terms  small  business,  small  organization,  and  small  business  concern  under  section  3 


 281  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603.  The  RFA,  See  U.  S.  C.    601  et.  seq.,  has  been  amended  by  the  Contract  With  America 
 Advancement  Act  of  1996,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  110  Stat.  847  (1996)  (CWAAA).  Title  II  of  the  CWAAA  is  the  Small  Business  Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA). 


 282  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14218. 
 283  5  U.  S.  C.    604. 
 284  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3). 
81
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 82 
 of  the  Small  Business  Act.  285  A  small  business  concern  is  one  that:  (1)  is  independently  owned  and  operated;  (2)  is  not  dominant  in  its  field  of  operation;  and  (3)  satisfies  any  additional  criteria 
 established  by  the  Small  Business  Administration  (SBA).  286 
 161.  The  most  reliable  source  of  information  regarding  the  total  numbers  of  certain  common  carrier  and  related  providers  nationwide,  as  well  as  the  numbers  of  commercial  wireless 
 entities,  appears  to  be  data  the  Commission  publishes  annually  in  its  Telecommunications  Industry  Revenue  report,  regarding  the  Telecommunications  Relay  Service  (TRS).  287 


 162.  TRS  Providers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  definition  of  small  entity  specifically  applicable  to  providers  of  telecommunications  relay  services  (TRS). 
 The  closest  applicable  definition  under  the  SBA  rules  is  for  telephone  communications  companies  other  than  radiotelephone  (wireless)  companies.  288  The  SBA  defines  such 
 establishments  to  be  small  businesses  when  they  have  no  more  than  1,500  employees.  289  According  to  our  most  recent  data,  290  there  are  11  interstate  TRS  providers,  which  consist  of 
 interexchange  carriers,  local  exchange  carriers,  state-  managed  entities,  and  non-  profit  organizations.  We  do  not  have  data  specifying  the  number  of  these  providers  that  are  either 
 dominant  in  their  field  of  operations,  are  not  independently  owned  and  operated,  or  have  more  than  1,500  employees,  and  we  are  thus  unable  at  this  time  to  estimate  with  greater  precision  the 
 number  of  TRS  providers  that  would  qualify  as  small  business  concerns  under  the  SBAs  definition.  We  note,  however,  that  these  providers  include  large  interexchange  carriers  and 
 incumbent  local  exchange  carriers.  Consequently,  we  estimate  that  there  are  fewer  than  11  small  TRS  providers  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted. 


 285  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3). 
 286  Small  Business  Act,  15  U.  S.  C.    632  (1996). 
 287  Telecommunications  Industry  Revenue,  Figure  2. 
 288  Small  Business  Act,  15  U.  S.  C.    632  (1996). 
 289  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  Standard  Industrial  Classification  (SIC)  Code  4813. 
 290  This  is  recent  data  from  the  National  Exchange  Carrier  Association,  which  administers  the  Interstate  TRS 
 Fund. 
82
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 83 
 D.  Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  other  Compliance  Requirements 
 163.  Reporting  and  Recordkeeping:  This  Report  and  Order  involves  several  reporting  requirements.  First,  it  requires  that  certified  states  notify  the  Commission  of  substantive  changes  in 
 their  state  TRS  program  within  60  days  of  the  effective  date  of  the  change.  291  Second,  states  are  required  to  file  documentation  demonstrating  that  the  state  TRS  program  remains  in  compliance 
 with  the  Commissions  mandatory  minimum  standards  following  the  substantive  change.  292  Third,  the  Report  and  Order  requires  TRS  administrators  to  submit  the  name  and  address  of  a  contact 
 person  or  office  for  filing  consumer  complaints  about  intrastate  TRS  service  to  the  Commission  by  June  30,  2000.  293  Finally,  on  an  annual  basis,  beginning  May  1,  2001,  and  upon  the  Commissions 
 request,  states  are  required  to  file  a  copy  of  their  TRS  complaint  logs.  294 
 164.  Other  Compliance  Requirements:  The  rules  adopted  in  this  Report  and  Order  require  that  all  common  carriers  providing  voice  transmission  services  must  ensure  that  STS  services  are 
 available  to  callers  with  speech  disabilities  throughout  their  service  areas  within  one  year  of  the  publication  in  the  Federal  Register  of  this  Report  and  Order.  295  These  rules  will  affect  certified 
 states.  The  rules  also  require  that  TRS  calls  be  answered  more  promptly,  296  that  a  minimum  typing  speed  be  implemented,  297  and  that  communications  assistants  stay  with  a  TTY  TRS  call  for  a 
 minimum  of  ten  minutes.  298  These  rules  will  affect  TRS  providers. 


