Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, Internet-Based Telecommunications Relay Service Numbering, 67333-67341 [2010-27578]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
firms are small entities that might be
affected by our action.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Equipment Manufacturers
76. Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows:
‘‘This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Radio
and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing, which is: All such firms
having 750 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2002, there were a total of 1,041
establishments in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 1,010 had employment of under
500, and an additional 13 had
employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under
this size standard, the majority of firms
can be considered small.
77. Semiconductor and Related
Device Manufacturing. These
establishments manufacture ‘‘computer
storage devices that allow the storage
and retrieval of data from a phase
change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/
optical media.’’ The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this
category of manufacturing; that size
standard is 500 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
1997, there were 1,082 establishments
in this category that operated for the
entire year. Of these, 987 had
employment of under 500, and 52
establishments had employment of 500
to 999.
78. Computer Storage Device
Manufacturing. These establishments
manufacture ‘‘computer storage devices
that allow the storage and retrieval of
data from a phase change, magnetic,
optical, or magnetic/optical media.’’ The
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category of
manufacturing; that size standard is
1,000 or fewer employees. According to
Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
209 establishments in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of these,
197 had employment of under 500, and
eight establishments had employment of
500 to 999.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
79. The Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seeks
comment broadly on certain
modifications to the compliance levels
set forth in rules section 20.18(h).
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
80. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) and exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.’’
81. The Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seeks
comment on various proposed changes
to location accuracy standards. To assist
in the analysis, commenters are
requested to provide information
regarding how small entities would be
affected if the Commission were to
adopt its proposed changes or any
alternative proposals offered by other
commenters.
82. With regard to accuracy testing,
we tentatively concluded that we
should adopt a mandatory testing
regime. We seek comments both as to
the parameters of this testing regime and
any alternative testing regimes that may
assist small business in complying with
the requirements. Should we require
testing every two years or would a
different schedule be more appropriate?
We seek comment on various
alternatives for tracking compliance
with the location accuracy
requirements.
83. With regard to interconnected
VoIP, the Commission tentatively
concluded that ‘‘to the extent that an
interconnected VoIP service may be
used in more than one location,
providers must employ an automatic
location technology that meets the same
accuracy standards that apply to those
CMRS services.’’ Should interconnected
VoIP providers be subject to the
Commission’s CMRS E911 location
requirements? Should the Commission
consider first appointing an advisory
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67333
committee to examine the technological
and economic impacts of such a
requirement? We seek comment on this
and any other alternative proposals.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
84. None.
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis
85. This document does not contain
proposed information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified ‘‘information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–27579 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 03–123; WC Docket No.
05–196; WC Docket No. 10–191; FCC 10–
161]
Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, E911 Requirements for IPEnabled Service Providers, InternetBased Telecommunications Relay
Service Numbering
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on steps
the Commission should take to improve
assignment of telephone numbers
associated with Internet-based
Telecommunications Relay Service
(iTRS), specifically, Video Relay Service
(VRS) and IP Relay.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rules
are due on or before December 2, 2010
and reply comments are due on or
before December 17, 2010. Written
comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the
public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested
parties on or before January 3, 2011. If
you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67334
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
difficult to do so within the period of
time allowed by this summary, you
should advise the contact listed below
as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No.10–191, 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://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• 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.
• In addition to filing comments with
the Secretary, a copy of any comments
on the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
the Federal Communications
Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov
and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget, via e-mail to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via
fax at 202–395–5167.
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:
Heather Hendrickson at (202) 418–7295,
Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division. For
additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained in
this document, send an e-mail to
PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams
at 202–418–2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No.
03–123; WC Docket No. 05–196; WC
Docket No. 10–191; FCC 10–161,
adopted September 16, 2010, and
released September 17, 2010. The
complete text of this document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
document may also be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378–3160 or (202) 863- 2893, facsimile
(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at
https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
available on the Commission’s Web site
at https://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using: (1) The Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
Æ For ECFS filers, if multiple docket
or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
transmit one electronic copy of the
comments for each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing
instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
Æ Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission’s Secretary, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
Æ The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours
at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
Æ Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: 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) or
(202) 418–0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC
to request reasonable accommodations
for filing comments (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov;
phone: (202) 418–0530 or (202) 418–
0432 (TTY).
In addition, one copy of each
pleading must be sent to each of the
following:
Æ The Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554; Web site:
https://www.bcpiweb.com; phone:1–800–
378–3160; and
Æ Heather Hendrickson, Competition
Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5–
C225, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail:
Heather.Hendrickson@fcc.gov or
telephone number (202) 418–7295.
Filings and comments are also
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.
Copies may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–
B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact BCPI through its
Web site: www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail
at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at
(202) 488–5300 or (800) 378–3160
(voice), (202) 488–5562 (TTY), or by
facsimile at (202) 488–5563.
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 § 1.49
and all other applicable sections of the
Commission’s rules. We 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
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
submission. We also strongly encourage
parties to track the organization set forth
in the NPRM in order to facilitate our
internal review process.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis:
This document contains proposed
information collection requirements.
The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in
this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Public and agency
comments are due January 3, 2011.
Comments on the proposed
information collection requirements
should address: (a) Whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission,
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on
how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060–1089.
Title: Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements
for IP–Enabled Service Providers;
Internet-Based Telecommunications
Relay Service Numbering, CG Docket
No. 03–123, WC Docket No. 05–196, and
WC Docket No. 10–191; FCC 08–151,
FCC 08–275, and FCC 10–161.
Form Number(s): Not applicable.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; Not-for-profit
institutions; Individuals or households;
State, local or tribal government.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 15 respondents and
5,763,199 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: .25–1.5
hours (average time per response).
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. The statutory
authority for the collection is contained
in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r).
Frequency of Response: On occasion,
quarterly and one time reporting
requirements, recordkeeping and third
party disclosure requirements.
Total Annual Burden: 279,891 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $4,269,135.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No
impact(s).
Nature of Extent of Confidentiality:
An assurance of confidentiality is not
offered because the Commission has no
direct involvement in the collection of
personally identifiable information (PII)
from individuals and/or household.
