Reminder That Video Relay Service (VRS) Provides Access to the Telephone System Only and Cannot Be Used as a Substitute for “In-Person” Interpreting Services or Video Remote Interpreting (VRI), 59346-59347 [05-20133]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
59346
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices
(political file) of all requests for
broadcast time made by or on behalf of
candidates for public office, together
with an appropriate notation showing
the disposition made by the licensee of
such requests. The data is used by the
public to assess money expended and
time allotted to a political candidate and
to ensure that equal access was afforded
to other legally qualified candidates. 47
CFR 76.1701 also requires that, when an
entity sponsors origination cable casting
material that concerns a political matter
or a discussion of a controversial issue
of public importance, a list must be
maintained in the public file of the
system that includes the sponsoring
entity’s chief executive officers, or
members of its executive committee or
of its board of directors.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–20526 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–10–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[CG Docket No. 03–123; DA 05–2417]
Reminder That Video Relay Service
(VRS) Provides Access to the
Telephone System Only and Cannot Be
Used as a Substitute for ‘‘In-Person’’
Interpreting Services or Video Remote
Interpreting (VRI)
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Synopsis
In this document, the
Commission reminds Video Relay
Service (VRS) providers, consumers,
and businesses that VRS cannot be used
as a substitute for ‘‘in-person’’
interpreting services or for Video
Remote Interpreting (VRI). The
Commission will continue to carefully
scrutinize the provision and use of VRS
to ensure that it is being used only as
a means of accessing the telephone
system, not as a substitute for VRI or as
a means to gain free ‘‘in-person’’
interpreting services. Also, in this
document, the Commission encourages
persons requiring interpreting services
and providing interpreting services, as
well as VRS providers, to report any
improper use of VRS to the Commission
so that it may ensure that the Interstate
Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS) Fund is compensating only
legitimate VRS calls. The Commission
continues to closely monitor alleged
instances of the wrongful use of VRS,
and will take whatever enforcement
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:48 Oct 11, 2005
Jkt 208001
action is necessary and appropriate
against such misuse.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Chandler, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–1475 (voice), (202) 418–0597 (TTY)
or e-mail Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document DA 05–2417, released
September 7, 2005 in CG Docket No. 03–
123. The complete text of document DA
05–2417 and copies of any subsequently
filed documents relating to this matter
will be available for public inspection
and copying during regular business
hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Document DA 05–2417 and copies of
subsequently filed documents in this
matter may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor at
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact the
Commission’s duplicating contractor at
its Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com or
call 1–800–378–3160. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY). Document DA 05–2417
can also be downloaded in Word and
Portable Document Format (PDF) at:
https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.
On September 7, 2005, the
Commission issued a Public Notice to
remind VRS providers, consumers, and
businesses that VRS cannot be used as
a substitute for ‘‘in-person’’ interpreting
services or for Video Remote
Interpreting (VRI). VRS, as a form of
telecommunications relay service (TRS),
is a means of giving persons with
hearing disabilities access to the
telephone system. The obligation of
telephone companies to offer TRS is
required by Congress under Title IV of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA). VRS allows people with
hearing disabilities whose primary
language is American Sign Language
(ASL) to use the Internet or another
broadband connection to contact a
communications assistant (CA) via
video equipment. The CA then makes
an outbound telephone call to a hearing
person and relays the call between the
two parties. Currently, the costs for VRS
calls are reimbursed from the Interstate
TRS Fund, which is overseen by the
Commission, making VRS calls free for
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consumers. By contrast, sign language
interpreters facilitate communication
between individuals who use sign
language to communicate and those
who do not. An interpreter may be used
in many situations—e.g., in classrooms,
during medical appointments, at staff
meetings, or for business transactions—
when the parties are together at the
same location. Generally, interpreters
are contracted and paid for on a fee-forservice basis. Video Remote Interpreting
(VRI) is a service that is used when an
interpreter cannot be physically present
to interpret for two or more persons who
are together at the same location. This
service uses a video connection to
provide access to an interpreter who is
at a remote location. As with ‘‘inperson’’ interpreters, VRI services are
generally contracted and paid for on a
fee-for-service basis. VRS is to be used
only when a person with a hearing
disability, who absent such disability
would make a voice telephone call,
desires to make a call through the
telephone system (or when, in the
reverse situation, the hearing person
desires to make such a call to a person
with a hearing disability). See 47 CFR
64.601(17) of the Commission’s rules.