 291  See  supra  section  I(  C)(  8)(  a). 
 292  See  supra  section  I(  C)(  8)(  a). 
 293  See  supra  section  I(  C)(  8)(  b). 
 294  See  supra  section  I(  C)(  8)(  d). 
 295  See  supra  section  I(  C)(  1)(  b). 
 296  See  supra  section  I(  C)(  3)(  h). 
 297  See  supra  section  I(  C)(  3)(  j). 
 298  See  supra  section  I(  C)(  3)(  i). 
83
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 84 
 E.  Steps  Taken  to  Minimize  Significant  Economic  Impact  on  Small  Entities,  and  Significant  Alternatives  Considered 
 165.  The  RFA  requires  an  agency  to  describe  any  significant  alternatives  that  it  has  considered  in  reaching  its  proposed  approach,  which  may  include  the  following  four  alternatives:  (1) 
 the  establishment  of  differing  compliance  or  reporting  requirements  or  timetables  that  take  into  account  the  resources  available  to  small  entities:  (2)  the  clarification,  consolidation,  or  simplification 
 of  compliance  or  reporting  requirements  under  the  rule  for  small  entities;  (3)  the  use  of  performance,  rather  than  design,  standards;  and  (4)  an  exemption  from  coverage  of  the  rule,  or  any  part  thereof,  for 
 small  entities. 
 166.  The  proposals  in  the  Notice,  and  the  comments  the  Commission  sought  regarding  them,  are  part  of  the  Commissions  analysis  of  its  role  with  respect  to  the  implementation  and 
 operation  of  nationwide  TRS  for  persons  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities.  The  guiding  principal  shaping  our  final  conclusions  is  Congress  direction  that  TRS  keeps  pace  with  advancing  technology 
 and  that  the  Commissions  rules  do  not  discourage  the  implementation  of  technological  advances  or  improvements.  Large  interexchange  carriers  and  incumbent  local  exchange  carriers  provide  the 
 majority  of  TRS  service,  and  we  believe  that  the  number  of  small  entities  impacted  by  our  conclusions  would  be  potentially  very  small.  With  respect  to  the  amendments  to  the  Commissions 
 rules  governing  TRS,  by  statute,  common  carriers  providing  voice  transmission  services  who  are  subject  to  the  TRS  rules,  including  small  entities,  may  comply  with  their  obligations  individually, 
 through  designees,  through  a  competitively  selected  vendor,  or  in  concert  with  other  carriers.  299  For  these  reasons,  we  conclude  that  the  rule  amendments  will  have  a  minimal  impact  on  small  entities. 


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


 168.  As  required  by  the  Paperwork  Reduction  of  1995,  the  Notice  invited  the  general  public  and  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  (OMB)  to  comment  on  the  proposed 


 299  47  U.  S.  C.    225  (c). 
84
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 85 
 information  collection  requirements  contained  in  the  Notice.  300  The  changes  to  our  information  collection  requirements  on  which  we  sought  comment  in  the  Notice  included  the  requirement 
 that,  except  during  network  failure,  TRS  shall  answer  85%  of  all  calls  by  a  CA  prepared  to  place  the  TRS  call,  within  10  seconds  of  the  time  the  incoming  call  reaches  the  TRS  providers 
 network,  and  no  more  than  30  seconds  shall  elapse  between  receipt  of  dialing  information  and  the  dialing  of  the  requested  number.  This  calculation  is  required  to  be  performed  daily. 