Needs and Uses: On September 16,
2010, the Commission adopted
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP–
Enabled Service Providers; InternetBased Telecommunications Relay
Service Numbering, CG Docket No. 03–
123, WC Docket No. 05–196, and WC
Docket No. 10–191, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 10–161 (the iTRS Toll
Free NPRM) seeking comment on steps
the Commission should take to improve
assignment of telephone numbers
associated iTRS, specifically, VRS and
IP Relay. The Commission proposes
several requirements to both encourage
use of geographically appropriate local
numbers, and ensure that the deaf and
hard-of-hearing community has access
to toll free telephone numbers that is
equivalent to access enjoyed by the
hearing community. The iTRS Toll Free
NPRM proposes to revise the ‘‘User
Notification’’ information collection
requirement adopted in the First and
Second Numbering Orders to add
additional requirements. Specifically, in
addition to provisioning their registered
users’ routing information to the TRS
Numbering Directory and maintaining
such information in the database, the
Commission proposes that VRS and IP
relay providers must: (1) Remove from
the Internet-based TRS Numbering
Directory any toll free number that has
not been transferred to a subscription
with a toll free service provider and for
which the user is the subscriber of
record, and (2) ensure that the toll free
number of a user that is associated with
a geographically appropriate NANP
number will be associated with the
same Uniform Resource Identifier URI
as that geographically appropriate
NANP telephone number.
In addition to the information that the
Commission instructed VRS and IP
Relay providers to include in the
consumer advisories required by the
First and Second Numbering Orders, the
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67335
Commission proposed that VRS and IP
Relay providers include certain
additional information in their
consumer advisories under the iTRS
Toll Free NPRM. Specifically, the
consumer advisories must explain: (1)
The process by which a VRS or IP Relay
user may acquire a toll free number
from a toll free service provider, or
transfer control of a toll free number
from a VRS or IP Relay provider to the
user; and (2) the process by which
persons holding a toll free number may
have that number linked to their tendigit telephone number in the TRS
Numbering Directory. The Commission
also proposes that VRS and IP Relay
providers that have already assigned or
provided a toll free number to a VRS or
IP Relay user must, at the VRS or IP
Relay user’s request, facilitate the
transfer of the toll free number to a toll
free subscription with a toll free service
provider that is under the direct control
of the user.
To view a copy of this information
collection request (ICR) submitted to
OMB: (1) Go to the Web page https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,
(2) look for the section of the Web page
called ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3)
click on the downward-pointing arrow
in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the
‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4)
select ‘‘Federal Communications
Commission’’ from the list of agencies
presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box,
(5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the right
of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) when the
list of FCC ICRs currently under review
appears, look for the OMB control
number of this ICR and then click on the
ICR Reference Number. A copy of the
FCC submission to OMB will be
displayed.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared the
present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small
entities that might result from this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM). 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 NPRM provided
above. The Commission will send a
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. In
addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
67336
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
A. Need for, and Objective of, the
Proposed Rules
2. In the NPRM, the Commission
seeks comment on steps the
Commission should take to improve toll
free access for Internet-based
Telecommunications Relay Service
(iTRS). Specifically, as a continuation of
the Commission’s ten-digit numbering
plan for iTRS, we propose rules, and
seek comment, to ensure that toll free
numbers are as available, and used, by
deaf and hard-of-hearing users as they
are for hearing users. For example, the
Commission seeks comment on ways to
ensure that iTRS users in most cases use
a local number as the primary telephone
number. The Commission seeks
comment on prohibiting iTRS providers
from assigning new toll free numbers to
users. The Commission also seeks
comment on methods for an iTRS
provider to assist an iTRS user in the
process of transferring his or her
assigned toll free number to a
subscription with a toll free service
provider. The Commission seeks
comment on a proposal that a deaf or
hard-of-hearing iTRS user that obtains a
toll free number from, or ports a toll free
number to, a toll free service provider
that has mapped the number to the
user’s local number in the SMS/800
Database, may also have that toll free
number mapped to the user’s local
number in the iTRS Directory. The
Commission seeks comment on a oneyear transition period for iTRS users to
transfer toll free numbers to a direct
subscription with a toll free service
provider. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether there is any reason
not to remove any non-user selected toll
free numbers from the iTRS database.
The Commission seeks comment on
consumer outreach efforts to educate
and assist iTRS users with the changes
to toll free access.
B. Legal Basis
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. The legal basis for any action that
may be taken pursuant to this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is contained in
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251(e), and 255
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
225, 251(e), and 255, and §§ 0.91, 0.141,
0.291, 0.361, and 1.3 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.141,
0.291, 0.361, 1.3.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
4. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
the rules adopted herein. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small entity’’
as having the same meaning as the terms
‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’
and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’
In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’
has the same meaning as the term ‘‘small
business concern’’ under the Small
Business Act. A small business concern
is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not
dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
5. With regard to whether a
substantial number of small entities
may be affected by the requirements
proposed in this, the Commission notes
that, of the fifteen providers affected by
the NPRM, four meet the definition of
a small entity. The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which is:
All such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. The fifteen providers
currently receiving compensation from
the Interstate TRS Fund for providing
any form of TRS are: American
Network, AT&T Corp.; CSDVRS; CAC;
GoAmerica; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Hands
On; Healinc; Kansas Relay Service, Inc.;
Michigan Bell; Nordia Inc.; Snap
Telecommunications, Inc; Sorenson;
Sprint; and State of Michigan.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
6. Should the Commission decide to
adopt any of the proposed rules to
improve toll free access for iTRS, such
action could potentially result in
increased, reduced, or otherwise
modified recordkeeping, reporting, or
other compliance requirements for
affected iTRS providers. For instance,
VRS and IP Relay providers would be
required to include an advisory on their
Web sites describing the process by
which a VRS or IP Relay user may
acquire a toll free number from a toll
free service provider, or transfer control
of a toll free number from a VRS or IP
Relay provider to the user; and the
process by which persons holding a toll
free number may have that number
linked to their ten-digit telephone
number in the TRS Numbering
Directory. We seek comment on the
effect of these proposals, and
commenters are encouraged to quantify
the costs and benefits of any reporting,
recordkeeping, or compliance
requirement that may be established in
this proceeding.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
7. 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 (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance and 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 part thereof, for
small entities. As stated above, only four
current providers would be affected by
this NPRM.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
None.
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment
on steps the Commission should take to
improve assignment of telephone
numbers associated with Internet-based
Telecommunications Relay Service
(iTRS), specifically, Video Relay Service
(VRS) and IP Relay. VRS allows
individuals with hearing and speech
disabilities to communicate using sign
language through video equipment, and
IP Relay allows these individuals to
communicate in text using a computer.
We seek to encourage use of
geographically appropriate local
numbers, and ensure that the deaf and
hard-of-hearing community has access
to toll free telephone numbers that is
equivalent to access enjoyed by the
hearing community.
