202-PL-00057

MAY 17 1993

Ms. Nancy Husted-Jensen

Chairperson & State ADA Coordinator
Governor's Commission on the Handicapped
Building 51,3rd Floor
555 Valley Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5686

Dear Ms. Husted-Jensen:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the Americans

With Disabilities Act (ADA) . Specifically, you asked for
guidance regarding the State of Rhode Island's proposed system
for providing emergency and non-emergency telephone services. We
regret the delay in responding.

The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide

technical assistance to individuals and entities having rights or
obligations under the Act. This letter provides informal
guidance to assist you in understanding the ADA's requirements.
However, it does not constitute a legal interpretation and it is
not binding on the Department.

In your letter, you asked several questions on behalf of the

Governor's Commission on the Handicapped about the State of Rhode
Island's duty to provide accessible emergency and non-emergency
telephone services to persons with hearing and speech
impairments. The responses below are based on information
provided in your letters of March 4 and July 30, 1992, and on
discussions with Mr. Bob Cooper, Executive Secretary of the Rhode
Island Governor's Commission on the Handicapped.

Emergency Telephone Services: Question 1

"Is it permissible under 28 C.F.R. 35.162 to have all TDD

emergency calls be directed through the E 911 [Enhanced 911]
system?"

cc: Records, Chrono, Wodatch, Magagna, Foran, FOIA

Udd:Foran:RI.911
 -2-

Short Answer

The short answer is generally yes -- under the following

conditions.

- The E 911 system must receive and process nonvoice

calls as promptly and effectively as voice calls.

- Nonvoice callers whose calls are directed through E 911

must receive emergency attention as quickly as voice
callers who dial local seven-digit numbers for
emergency assistance instead of E 911.

- Any emergency services provided by the State or local

government entity not connected to the E 911 system
must provide direct access to nonvoice callers (i.e.,
have their own TDD's and be compatible with computer
modems).

Discussion

The applicable regulation states:

Telephone emergency services, including 911 services, shall

provide direct access to individuals who use TDD's and
computer modems.

28 C.F.R. 35.162. "Direct access" means that emergency

telephone services can directly receive calls from TDD and
computer modem users without relying on outside relay services or
third party services. Where 911 service is available, direct
access must be provided to individuals who use TDD's and computer
modems. The requirement for direct access disallows the use of a
separate seven-digit number for persons with hearing impairments
where 911 service is available. See preamble to title II
regulation at 35713.

According to your letter, 911 service is available in the

State of Rhode Island, and -- consistent with the above-discussed
requirement -- the State proposes using an Enhanced 911 (E 911)
system that provides direct access to nonvoice callers. As we
understand the facts, Rhode Island proposes to direct all
nonvoice callers through this E 911 service. In contrast, voice
callers in Rhode Island have the option of dialing 911 or a
variety of other seven-digit numbers to reach emergency services.
Your question is whether channeling all nonvoice emergency calls
through this E 911 system -- and not providing nonvoice callers
with the additional option of dialing a local seven-digit
emergency number -- is consistent with the ADA.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-3-

As noted above, this arrangement is permitted under the ADA,

but only under certain conditions. First, any emergency service
provided by the State or local government entity which is not
tied into the E 911 system would have to provide direct access to
nonvoice callers. If, for example, the State of Rhode Island
offered emergency poison control information which could not be
accessed through E 911, that telephone emergency service would
have to be equipped with a TDD to provide direct access to
nonvoice callers. The State could provide two separate lines to
reach this service -- one for voice calls, and another for
nonvoice calls -- but it would have to ensure that the service
for nonvoice calls was as effective as that offered for voice
calls in terms of response time and availability in hours. Also,
the nonvoice number would have to be publicized as effectively as
the voice number, and displayed as prominently as the voice
number wherever such emergency numbers are listed. See Title II
Technical Assistance Manual at pages 38 and 39.

Second, Rhode Island's proposed system would have to operate

fairly. The system would be acceptable only if the State's
emergency telephone services received and processed nonvoice
calls promptly and effectively. The State would also have to
ensure that nonvoice callers whose calls were directed through E
911 received emergency attention as quickly as voice callers who
could dial local emergency seven-digit numbers for assistance.
If the voice caller who dials a local seven-digit number for an
emergency service receives more immediate attention than a person
who is deaf or has a speech or hearing impairment dialing E 911,
the system would be operating in violation of the ADA. See
preamble to title II regulation at 35713.