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


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


 300  See  Notice,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  14223. 
85
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 86 
 APPENDIX  D:  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis 
 I.  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis 
 171.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  (RFA),  301  the  Commission  has  prepared  this  present  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  of  the  possible  significant 
 economic  impact  on  small  entities  by  the  policies  and  rules  in  this  Further  Notice.  Written  public  comments  are  requested  on  this  IRFA.  Comments  must  be  identified  as  responses  to  the 
 IRFA  and  must  be  filed  by  the  deadlines  for  comments  on  the  Further  Notice.  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  Further  Notice,  including  this  IRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy 
 of  the  Small  Business  Administration.  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  a).  In  addition,  the  Further  Notice  and  IRFA  (or  summaries  thereof)  will  be  published  in  the  Federal  Register. 


 A.  Need  for,  and  Objectives  of,  the  Proposed  Rules 
 172.  The  Commission  is  issuing  this  Further  Notice  to  seek  public  comment  on  technological  advances  that  could  improve  the  level  and  quality  of  service  provided  through  TRS 
 for  the  benefit  of  the  community  of  TRS  users.  In  doing  so,  the  Commission  hopes  to  enhance  the  quality  of  TRS,  and  broaden  the  potential  universe  of  TRS  users  consistent  with  Congress 
 direction  at  47  U.  S.  C.    225  (d)(  2)  to  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  its  regulations  encourage  the  use  of  existing  technology  and  not  discourage  or  impair  the  development  of  improved 
 technology.  Specifically,  the  Notice  proposes  to  require  minimum  mandatory  standards  specific  to  nationwide  speech-  to-  speech  (STS)  service  for  persons  with  severe  speech  disabilities.  The 
 Further  Notice  also  seeks  comment  on  outreach  programs,  the  accessibility  of  emergency  services  to  TRS,  and  whether  SS7  services  should  be  made  available  to  TRS  centers.  The  intent 
 of  these  proposed  rules  is  to  improve  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  TRS  program,  and  to  improve  the  Commissions  oversight  of  certified  state  TRS  programs  and  its  ability  to  compel 
 compliance  with  the  federal  mandatory  minimum  standards  for  TRS. 
 B.  Legal  Basis 
 173.  The  authority  for  actions  proposed  in  this  Further  Notice  may  be  found  in  sections  1,  4(  I)  and  (j),  201-  205,  218  and  225  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended, 
 47  U.  S.  C.  sections  151,  154(  i),  154(  j),  201-  205,  218  and  225. 


 301  5  U.  S.  C.    603.  The  RFA,  5  U.  S.  C.    601  et  seq.,  has  been  amended  by  The  Contract  with  America 
 Advancement  Act  of  1996,  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  110  Stat.  847  (1996)  (CWAAA).  Title  II  of  the  CWAAA  is  the  Small  Business  Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA). 
86
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 87 
 C.  Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  to  Which  the  Proposed  Rules  Will  Apply 
 174.  The  RFA  directs  agencies  to  provide  a  description  of,  and,  where  feasible,  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  small  entities  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted.  302 
 The  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  defines  the  term  small  entity  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  terms  small  business,  small  organization,  and  small  business  concern  under  section  3 
 of  the  Small  Business  Act.  303  A  small  business  concern  is  one  that:  (1)  is  independently  owned  and  operated;  (2)  is  not  dominant  in  its  field  of  operation;  and  (3)  satisfies  any  additional  criteria 
 established  by  the  Small  Business  Administration  (SBA).  304 
 175.  The  most  reliable  source  of  information  regarding  the  total  numbers  of  certain  common  carrier  and  related  providers  nationwide,  as  well  as  the  numbers  of  commercial  wireless 
 entities,  appears  to  be  data  the  Commission  publishes  annually  in  its  Telecommunications  Industry  Revenue  report,  regarding  the  Telecommunications  Relay  Service  (TRS).  305 


 176.  TRS  Providers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  definition  of  small  entity  specifically  applicable  to  providers  of  telecommunications  relay  services  (TRS). 
 The  closest  applicable  definition  under  the  SBA  rules  is  for  telephone  communications  companies  other  than  radiotelephone  (wireless)  companies.  306  The  SBA  defines  such 
 establishments  to  be  small  businesses  when  they  have  no  more  than  1,500  employees.  307  According  to  our  most  recent  data,  308  there  are  11  interstate  TRS  providers,  which  consist  of 
 interexchange  carriers,  local  exchange  carriers,  state-  managed  entities,  and  non-  profit  organizations.  We  do  not  have  data  specifying  the  number  of  these  providers  that  are  either 
 dominant  in  their  field  of  operations,  are  not  independently  owned  and  operated,  or  have  more  than  1,500  employees,  and  we  are  thus  unable  at  this  time  to  estimate  with  greater  precision  the 