2. In June 2008, the Commission
instituted a ten-digit numbering plan for
iTRS in order to make access by deaf
and hard-of-hearing people functionally
equivalent to access enjoyed by the
hearing community, as required by
statute. The Commission recognized
that doing so would further the
functional equivalency mandate by
ensuring that Internet-based TRS users
can be reached by voice telephone users
in the same way that voice telephone
users are called. The Commission
sought to ensure that iTRS users can be
reached via telephone, just as hearing
users can be reached via telephone. As
a result of that order, most deaf and
hard-of-hearing iTRS users have
obtained local telephone numbers.
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Although iTRS providers are required to
assign local numbers to their customers,
at least some iTRS providers assign a
toll free number as well, even if the
customer does not request one. Thus, a
large number of personal toll free
numbers have been issued to iTRS
users.
3. The automatic issuance and
prevalence of toll free iTRS numbers
presents several concerns. For example,
the use of toll free numbers increases
the risk of confusion and delay during
an emergency call. The automatic
issuance of toll free numbers also may
be inconsistent with the statutory
requirement to provide service that is
functionally equivalent to hearing
individuals, and is at odds with other
Commission policies such as local
number portability (LNP). Consumer
groups representing deaf and hard-ofhearing users have raised similar
concerns, and agreed with the
Commission on the need to limit or
prohibit the distribution of toll free
numbers by iTRS providers. In this
NPRM, we seek comment on proposed
rules designed to align access to local
and toll free numbers by iTRS users
more closely with the way that hearing
users obtain toll free numbers. We
expect to establish rules that will ensure
that an iTRS user’s local number is used
routinely as the primary telephone
number that hearing users dial to reach
the deaf or hard-of-hearing user via an
iTRS provider and that deaf and hardof-hearing users employ for point-topoint calling with other deaf and hardof-hearing users.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background
4. Authority. The Commission has
authority to adopt and implement a
system for assigning iTRS users local
numbers linked to the NANP pursuant
to sections 225 and 251(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act). Section 225 requires
the Commission to ensure that
functionally equivalent TRS be available
nationwide to the extent possible and in
the most efficient manner, and directs
the Commission to adopt regulations to
govern the provision and compensation
of TRS. Section 251 grants the
Commission authority to oversee
numbering administration in the United
States. Establishing rules governing the
use of toll free numbers by iTRS
providers in connection with iTRS
services is a continuation of the
implementation of the Commission’s
numbering plan, and is essential to the
Commission’s goal of making the
numbering system used by deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals functionally
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
equivalent to the system used by
hearing individuals.
5. Internet-based TRS Orders. On June
24, 2008, the Commission issued the
First Internet-based TRS Order, (73 FR
41307, July 18, 2010) in which it
adopted a uniform numbering system
for iTRS. Prior to the Commission’s
numbering plan, there was no uniform
numbering system for iTRS. Rather,
iTRS users were reached at a dynamic
IP address, a proxy or alias number, or
a toll free number. In the case of toll free
numbers, an iTRS user would provide
the number to any hearing user. When
a hearing user dialed the iTRS user’s toll
free number, the voice call was routed
by the PSTN to the provider that had
subscribed to the number and assigned
it to a user. That toll free number was
not linked to a user-specific local
number but the provider would be able
to translate the toll free number dialed
by the hearing user to the iTRS user’s IP
address in the provider’s database.
However, prior to December 31, 2008,
iTRS providers did not share databases,
and therefore, the iTRS user and people
calling that user were forced to use the
service of the iTRS provider that gave
the user the toll free number. This
arrangement was in tension with the
Commission’s interoperability
requirements, which prohibit a VRS
provider that seeks compensation from
the Interstate TRS Fund from restricting
the use of its equipment or service so
that a VRS user cannot place or receive
a call through a competing VRS
provider.
6. The Commission established the
numbering system to advance functional
equivalency by ensuring that deaf and
hard-of-hearing iTRS users can be
reached by hearing telephone users in
the same way that hearing telephone
users are reached. The numbering
system was designed to ensure that
emergency calls placed by iTRS users
would be directly and automatically
routed to the appropriate emergency
services authorities. The system also
provides the benefits of local number
portability, to allow deaf and hard-ofhearing iTRS users to port their
telephone numbers from one iTRS
provider to another. The Commission’s
numbering plan included the creation of
a central database mechanism that maps
the NANP telephone numbers assigned
to iTRS users’ devices to an appropriate
IP address known as a Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI). In the First
Internet-based TRS Order’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Commission sought comment on issues
involved in using toll free numbers for
iTRS, including any impact that such
numbers may have on the provision of
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67337
911 service and whether iTRS users
should be subject to a fee for use of a
personal toll free number, as hearing
users are.
7. In the Second Internet-based TRS
Order, FCC 08–275 (75 FR 29914, May
28, 2010) released on December 19,
2008, the Commission addressed issues
included in the First Internet-based TRS
Order’s Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 08–151 (73 FR 41307,
July 18, 2008). Among other things, the
Commission provided existing users a
three-month ‘‘registration period,’’
during which iTRS users could select a
default provider, provide their
Registered Location, and obtain their
new ten-digit NANP telephone
numbers, followed by a three-month
‘‘permissive calling period,’’ which
ended on November 12, 2009. During
these registration and permissive calling
periods, existing iTRS users were able to
place and receive calls via the method
used prior to implementation of the
Commission’s numbering plan. At the
conclusion of the permissive calling
period, however, providers were
required to register any unregistered
user before completing a non-emergency
VRS or IP Relay call.
8. The Commission also found that, to
further the goals of the numbering
system, ‘‘Internet-based TRS users
should transition away from the
exclusive use of toll free numbers’’ and
required all iTRS users to obtain ‘‘tendigit geographically appropriate
numbers, in accordance with our
numbering system.’’ The Commission
reasoned that local numbers, and not
toll free numbers, should be used when
contacting Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAPs). Accordingly, the
Commission stated that a user’s toll free
number must be mapped to the user’s
local, geographically appropriate
number. Moreover, the Commission
found that, just as voice telephone users
are responsible for the costs of obtaining
and using toll free numbers, the TRS
fund should not compensate providers
for the use of toll free numbers by iTRS
users.
9. Toll Free Clarification Public
Notice. In August 2009, the Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau and
the Wireline Competition Bureau (the
Bureaus) released the Toll Free
Clarification Public Notice (24 FCC Rcd
10626, August 11, 2010) to clarify the
intent of the Second Internet-based TRS
Order that any toll free number retained
or acquired by an iTRS user must be
directed to the user’s local number in
the Service Management System (SMS)/
800 database by November 12, 2009,
and that a toll free number and a local
number should not be directed to the
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67338
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
same URI in the iTRS Directory.