Rhode Island also proposes to use the Rhode Island State

Police as the backup system for emergency TDD calls if the E 911
system is ever disrupted. Although it is not clear how often or
in what circumstances such a disruption would occur, we assume
that you have proposed this backup system for nonvoice callers
because voice callers would have the option of dialing a seven-
digit local emergency number should the E 911 system fail. The
same principles discussed above are applicable here: The State
would have to ensure that nonvoice callers whose calls were
directed through the State Police as the backup to E 911 received
emergency attention as quickly as voice callers who could dial
local emergency seven-digit numbers for assistance if E 911
service was disrupted.

Your letter indicates that part of the impetus for

centralizing nonvoice emergency calls stems from practical
difficulties in retaining trained, experienced personnel to
handle TDD calls. Public entities are required to take steps
that are necessary to promptly receive and respond to a call from
users of TDD's and computer modems. No matter which system Rhode
Island ultimately implements, and despite any difficulties the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-4-

State may encounter with high staff turnover, it is the State's

responsibility to ensure that emergency desk or dispatch
personnel are trained to receive and respond to TDD calls
effectively.

Non-Emergency Telephone Services: Questions 2 and 3

"If it is permissible to centralize emergency calls, then

for non-emergency calls would it be permissible under 28 CFR
35.162:

2. for several public safety agencies of the same

municipality to 'share' a TDD even if they do not
have a central dispatch?

3 . for small volunteer fire companies to 'share' a TDD

even if they do not have a central dispatch?"

Short Answer

The answer is yes, so long as the "messenger-type" system

proposed works at least as effectively for persons using the TDD-
system as for those using seven-digit non-emergency calls.
Discussion

Where a public entity communicates with applicants and

beneficiaries by telephone in non-emergency situations, the
public entity does not have to provide "direct access." Instead,
public entities have the option of using TDD's or "equally
effective telecommunication systems" to communicate with
individuals with impaired speech or hearing. See 28 C.F.R.
35.161. Under the regulation, relay services such as those
required by title IV (involving a relay operator who uses both a
standard telephone and a TDD to type the voice messages to the
TDD user and read the TDD messages to the standard telephone
user) constitute equally effective telecommunication systems.

Title IV of the ADA requires all common carriers (i.e., the

telephone companies) to provide telephone relay services by July
26, 1993. Thus, after that date, most State and local government
entities in Rhode Island could choose to rely on relay services
provided by the phone companies for non-emergency communications
with individuals with impaired speech or hearing. Even after
that date, however, the entities which have extensive telephone
contact with the public such as city halls, public libraries and
public aid offices, are strongly encouraged to have TDD's to
ensure more immediate access. See preamble to title II
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-5-

regulation at 35712 ("The Department encourages those entities

that have extensive telephone contact with the public. . . to
have TDD's to insure more immediate access. Where the provision
of telephone service is a major function of the entity, TDD's
should be available.")

As we understand it, your question is whether in the interim

period before the relay system is operational (July 26, 1993),
public service agencies providing non-emergency services in a
given locality can meet their obligation under the ADA to provide
equally effective telecommunication service by "sharing" a TDD.
The system works as follows: the TDD operator transcribes a TDD
user's request, contacts the relevant agency, and upon receiving
an answer, returns the person's TDD call. Or, the individual
agency official would go to where the TDD is housed and answer
the deaf person's inquiry directly.

Rhode Island's interim system for most non-emergency

communications provided by public entities would be satisfactory
only if it provides "equally effective telecommunication
service." TDD operators must be properly trained, and public
employees must be instructed to accept and handle relayed calls
in the normal course of business. See Title II Technical
Assistance Manual at 38. Of course, once the relay system is
operational in Rhode Island, you should use it instead of the
shared TDD system described in your letter. Also, as stated
above, we still strongly encourage those entities that have
extensive telephone contact with the public to have their own
TDD's to insure more immediate access.