 302  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3). 
 303  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3). 
 304  5  U.  S.  C.    632. 
 305  Telecommunications  Industry  Revenue,  Figure  2. 
 306  Small  Business  Act,  5  U.  S.  C.    632  (1996). 
 307  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  Standard  Industrial  Classification  (SIC)  Code  4813. 
 308  This  is  recent  data  from  the  National  Exchange  Carrier  Association,  which  administers  the  interstate  TRS 
 Fund. 
87
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 88 
 number  of  TRS  providers  that  would  qualify  as  small  business  concerns  under  the  SBAs  definition.  We  note,  however,  that  these  providers  include  large  interexchange  carriers  and 
 incumbent  local  exchange  carriers.  Consequently,  we  estimate  that  there  are  fewer  than  11  small  TRS  providers  that  may  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules,  if  adopted.  We  seek  comment 
 generally  on  our  analysis  identifying  TRS  providers,  and  specifically  on  whether  we  should  conclude,  for  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  purposes,  that  any  TRS  providers  are  small  entities. 


 D.  Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements 
 177.  This  Further  Notice  imposes  no  requirement  to  file  any  information  with  the  Federal  Communications  Commission. 
 E.  Steps  Taken  To  Minimize  Significant  Economic  Impact  on  Small  Entities,  and  Significant  Alternatives  Considered 
 178.  The  RFA  requires  an  agency  to  describe  any  significant  alternatives  that  it  has  considered  in  reaching  its  proposed  approach,  which  may  include  the  following  four  alternatives: 
 (1)  the  establishment  of  differing  compliance  or  reporting  requirements  or  timetables  that  take  into  account  the  resources  available  to  small  entities:  (2)  the  clarification,  consolidation,  or 
 simplification  of  compliance  or  reporting  requirements  under  the  rule  for  small  entities;  (3)  the  use  of  performance,  rather  than  design,  standards;  and  (4)  an  exemption  from  coverage  of  the 
 rule,  or  any  part  thereof,  for  small  entities. 
 179.  The  proposals  in  the  Further  Notice,  and  the  comments  the  Commission  seeks  regarding  them,  are  part  of  the  Commissions  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  rules  governing  TRS,  by  statute,  common  carriers  providing  voice  transmission 
 services  who  are  subject  to  the  TRS  rules,  including  small  entities,  may  comply  with  their  obligations  individually,  through  designees,  through  competitively  selected  vendor,  or  in  concert 
 with  other  carriers.  309  For  this  reason,  the  Commission  expects  that  the  proposed  rule 
 309  47  U.  S.  C.    225(  c). 
88
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 89 
 amendments  will  have  minimal  impact  on  small  entities.  We  tentatively  conclude  that  our  proposals  in  the  Further  Notice  would  impose  minimum  burdens  on  small  entities.  We  seek 
 comment  on  our  tentative  conclusion. 
 F.  Federal  Rules  That  May  Duplicate,  Overlap,  or  Conflict  With  the  Proposed  Rules 


 180.  None. 
89
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 90 
 Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Susan  Ness 
 Re:  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  and  Speech-  to-  Speech  Services  for  Individuals  with  Hearing  and  Speech  Disabilities.  CC  Docket  No.  98-  67. 