Additionally, the Bureaus
acknowledged that certain point-topoint calls, as well as inbound dialaround calls, would require the use of
a local number.
10. CSDVRS and TDI Petitions. On
September 10, 2009, CSDVRS filed a
petition for expedited reconsideration of
the Toll Free Clarification Public Notice.
CSDVRS claimed, among other things,
that the Toll Free Clarification Public
Notice violated the Administrative
Procedure Act, impeded VRS
interoperability, and undermined
functional equivalency by eliminating
toll free numbers for point-to-point and
dial-around calls. Subsequently, the TDI
Coalition, which represents deaf and
hard-of-hearing iTRS users, filed a
Petition for Emergency Stay and a
Request to Return to the Status Quo
Ante. The TDI Coalition asked the
Commission to stay certain portions of
the Toll Free Clarification Public Notice,
and direct any iTRS provider that had
removed toll free numbers from the
iTRS Directory to reinstate those
numbers. The TDI Coalition claimed
that this relief was necessary to avoid
‘‘disruption of service to the severe
detriment of people who are deaf, hardof-hearing, deaf-blind or have speech
disabilities who currently use toll free
numbers.’’
11. Toll Free Waiver Order and
Extensions. In response to TDI’s
concerns that certain point-to-point
calls would not be completed, on
December 4, 2009, the Bureaus waived
the portion of the Toll Free Clarification
Public Notice that stated that a toll free
number and a local geographic number
should not be directed to the same URI
in the iTRS Directory. Also, the Bureaus
directed those iTRS providers that had
removed working, assigned toll free
numbers that did not point to the iTRS
user’s local number in the SMS/800
database in accordance with the Toll
Free Clarification Public Notice, to
reinstate those toll free numbers to the
iTRS Directory. This four-month waiver
was designed to give the Commission
time to consider the CSDVRS petition
for reconsideration as well as iTRS toll
free issues generally. The Commission
also recognized that it would take
consumers and certain small businesses
time to transition to geographically
appropriate local numbers. On April 2,
2010, the Bureaus extended the waiver
for an additional four months, until
August 4, 2010, and on August 4, 2010,
the Bureaus further extended the waiver
until February 4, 2011.
12. Continued Distribution of Toll
Free Numbers. Although Commission
rules require iTRS providers to give
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
each customer a local number, some
providers are routinely distributing toll
free numbers in addition to local
numbers. These toll free numbers are
being distributed at no charge to the
user and are provided even if the iTRS
user does not request it. This practice
encourages the use of toll free numbers,
which is inconsistent with the
Commission’s ruling that iTRS users
should ‘‘transition away from the
exclusive use of toll-free numbers to
ten-digit, geographically appropriate
numbers, in accordance with our
numbering system.’’
13. There are several problems with
the use of toll free numbers in the
context of iTRS.
• Lack of Functional Equivalency and
Consumer Confusion. The First Internetbased TRS Order attempted to ensure
that ‘‘Internet-based TRS users can be
reached by voice telephone users in the
same way that voice telephone users are
called.’’ Hearing users are not typically
reached via personal toll free numbers,
nor are they automatically provided a
personal toll free number when they
sign up for service. Moreover, evidence
in prior proceedings reflects that the
automatic issuance of toll free numbers
can cause confusion and frustration. An
iTRS user may not understand the
purpose of the toll free number, or
understand that it is duplicative of the
local number. In addition, many iTRS
users do not want to receive a toll free
number, even if it is provided free of
charge. Finally, because iTRS customers
are issued a local number, they do not
need toll free numbers to achieve
functional equivalency.
• Emergency Calling. One of the
primary purposes for developing a
numbering system for iTRS that is
linked to the NANP was to ensure that
emergency calls placed by iTRS users
‘‘will be routed directly and
automatically to the appropriate
emergency services authorities’’ by iTRS
providers. The Commission reaffirmed
that the local numbers will ensure
automatic routing. In a typical 911 call,
the call taker at the PSAP will see the
user’s local number displayed and will
verbally confirm that number as the
call-back number. If the person placing
an emergency call through iTRS
provides a toll free number as the callback number (for example, out of habit),
there will be a discrepancy with the
local number displayed. This
discrepancy could cause confusion and
in turn affect critical response time.
• Lack of Portability and Impairment
of Full Competition. When an iTRS
provider secures a toll free number for
one of its users, the ‘‘toll free
subscriber,’’ for porting purposes of the
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
toll free number, is the iTRS provider
and not the user. Thus, when an iTRS
user leaves the service provider, the
user cannot easily and reliably take the
toll free number with him or her. For
example, many iTRS providers that
would otherwise be a competitive
alternative to that service provider
simply do not support provider-paid
personal toll free numbers. As a result,
an iTRS user that has relied heavily on
a personal toll free number may be
reluctant to switch providers. Further,
although the Commission has found that
iTRS providers are obligated to take all
steps necessary to port on behalf of the
user, we do not believe this is
consistently achievable for toll free
numbers. Moreover, as a technical
matter, the Commission’s iTRS
Directory is not able to automatically
synchronize the porting of a device’s
local number and toll free number from
one provider to another.
Because local numbers are readily
portable and toll free numbers are not,
the automatic issuance of personal toll
free numbers limits user choice and
reduces competition, raising concerns
about functional equivalency. One
policy goal of the Commission’s
numbering plan was to create
competition in the iTRS market and
enhance consumer choice. For example,
the Commission made clear that iTRS
users could ‘‘dial around’’ their default
provider in order to utilize the services
of a different iTRS provider. Moreover,
the Commission stated that an iTRS user
could select and register with a new
default provider at any time and have
his or her number ported to that
provider. To the extent that iTRS
providers promote the use of toll free
numbers, that practice is at odds with
our interoperability requirements and
competitive goals.
• Number Conservation. To the extent
that iTRS providers automatically
provide a personal toll free number at
the same time they provide the requisite
local number, the toll free number is
duplicative. The Commission has
articulated a policy of promoting
number conservation. Issuing toll free
numbers that do not serve a unique
purpose, and indeed, that the customer
does not request, undermines that
policy. While iTRS users are free to
obtain a toll free number in the same
manner as hearing users do, we seek to
discontinue the automatic and
unnecessary dissemination of toll free
numbers.