VRS may not be used as a substitute for
an ‘‘in-person’’ interpreter or a VRI
service.
Although the Commission has
previously cautioned about the misuse
of VRS as a substitute for ‘‘in-person’’
sign language interpreting services or
VRI, it continues to receive reports that
this is occurring. See, e.g.,
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98–67, Order
on Reconsideration, FCC 00–200, 16
FCC Rcd 4054–4058, paragraph 10 (June
5, 2000); See Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket Nos. 90–571 and
98–67, CG Docket No. 03–123, Report
and Order, Order on Reconsideration,
and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 04–137, 19 FCC Rcd
12475–12537, note 466 (June 30, 2004),
published at 69 FR 53346 (September 1,
2004), 69 FR 53382 (September 1, 2004);
Federal Communications Commission
Clarifies That Certain
Telecommunications Relay Services
(TRS) Marketing and Call Handling
Practices Are Improper and Reminds
That Video Relay Service (VRS) May
Not Be Used as a Video Remote
Interpreting Service, CC Docket No. 98–
67, CG Docket No. 03–123, Public
Notice, DA 05–141, 20 FCC Rcd 1471
(January 26, 2005), published at 70 FR
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices
8034 (February 17, 2005);
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98–67, CG
Docket No. 03–123, Order on
Reconsideration, FCC 05–139, note 109
(July 19, 2005), published at 70 FR
51643 (August 31, 2005). The
Commission is concerned that the
misuse of VRS may be partially
responsible for the large increase in
minutes of use of VRS. The Interstate
TRS Fund reimbursed 869,003 minutes
of VRS usage for June 2004 and
2,136,657 minutes for June 2005. The
Commission understands that VRS
providers generally have procedures in
place to terminate calls where VRS is
being used as a way to obtain free
interpreting services. However, the
Commission also understands that
persons misusing VRS may be doing so
in ways to avoid detection, and are also
publicizing these methods via consumer
bulletin boards and other means.
The Commission is mindful that
employers, State and local government
entities, and public accommodations are
required under the ADA to provide
persons with hearing disabilities a
reasonable accommodation, and that the
accommodation may entail the use of a
sign language interpreter. However, VRS
cannot be used as a substitute for using
an in-person interpreter or VRI in
situations that would not, absent one of
the parties’ hearing disability, entail the
use of the telephone. The Commission
will continue to carefully scrutinize the
provision and use of VRS to ensure that
it is being used only as a means of
accessing the telephone system, not as
a substitute for VRI or as a means to gain
free ‘‘in-person’’ interpreting services.
The Commission encourages persons
requiring interpreting service and
providing interpreting services, as well
as VRS providers, to report any
improper use of VRS to the Commission
so that it may ensure that the Interstate
TRS Fund is compensating only
legitimate VRS calls. The Commission
will continue to closely monitor alleged
instances of the wrongful use of VRS,
and take whatever enforcement action is
necessary and appropriate against such
misuse.
Federal Communications Commission.
Jay Keithley,
Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05–20133 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:48 Oct 11, 2005
Jkt 208001
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[WC Docket No. 05–276; DA 05–2514]
Access Charges for IP-Transported
Calls
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document seeks
comment on petitions for declaratory
ruling filed by SBC and VarTec. SBC
seeks a declaratory ruling that wholesale
transmission providers using Internet
protocol (IP) technology to transport
long distance calls are liable for access
charges. VarTec seeks a declaratory
ruling that it is not required to pay
access charges to terminating local
exchange carriers (LECs) when
enhanced service providers or other
carriers deliver calls directly to the
terminating LECs for termination.