 We  are  in  the  midst  of  a  telecommunications  revolution  that  is  reshaping  our  economy  and  society.  In  this  day  and  age,  access  to  telecommunications  services  becomes  even  more 
 essential.  Todays  order  is  an  important  step  to  help  ensure  access  to  quality  telecommunications  services  not  only  for  the  millions  of  Americans  with  hearing  and  speech 
 disabilities,  but  also  for  people  without  disabilities  who  communicate  with  these  citizens. 
 I  write  separately  to  voice  my  strong  support  for  creation  of  a  disabilities  advisory  committee  that  would  include  TRS  users,  TRS  providers,  carriers,  manufacturers,  state  and  local 
 governments,  and  other  interested  parties.  The  Commission  benefits  greatly  from  the  expertise  of  committees  established  to  advise  us  on  such  specialized  issues  as  numbering,  public  safety, 
 technological  innovations,  and  issues  of  concern  to  state  and  local  governments. 
 I  believe  the  Commission  would  also  gain  tremendously  from  the  input  of  a  committee  of  experts  that  could  advise  us  on  technological  advances  and  the  impact  of  such 
 technologies  on  services  for  those  with  disabilities.  Moreover,  an  advisory  committee  could  serve  as  a  clearinghouse  for  relay  concerns  and  could  provide  an  ongoing  dialogue  to  resolve  issues  before 
 regulatory  action  becomes  necessary. 
 Congress  recognized  the  importance  of  an  advisory  committee  over  a  decade  ago  when  it  enacted  requirements  for  telecommunications  relay  services  as  part  of  the  Americans  with 
 Disabilities  Act.  The  Senate  Committee  Report  states: 
 Given  the  unique  and  specialized  needs  of  the  population  that  will  be  utilizing  telecommunications  relay  services,  the  FCC  should  pay  particular  attention  to  input 
 from  representatives  of  the  hearing  and  speech  impaired  community.  It  is  recommended  that  this  input  be  obtained  in  a  formal  manner  such  as  through  an 
 advisory  committee  that  would  represent  not  only  telecommunications  relay  service  consumers  but  also  carriers  and  other  interested  parties.  310 


 310  S.  Rep.  No.  116,  101  st  Cong.,  1  st  Sess.  (1989). 
90
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 91 
 I  urge  the  Commission  to  move  forward  as  expeditiously  as  possible  to  establish  a  disabilities  advisory  committee. 
91
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  56 
 92 
 Separate  Statement  of  Commissioner  Gloria  Tristani 
 Re:  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  and  Speech-  to-  Speech  Services  for  Individuals  with  Hearing  and  Speech  Disabilities.  CC  Docket  No.  98-  67. 
 I  applaud  todays  decision,  which  is  another  significant  step  towards  ensuring  that  all  Americans  have  meaningful  access  to  telecommunications  services.  Without  quality 
 Telecommunications  Relay  Service  (TRS),  the  millions  of  Americans  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  would  be  left  on  the  sidelines,  unable  to  access  the  telecommunications  services  and 
 equipment  that  are  so  central  to  the  ability  to  communicate  and  to  participate  in  todays  information-driven  society. 


 The  Commission  has  benefited  from  seven  years  of  experience  since  TRS  became  available  on  a  uniform,  nationwide  basis.  By  amending  the  rules  governing  the  delivery  of  TRS, 
 we  expand  the  kinds  of  relay  services  available  to  consumers  to  keep  pace  with  rapid  technological  change  in  the  telecommunications  industry.  And  to  keep  pace  with  the  rapid 
 demographic  change  in  this  country,  we  recognize  that  non-  English  language  relay  services  are  telecommunications  relay  services  as  defined  by  the  Act,  which  can  be  reimbursed  from  relay 
 funds.  Joining  the  18  states  that  make  intrastate  and  interstate  Spanish  relay  services  available  to  date,  we  require  interstate  common  carriers  to  provide  interstate  Spanish  relay  service  within  one 
 year. 
 Other  amendments  adopted  today  will  improve  the  quality  of  TRS  services,  ensuring  that  those  with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities  are  able  to  communicate  by  wire  in  a  manner 
 functionally  equivalent  to  those  without  such  disabilities,  as  required  by  the  law.  I  am  confident  that  these  rule  changes  will  substantially  improve  the  quality  of  life  for  all  Americans 
 with  hearing  and  speech  disabilities.  But  we  must  remain  vigilant.  As  the  issues  raised  in  the  Notice  reflect,  steady  technological  and  societal  changes  compel  us  to  reexamine  regularly  our 
 decisions  regarding  what  services  and  performance  standards  are  necessary  to  ensure  that  TRS  is  functionally  equivalent  to  voice  telephone  service.  I  look  forward  to  a  continuing  dialogue  on 
 these  issues. 
92