• Costs to the Fund. In the Second
Internet-based TRS Order, the
Commission concluded that costs
associated with iTRS users’ toll free
numbers are not compensable from the
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TRS Fund. We remain concerned,
however, that costs associated with
obtaining and distributing toll free
numbers may be directly or indirectly
compensated. We are also concerned
that extensive use of toll free numbers
may increase per-minute costs to the
Fund. Although staff analysis cannot
determine whether ‘‘unlimited free
calling’’ encourages more calls to be
placed from hearing people to iTRS
users, analysis does indicate that
‘‘unlimited free calling’’ encourages such
calls to be held longer than otherwise
would be the case; the extra minutes of
traffic that toll free numbers generate in
this fashion are compensable from the
Fund.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Discussion
14. In this NPRM, we seek comment
on proposed rules intended to improve
access to telephone numbers associated
with iTRS and to ensure that such
numbers are assigned in the same
manner as numbers are assigned to
hearing telephone users. While iTRS
users are of course free to obtain toll free
numbers, our goal is to encourage iTRS
users to use the local number as their
primary—and in most cases exclusive—
telephone number, as this is the case for
hearing users. Similarly, the local
number should be the number that the
user gives out for contact information,
applications and resumes, and online
purchases, and that is presented, for
example, for Caller ID purposes. We are
not seeking to prevent deaf or hard-ofhearing individuals who want the use of
a toll free number from obtaining one.
Instead, we are seeking to ensure that
toll free numbers do not serve as default
personal numbers simply because a
customer is deaf or hard-of-hearing.
Deaf and hard-of-hearing users who
wish to use a toll free number for
business or personal use may acquire a
toll free number, or keep a toll free
number that an iTRS provider has
already assigned, in a manner consistent
with how toll free numbers are used by
hearing individuals.
15. Pursuant to our authority under
sections 225 and 251 of the Act, we
propose rules to address the problems
identified above that are caused by the
promotion and disproportionately high
use of toll free numbers in connection
with iTRS services. Moreover, we seek
comment on ways to ensure that those
iTRS users who have a need for toll free
numbers for business purposes or who
wish to obtain a toll free number for
personal use are able to use toll free
numbers in the same manner as hearing
users. Our specific requests for
comment are set forth below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
16. User-Selected Toll Free Use. We
propose that the first step in reforming
the use of toll free numbers for iTRS be
to prohibit iTRS providers, acting in the
capacity of a user’s default number
provider, from also automatically
assigning a new toll free number to the
user. The Commission’s previous efforts
have not led to a significant reduction
in the assignment of toll free numbers
by iTRS providers. We therefore believe
that immediately prohibiting iTRS
providers from automatically issuing
toll free numbers is the best way to
achieve the goal of encouraging the use
of local numbers. Furthermore, the
consumer groups representing iTRS
users support this approach. Indeed,
consumer groups have expressed a
desire to work with the Commission to
promote use of local numbers as the
primary contact for deaf and hard-ofhearing persons. We seek comment on
this approach.
17. Continuing Use of and Access to
Toll Free Numbers. We emphasize that
our proposed rules do not preclude
iTRS users from having toll free
numbers if they want them. On the
contrary, we believe that iTRS users
should have the same access to toll free
numbers that hearing users do. A
hearing user who wants a toll free
number for personal or business use
contacts a toll free service provider to
obtain a toll free number; we believe
that deaf and hard-of-hearing users
should do the same. Moreover, we
recognize that it would be
disadvantageous to iTRS users who
want to continue to use a toll free
number to have to obtain a new number
and inform people of that new number.
Accordingly, we propose that any iTRS
user who wants to keep a toll free
number that was issued by an iTRS
provider may do so. At the user’s
request, the iTRS provider must
facilitate the transfer of the user’s toll
free number to a direct subscription
with a toll free service provider, making
the iTRS user the toll free subscriber for
that number. At that point, the iTRS
user will be a customer of the toll free
service provider: The toll free service
provider will bill the iTRS user directly,
and the iTRS provider that originally
provided the toll free number will have
no continuing role in administering the
toll free number on the user’s behalf.
18. No Support for Toll Free Numbers
from TRS Fund. The Commission has
concluded that the costs associated with
assigning and providing to iTRS users
toll free numbers are not compensable
from the TRS Fund. Thus, if an iTRS
user transfers his or her toll free number
from an iTRS provider to a toll free
service provider (or obtains a toll free
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67339
number directly from a toll free service
provider), the user assumes
responsibility for all costs associated
with the toll free number.
19. Transfer of Toll Free Numbers. We
seek comment on ways that iTRS
providers can help transfer a toll free
number assigned by the iTRS provider
to the user’s direct subscription with a
toll free service provider. We seek
comment on any jurisdictional or policy
issues the Commission should consider
in regard to this change in toll free
subscription. Consistent with our Toll
Free Clarification Public Notice, toll free
numbers that are used in conjunction
with the iTRS Numbering Directory will
be mapped to the user’s local number.
We seek comment on any technical or
policy issues involved with this
proposal or mapping the toll free
number to the user’s local number in the
SMS/800 database.
20. We also seek comment on how
iTRS providers should assist an iTRS
user in the process of transferring his or
her toll free number to a toll free service
provider. We propose that, at a
minimum, iTRS providers modify the
user notifications they currently provide
to include information on how users can
acquire or transfer a toll free number
and how toll free numbers may be
linked to ten-digit telephone numbers in
the iTRS Directory. We also seek
comment on whether there are any
additional steps the Commission should
take to protect users or ensure they get
unbiased and full information? We want
to make the transition to a new toll free
number process as easy as possible for
iTRS users. Commenters should
therefore address what information
would be most helpful to users, and
what steps the Commission can take to
minimize customer confusion.
21. Toll Free Numbers in the iTRS
Directory. When a hearing customer
obtains a toll free number from a toll
free provider, that number is mapped to
the user’s local number in the SMS/800
database. We believe that when a deaf
or hard-of-hearing person obtains a toll
free number from a toll free provider,
the number should also be mapped to
the user’s local number in the iTRS
Directory. This will permit a deaf or
hard-of-hearing user to be reached at a
toll free number both by other deaf and
hard-of-hearing users on direct calls that
are completely Internet-based, and by
hearing users who ‘‘dial around’’ the
user’s default provider.
22. Parties have identified routing
problems that occur when toll free
numbers are not linked to the associated
local numbers in the iTRS Directory. We
also recognize that these routing
problems can create a ‘‘walled garden’’
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67340
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
for the dominant iTRS provider.
Therefore, we believe that mapping the
toll free number to the local number in
the iTRS directory is an important
aspect of functional equivalency
because it allows deaf and hard-ofhearing users to receive calls through
any iTRS provider, and propose that
such mapping to the iTRS directory be
mandatory. We seek comment on that
proposal.