VarTec also seeks a declaratory ruling
that such calls are exempt from access
charges when they are originated by a
commercial mobile radio service
(CMRS) provider and do not cross
metropolitan trading area (MTA)
boundaries. VarTec also seeks a
declaratory ruling that terminating LECs
are required to pay VarTec for the
transiting service VarTec provides when
terminating LECs terminate intraMTA
calls originated by a CMRS provider.
DATES: Comments due November 10,
2005, and reply comments due
December 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No. 05–276, by
any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Include the docket number in
the subject line of the message.
Mail: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer McKee, Wireline Competition
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59347
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202)
418–1530, jennifer.mckee@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 21, 2005, the SBC incumbent
local exchange carriers (SBC) filed a
petition for declaratory ruling that
wholesale transmission providers using
Internet protocol (IP) technology to
transport long distance calls are liable
for access charges. SBC filed its petition
after the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri
dismissed without prejudice SBC’s
claims seeking payment of access
charges for long distance calls that were
transported using IP technology. The
court found it appropriate to defer the
issues raised by SBC to the primary
jurisdiction of the FCC. In its petition,
SBC seeks a declaratory ruling that
wholesale transmission providers using
IP technology to carry long distance
calls that originate and terminate on the
public switched telephone network
(PSTN) are liable for access charges
under § 69.5 of the Commission’s rules,
47 CFR 69.5, and applicable tariffs. SBC
seeks a ruling that providers meeting
these criteria are interexchange carriers.
VarTec filed a petition for declaratory
ruling on related issues. Specifically,
VarTec seeks a declaratory ruling that it
is not required to pay access charges to
terminating local exchange carriers
(LECs) when enhanced service
providers or other carriers deliver calls
directly to the terminating LECs for
termination. VarTec also seeks a
declaratory ruling that such calls are
exempt from access charges when they
are originated by a commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) provider and do
not cross major trading area (MTA)
boundaries. VarTec also seeks a
declaratory ruling that terminating LECs
are required to pay VarTec for the
transiting service VarTec provides when
terminating LECs terminate intraMTA
calls originated by a CMRS provider.
Interested parties may file comments
on or before November 10, 2005, and
reply comments on or before December
12, 2005. Comments may be filed using
the Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies. Comments filed through the
ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
via the Internet to https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/. Generally, only one copy of
an electronic submission must be filed.
In completing the transmittal screen,
commenters should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number, in this case WC
Docket No. 05–276. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59346-59347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20133]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[CG Docket No. 03-123; DA 05-2417]
Reminder That Video Relay Service (VRS) Provides Access to the
Telephone System Only and Cannot Be Used as a Substitute for ``In-
Person'' Interpreting Services or Video Remote Interpreting (VRI)
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission reminds Video Relay Service
(VRS) providers, consumers, and businesses that VRS cannot be used as a
substitute for ``in-person'' interpreting services or for Video Remote
Interpreting (VRI). The Commission will continue to carefully
scrutinize the provision and use of VRS to ensure that it is being used
only as a means of accessing the telephone system, not as a substitute
for VRI or as a means to gain free ``in-person'' interpreting services.
Also, in this document, the Commission encourages persons requiring
interpreting services and providing interpreting services, as well as
VRS providers, to report any improper use of VRS to the Commission so
that it may ensure that the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS) Fund is compensating only legitimate VRS calls. The Commission
continues to closely monitor alleged instances of the wrongful use of
VRS, and will take whatever enforcement action is necessary and
appropriate against such misuse.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-1475 (voice), (202) 418-0597
(TTY) or e-mail Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
document DA 05-2417, released September 7, 2005 in CG Docket No. 03-
123. The complete text of document DA 05-2417 and copies of any
subsequently filed documents relating to this matter will be available
for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the
FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document DA 05-2417 and copies of
subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from
the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the
Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site: https://
www.bcpiweb.com or call 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document DA 05-2417 can also be
downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro.