Finally, you asked for information regarding computer modem/

E 911 compatibility. Under the title II regulation, at present,
telephone emergency services must only be compatible with the
Baudot format. Until it can be technically proven that
communications in another format can operate in a reliable and
compatible manner in a given telephone emergency environment, a
public entity would not be required to provide direct access to
computer modems using formats other than Baudot. See Title II
Technical Assistance Manual at 38. We do not have further
information available regarding computer modem/ E 911
compatibility. However, your E 911 system should, at a minimum,
be compatible with computer modems that use the Baudot format to
be in compliance with the Department's title II regulation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-6-

I hope that this information has been helpful to you. If

you have any questions, please contact Sheila M. Foran at (202)
616-2314.

Sincerely,

John L. Wodatch
Chief
Public Access Section

Enclosures (2)
 Title II regulation
Title II Technical Assistance Manual

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

Executive Department
GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION
ON THE HANDICAPPED
Building 51, 3rd fl, 555 Valley Street
Providence, R. I. 02908 - 5686
(401) 277-3731 (v/tdd)
(RI only) 1-800-752-8088 ext. 3731

March 4, 1992

John Wodatch, Director

Office of Americans With Disabilities Act
Civil Rights Division
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Wodatch:

I am seeking an opinion on behalf of the State of Rhode Island
with regards to 28 CFR 35.162 Telephone emergency service
provision of the ADA's Government Service Regulation. Rhode
Island has a state wide Enhanced 911 system that all public
safety, agencies (police, fire, and rescue) are tied into. The
system is equipped with telecommunication devices for the deaf. E
911 operators undergo training on the use of TDDs annually. The
local police, fire, and rescue units have their own phone lines
in addition to the E 911 system, for non-emergency communications
and as a backup in case the E 911 system should ever be
disrupted.

At present the larger cities have their own TDDs, often shared by
all municipal public safety agencies. Many of the smaller fire
districts are relying on E 911 for emergency communications,
including TDD calls.

1. Is it permissible under 28 CFR 35.162 to have all TDD

emergency calls be directed through the E 911 system ?
If it is permissible to centralize emergency calls, then for non-
emergency calls would it be permissible under 28 CFR 35.162:

2. for several public safety agencies of the same municipality to

"share" a TDD even if they do not have a central dispatch ?

3. for small volunteer fire companies to "share" a TDD with a

local municipal government, even if the TDD is not "housed" in
the same building as the fire company, if the fire company has
access to the TDD and the local government will act as a "relay
service" ?

If it is not permissible to centralize emergency calls , then

would it be permissible under 28 CFR 35.162:

4. for several public safety agencies of the same municipality to

"share" a TDD even if they do not have a central dispatch ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 2
March 4, 1992
John Wodatch, Director

5. for several public safety agencies in the same geographic area

to "share" a TDD even if they do not have a central dispatch ?

I raise these points for a couple of reasons. During the last

several years a number of local and state public safety agencies
have gained experience with TDDs. Their experiences have shown
that the frequency of TDD calls to a rural or suburban fire or
police department is very low, averaging less than 1 call per
year. Personnel in agencies with very few TDD calls, do not
recognize TDD calls when they are finally made. Unlike the E 911
system, local calls are not being automatically traced so even
when no communication takes place, a police officer can not be
dispatched directly to the source of the phone call. The
turnover in desk/dispatch personnel at the smaller public safety
agencies makes it very difficult to ensure that the operators are
experienced in "deaf language syntax and culture", an essential
in any high stress situation. From a public safety standpoint the
individual with a communication impairment has a much better
chance of connecting with a highly trained "TDD friendly"
operator at the statewide E 911 facility than they would have
even at the larger urban public safety agencies.
As State ADA Coordinator I would like to propose that:

1. Rhode Island utilize its E 911 system as the Telephone

Emergency Service for all TDD calls and the State Police be the
backup system for emergency TDD calls if the E 911 system is ever
disrupted (the state police have over 20 years experience with
(TDDs,TTYs);

2. Urban & suburban public safety agencies establish a

centralized TDD for non-emergency communications in each
municipality; and
3. Rural public safety agencies establish a "shared" TDD system
for non-emergency communications in each town.

I would appreciate your opinion on the legality of this proposed

system so I can ensure that Rhode Island has an accessible
telephone emergency system in place as soon as possible.

At present our E 911 system is compatible with TDDs but not with
computer modems, we would be interested in any information your
office has on computer modem/E 911 compatibility, so we can
adjust our system to meet the new requirements.

Sincerely,

Nancy Husted-Jensen
Chairperson & State ADA Coordinator