23. Transition Period. We recognize
that it would take time for iTRS users
to become aware of and conform to the
toll free number procedures that may
result from this NPRM. We agree with
the TDI Coalition that we need to allow
a reasonable period of time for
consumer outreach and education to
transition consumers from toll free
numbers to local numbers. We believe
that a one-year transition period would
be sufficient. During this time, the
Commission, iTRS providers, and
consumer groups can engage in outreach
efforts to educate users on the problems
of toll free numbers in the iTRS context,
the benefits of using geographically
appropriate numbers in this context,
and the steps for obtaining toll free
numbers directly from a toll free service
provider. Moreover, iTRS users can
update contact information, obtain a toll
free number from a toll free provider, if
desired, and make any other necessary
adjustments. We also expect to use the
transition period to educate users on the
new procedures for obtaining a toll free
number. We seek comment on our
proposal to allow a one-year transition
period. We also seek comment on
whether there are any other issues we
must consider in connection with the
proposed transition period.
24. Removing Non-Selected Toll Free
Numbers from the iTRS Directory. We
believe that an important outcome of
this proceeding should be to cleanse the
iTRS Directory of extra or unwanted toll
free numbers. Accordingly, we propose
that after the transition period, any toll
free numbers that have not been
mapped to local numbers in the SMS/
800 database by a toll free service
provider be removed from the iTRS
Directory. We seek comment on whether
there is any reason not to remove these
numbers from the iTRS Directory.
Moreover, we seek comment on whether
there should be a process where, during
the transition period, iTRS users who
know they do not want their toll free
number(s) can request that those
numbers be deleted from the iTRS
Directory. Such a procedure may help
clean up the iTRS Directory on an
ongoing basis as opposed to being done
all at once at the end of the transition
period. We seek comment on whether
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
this proposal may cause any service
disruption to users and, if so, steps we
can take to minimize such disruption.
We also seek comment on whether there
are any technical or policy
considerations regarding, for example,
toll free number administration, that
must be addressed.
25. Consumer Outreach. We believe
that the success of the Commission’s
numbering plan was in major part due
to the outreach efforts by consumer
groups, as well as by iTRS providers
and the Commission. We believe this
will be the case for our efforts to revise
the Commission’s policies and
procedures regarding toll free number
use in connection with iTRS service as
well. Consumer groups representing
deaf and hard-of-hearing iTRS users
have stated that iTRS providers have
given inconsistent information
regarding the use of and need for toll
free numbers. We recognize that deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals may be
used to the current process for obtaining
toll free numbers and that any change
will require substantial education and
outreach. We also recognize that iTRS
providers will need to play a major role
in consumer education because of their
relationships with the users and their
history as providers of toll free numbers.
Consumer advocacy groups as well as
the Commission will also play a
significant role in consumer outreach
and education efforts. The Commission
is committed as well to playing a
significant role in conducting consumer
outreach and education on this issue.
We seek input on ways to make
information about the availability and
use of toll free numbers available to
iTRS users, such as fact sheets and Web
sites. We encourage consumers to assist
in outreach efforts through their
community contacts, and welcome other
ideas about what the Commission might
do to help facilitate consumer outreach
efforts.
IV. Procedural Matters
1. Ex Parte Presentations
26. This proceeding shall be treated as
a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. 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. Other requirements pertaining
to oral and written presentations are set
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s
rules.
2. Comment Filing Procedures
27. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission’s rules, interested
parties may file comments and reply
comments regarding the further notice
on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. All filings
should refer to WC Docket No. 10–191.
Comments may be filed using: (1) The
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal
Government’s e-Rulemaking Portal; or
(3) by filing paper copies.
28. Electronic Filers: Comments may
be filed electronically using the Internet
by accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
29. Paper Filers: Parties who choose
to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
30. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
31. Effective December 28, 2009, all
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered
paper filings for the Commission’s
Secretary must be delivered to FCC
Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room
TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. Commercial
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal
Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)
must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S.
Postal Service first-class, Express, and
Priority mail must be addressed to 445
12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
32. People with Disabilities: 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
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
202–418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432
(tty).
33. Parties should send a copy of their
filings to Heather Hendrickson,
Competition Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, Room
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
5–C225, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to
heather.hendrickson@fcc.gov. Parties
shall also serve one copy with the
Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488–5300,
or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
34. Documents in WC Docket No.
10–191 will be available for public
inspection and copying during business
hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The documents may also be purchased
from BCPI, telephone (202) 488–5300,
facsimile (202) 488–5563, TTY (202)
488–5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com.
V. Ordering Clauses
35. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251(e), and 255
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
225, 251(e), and 255, and §§ 0.91, 0.141,
0.291, 0.361, and 1.3 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.141,
0.291, 0.361, 1.3, that this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
36. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this NPRM, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Telecommunications.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 64 as follows:
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403
(b)(2)(B), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56.
Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise
noted.
2. Section 64.611 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as
paragraphs (f) and (g), by adding a new
paragraph (e) and by adding paragraph
(g)(1)(v) and (g)(1)(vi) to read as follows:
20:58 Nov 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
Internet-based TRS registration.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Toll free numbers. A VRS or IP
Relay provider:
(1) May not assign or issue a toll free
number to any VRS or IP Relay user.
(2) That has already assigned or
provided a toll free number to a VRS or
IP Relay user must, at the VRS or IP
Relay user’s request, facilitate the
transfer of the toll free number to a toll
free subscription with a toll free service
provider that is under the direct control
of the user.
(3) Must remove from the Internetbased TRS Numbering Directory any toll
free number that has not been
transferred to a subscription with a toll
free service provider and for which the
user is the subscriber of record as of
[end date of transition period].
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) The process by which a VRS or IP
Relay user may acquire a toll free
number from a toll free service provider,
or transfer control of a toll free number
from a VRS or IP Relay provider to the
user; and
(vi) The process by which persons
holding a toll free number may have
that number linked to their ten-digit
telephone number in the TRS
Numbering Directory.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 64.613 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as (a)(4),
by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2),
and by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to
read as follows:
§ 64.613 Numbering directory for Internetbased TRS users.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
§ 64.611
(a) * * *
(1) The TRS Numbering Directory
shall contain records mapping the
geographically appropriate NANP
telephone number of each Registered
Internet-based TRS User to a unique
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).
(2) For each record associated with a
VRS user’s geographically appropriate
NANP telephone number, the URI shall
contain the IP address of the user’s
device. For each record associated with
an IP Relay user’s geographically
appropriate NANP telephone number,
the URI shall contain the user’s user
name and domain name that can be
subsequently resolved to reach the user.