Synopsis
On September 7, 2005, the Commission issued a Public Notice to
remind VRS providers, consumers, and businesses that VRS cannot be used
as a substitute for ``in-person'' interpreting services or for Video
Remote Interpreting (VRI). VRS, as a form of telecommunications relay
service (TRS), is a means of giving persons with hearing disabilities
access to the telephone system. The obligation of telephone companies
to offer TRS is required by Congress under Title IV of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). VRS allows people with hearing
disabilities whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL) to
use the Internet or another broadband connection to contact a
communications assistant (CA) via video equipment. The CA then makes an
outbound telephone call to a hearing person and relays the call between
the two parties. Currently, the costs for VRS calls are reimbursed from
the Interstate TRS Fund, which is overseen by the Commission, making
VRS calls free for consumers. By contrast, sign language interpreters
facilitate communication between individuals who use sign language to
communicate and those who do not. An interpreter may be used in many
situations--e.g., in classrooms, during medical appointments, at staff
meetings, or for business transactions--when the parties are together
at the same location. Generally, interpreters are contracted and paid
for on a fee-for-service basis. Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is a
service that is used when an interpreter cannot be physically present
to interpret for two or more persons who are together at the same
location. This service uses a video connection to provide access to an
interpreter who is at a remote location. As with ``in-person''
interpreters, VRI services are generally contracted and paid for on a
fee-for-service basis. VRS is to be used only when a person with a
hearing disability, who absent such disability would make a voice
telephone call, desires to make a call through the telephone system (or
when, in the reverse situation, the hearing person desires to make such
a call to a person with a hearing disability). See 47 CFR 64.601(17) of
the Commission's rules. VRS may not be used as a substitute for an
``in-person'' interpreter or a VRI service.
Although the Commission has previously cautioned about the misuse
of VRS as a substitute for ``in-person'' sign language interpreting
services or VRI, it continues to receive reports that this is
occurring. See, e.g., Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,
CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 00-200, 16 FCC Rcd
4054-4058, paragraph 10 (June 5, 2000); See Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, CC Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-
123, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 04-137, 19 FCC Rcd 12475-12537, note 466 (June
30, 2004), published at 69 FR 53346 (September 1, 2004), 69 FR 53382
(September 1, 2004); Federal Communications Commission Clarifies That
Certain Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Marketing and Call
Handling Practices Are Improper and Reminds That Video Relay Service
(VRS) May Not Be Used as a Video Remote Interpreting Service, CC Docket
No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, DA 05-141, 20 FCC Rcd
1471 (January 26, 2005), published at 70 FR
[[Page 59347]]
8034 (February 17, 2005); Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-
to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order on
Reconsideration, FCC 05-139, note 109 (July 19, 2005), published at 70
FR 51643 (August 31, 2005). The Commission is concerned that the misuse
of VRS may be partially responsible for the large increase in minutes
of use of VRS. The Interstate TRS Fund reimbursed 869,003 minutes of
VRS usage for June 2004 and 2,136,657 minutes for June 2005. The
Commission understands that VRS providers generally have procedures in
place to terminate calls where VRS is being used as a way to obtain
free interpreting services. However, the Commission also understands
that persons misusing VRS may be doing so in ways to avoid detection,
and are also publicizing these methods via consumer bulletin boards and
other means.
The Commission is mindful that employers, State and local
government entities, and public accommodations are required under the
ADA to provide persons with hearing disabilities a reasonable
accommodation, and that the accommodation may entail the use of a sign
language interpreter. However, VRS cannot be used as a substitute for
using an in-person interpreter or VRI in situations that would not,
absent one of the parties' hearing disability, entail the use of the
telephone. The Commission will continue to carefully scrutinize the
provision and use of VRS to ensure that it is being used only as a
means of accessing the telephone system, not as a substitute for VRI or
as a means to gain free ``in-person'' interpreting services. The
Commission encourages persons requiring interpreting service and
providing interpreting services, as well as VRS providers, to report
any improper use of VRS to the Commission so that it may ensure that
the Interstate TRS Fund is compensating only legitimate VRS calls. The
Commission will continue to closely monitor alleged instances of the
wrongful use of VRS, and take whatever enforcement action is necessary
and appropriate against such misuse.
Federal Communications Commission.
Jay Keithley,
Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05-20133 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