(3) As of [date reserved], Internetbased TRS providers must ensure that
the toll free number of a user that is
associated with a geographically
appropriate NANP number will be
associated with the same URI as that
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67341
geographically appropriate NANP
telephone number.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–27578 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0055; MO–
92210–0–0008–B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Bay Springs
Salamander as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to list the Bay
Springs salamander (Plethodon
ainsworthi) as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. Based on our review, we find
the petition does not present substantial
information indicating that listing may
be warranted at this time. Therefore, we
are not initiating a status review in
response to this petition. However, we
ask the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the status of, or threats to,
the Bay Springs salamander or its
habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on November 2,
2010.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R4–ES–2010–0055. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS Field Office,
6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this finding to
the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor,
Mississippi Field Office (see
ADDRESSES), by telephone (601–321–
1122), or by facsimile (601–965–4340).
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
E:\FR\FM\02NOP1.SGM
02NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67333-67341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27578]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 03-123; WC Docket No. 05-196; WC Docket No. 10-191; FCC
10-161]
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, E911 Requirements
for IP-Enabled Service Providers, Internet-Based Telecommunications
Relay Service Numbering
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on steps the Commission should take to
improve assignment of telephone numbers associated with Internet-based
Telecommunications Relay Service (iTRS), specifically, Video Relay
Service (VRS) and IP Relay.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rules are due on or before December 2,
2010 and reply comments are due on or before December 17, 2010. Written
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before January 3,
2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find
it
[[Page 67334]]
difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this summary,
you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No.10-191,
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://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
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.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy
of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A.
Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via e-mail to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167.
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: Heather Hendrickson at (202) 418-7295,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division. For
additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an
e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 03-123; WC Docket No.
05-196; WC Docket No. 10-191; FCC 10-161, adopted September 16, 2010,
and released September 17, 2010. The complete text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased
from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863- 2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898,
or via the Internet at https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on
the Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
[cir] For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
[cir] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: 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) or
(202) 418-0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov; phone:
(202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to each of the
following:
[cir] The Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554; Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com; phone:1-800-378-3160; and
[cir] Heather Hendrickson, Competition Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-C225, Washington, DC
20554; e-mail: Heather.Hendrickson@fcc.gov or telephone number (202)
418-7295.
Filings and comments are also 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. Copies may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its Web site:
www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at (202)
488-5300 or (800) 378-3160 (voice), (202) 488-5562 (TTY), or by
facsimile at (202) 488-5563.
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 Sec. 1.49 and all other
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We 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
[[Page 67335]]
submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the
organization set forth in the NPRM in order to facilitate our internal
review process.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis:
This document contains proposed information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due January 3, 2011.
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should
address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060-1089.
Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers; Internet-Based
Telecommunications Relay Service Numbering, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC
Docket No. 05-196, and WC Docket No. 10-191; FCC 08-151, FCC 08-275,
and FCC 10-161.
Form Number(s): Not applicable.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit
institutions; Individuals or households; State, local or tribal
government.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 15 respondents and 5,763,199
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: .25-1.5 hours (average time per
response).
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The
statutory authority for the collection is contained in Sections 1, 2,
4(i), 4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r).
Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and one time
reporting requirements, recordkeeping and third party disclosure
requirements.
Total Annual Burden: 279,891 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $4,269,135.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Nature of Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of
confidentiality is not offered because the Commission has no direct
involvement in the collection of personally identifiable information
(PII) from individuals and/or household.
Needs and Uses: On September 16, 2010, the Commission adopted
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for
IP-Enabled Service Providers; Internet-Based Telecommunications Relay
Service Numbering, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, and WC
Docket No. 10-191, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-161 (the iTRS
Toll Free NPRM) seeking comment on steps the Commission should take to
improve assignment of telephone numbers associated iTRS, specifically,
VRS and IP Relay. The Commission proposes several requirements to both
encourage use of geographically appropriate local numbers, and ensure
that the deaf and hard-of-hearing community has access to toll free
telephone numbers that is equivalent to access enjoyed by the hearing
community. The iTRS Toll Free NPRM proposes to revise the ``User
Notification'' information collection requirement adopted in the First
and Second Numbering Orders to add additional requirements.
Specifically, in addition to provisioning their registered users'
routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory and maintaining such
information in the database, the Commission proposes that VRS and IP
relay providers must: (1) Remove from the Internet-based TRS Numbering
Directory any toll free number that has not been transferred to a
subscription with a toll free service provider and for which the user
is the subscriber of record, and (2) ensure that the toll free number
of a user that is associated with a geographically appropriate NANP
number will be associated with the same Uniform Resource Identifier URI
as that geographically appropriate NANP telephone number.
In addition to the information that the Commission instructed VRS
and IP Relay providers to include in the consumer advisories required
by the First and Second Numbering Orders, the Commission proposed that
VRS and IP Relay providers include certain additional information in
their consumer advisories under the iTRS Toll Free NPRM. Specifically,
the consumer advisories must explain: (1) The process by which a VRS or
IP Relay user may acquire a toll free number from a toll free service
provider, or transfer control of a toll free number from a VRS or IP
Relay provider to the user; and (2) the process by which persons
holding a toll free number may have that number linked to their ten-
digit telephone number in the TRS Numbering Directory. The Commission
also proposes that VRS and IP Relay providers that have already
assigned or provided a toll free number to a VRS or IP Relay user must,
at the VRS or IP Relay user's request, facilitate the transfer of the
toll free number to a toll free subscription with a toll free service
provider that is under the direct control of the user.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called ``Currently
Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4)
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of
this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC
submission to OMB will be displayed.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities that might result from this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 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 NPRM provided above.
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In
addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
[[Page 67336]]
A. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules
2. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on steps the
Commission should take to improve toll free access for Internet-based
Telecommunications Relay Service (iTRS). Specifically, as a
continuation of the Commission's ten-digit numbering plan for iTRS, we
propose rules, and seek comment, to ensure that toll free numbers are
as available, and used, by deaf and hard-of-hearing users as they are
for hearing users. For example, the Commission seeks comment on ways to
ensure that iTRS users in most cases use a local number as the primary
telephone number. The Commission seeks comment on prohibiting iTRS
providers from assigning new toll free numbers to users. The Commission
also seeks comment on methods for an iTRS provider to assist an iTRS
user in the process of transferring his or her assigned toll free
number to a subscription with a toll free service provider. The
Commission seeks comment on a proposal that a deaf or hard-of-hearing
iTRS user that obtains a toll free number from, or ports a toll free
number to, a toll free service provider that has mapped the number to
the user's local number in the SMS/800 Database, may also have that
toll free number mapped to the user's local number in the iTRS
Directory. The Commission seeks comment on a one-year transition period
for iTRS users to transfer toll free numbers to a direct subscription
with a toll free service provider. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether there is any reason not to remove any non-user selected toll
free numbers from the iTRS database. The Commission seeks comment on
consumer outreach efforts to educate and assist iTRS users with the
changes to toll free access.
B. Legal Basis
3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 225, 251(e), and 255 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251(e), and 255, and
Sec. Sec. 0.91, 0.141, 0.291, 0.361, and 1.3 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.141, 0.291, 0.361, 1.3.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
4. 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 rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
5. With regard to whether a substantial number of small entities
may be affected by the requirements proposed in this, the Commission
notes that, of the fifteen providers affected by the NPRM, four meet
the definition of a small entity. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which is:
All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. The fifteen providers
currently receiving compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for
providing any form of TRS are: American Network, AT&T Corp.; CSDVRS;
CAC; GoAmerica; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Hands On; Healinc; Kansas Relay
Service, Inc.; Michigan Bell; Nordia Inc.; Snap Telecommunications,
Inc; Sorenson; Sprint; and State of Michigan.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
6. Should the Commission decide to adopt any of the proposed rules
to improve toll free access for iTRS, such action could potentially
result in increased, reduced, or otherwise modified recordkeeping,
reporting, or other compliance requirements for affected iTRS
providers. For instance, VRS and IP Relay providers would be required
to include an advisory on their Web sites describing the process by
which a VRS or IP Relay user may acquire a toll free number from a toll
free service provider, or transfer control of a toll free number from a
VRS or IP Relay provider to the user; and the process by which persons
holding a toll free number may have that number linked to their ten-
digit telephone number in the TRS Numbering Directory. We seek comment
on the effect of these proposals, and commenters are encouraged to
quantify the costs and benefits of any reporting, recordkeeping, or
compliance requirement that may be established in this proceeding.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
7. 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 (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance and 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 part thereof, for small
entities. As stated above, only four current providers would be
affected by this NPRM.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on
steps the Commission should take to improve assignment of telephone
numbers associated with Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service
(iTRS), specifically, Video Relay Service (VRS) and IP Relay. VRS
allows individuals with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate
using sign language through video equipment, and IP Relay allows these
individuals to communicate in text using a computer. We seek to
encourage use of geographically appropriate local numbers, and ensure
that the deaf and hard-of-hearing community has access to toll free
telephone numbers that is equivalent to access enjoyed by the hearing
community.
2. In June 2008, the Commission instituted a ten-digit numbering
plan for iTRS in order to make access by deaf and hard-of-hearing
people functionally equivalent to access enjoyed by the hearing
community, as required by statute. The Commission recognized that doing
so would further the functional equivalency mandate by ensuring that
Internet-based TRS users can be reached by voice telephone users in the
same way that voice telephone users are called. The Commission sought
to ensure that iTRS users can be reached via telephone, just as hearing
users can be reached via telephone. As a result of that order, most
deaf and hard-of-hearing iTRS users have obtained local telephone
numbers.
[[Page 67337]]
Although iTRS providers are required to assign local numbers to their
customers, at least some iTRS providers assign a toll free number as
well, even if the customer does not request one. Thus, a large number
of personal toll free numbers have been issued to iTRS users.
3. The automatic issuance and prevalence of toll free iTRS numbers
presents several concerns. For example, the use of toll free numbers
increases the risk of confusion and delay during an emergency call. The
automatic issuance of toll free numbers also may be inconsistent with
the statutory requirement to provide service that is functionally
equivalent to hearing individuals, and is at odds with other Commission
policies such as local number portability (LNP). Consumer groups
representing deaf and hard-of-hearing users have raised similar
concerns, and agreed with the Commission on the need to limit or
prohibit the distribution of toll free numbers by iTRS providers. In
this NPRM, we seek comment on proposed rules designed to align access
to local and toll free numbers by iTRS users more closely with the way
that hearing users obtain toll free numbers. We expect to establish
rules that will ensure that an iTRS user's local number is used
routinely as the primary telephone number that hearing users dial to
reach the deaf or hard-of-hearing user via an iTRS provider and that
deaf and hard-of-hearing users employ for point-to-point calling with
other deaf and hard-of-hearing users.
II. Background
4. Authority. The Commission has authority to adopt and implement a
system for assigning iTRS users local numbers linked to the NANP
pursuant to sections 225 and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (the Act). Section 225 requires the Commission to ensure
that functionally equivalent TRS be available nationwide to the extent
possible and in the most efficient manner, and directs the Commission
to adopt regulations to govern the provision and compensation of TRS.
Section 251 grants the Commission authority to oversee numbering
administration in the United States. Establishing rules governing the
use of toll free numbers by iTRS providers in connection with iTRS
services is a continuation of the implementation of the Commission's
numbering plan, and is essential to the Commission's goal of making the
numbering system used by deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals
functionally equivalent to the system used by hearing individuals.
5. Internet-based TRS Orders. On June 24, 2008, the Commission
issued the First Internet-based TRS Order, (73 FR 41307, July 18, 2010)
in which it adopted a uniform numbering system for iTRS. Prior to the
Commission's numbering plan, there was no uniform numbering system for
iTRS. Rather, iTRS users were reached at a dynamic IP address, a proxy
or alias number, or a toll free number. In the case of toll free
numbers, an iTRS user would provide the number to any hearing user.
When a hearing user dialed the iTRS user's toll free number, the voice
call was routed by the PSTN to the provider that had subscribed to the
number and assigned it to a user. That toll free number was not linked
to a user-specific local number but the provider would be able to
translate the toll free number dialed by the hearing user to the iTRS
user's IP address in the provider's database. However, prior to
December 31, 2008, iTRS providers did not share databases, and
therefore, the iTRS user and people calling that user were forced to
use the service of the iTRS provider that gave the user the toll free
number. This arrangement was in tension with the Commission's
interoperability requirements, which prohibit a VRS provider that seeks
compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund from restricting the use of
its equipment or service so that a VRS user cannot place or receive a
call through a competing VRS provider.
6. The Commission established the numbering system to advance
functional equivalency by ensuring that deaf and hard-of-hearing iTRS
users can be reached by hearing telephone users in the same way that
hearing telephone users are reached. The numbering system was designed
to ensure that emergency calls placed by iTRS users would be directly
and automatically routed to the appropriate emergency services
authorities. The system also provides the benefits of local number
portability, to allow deaf and hard-of-hearing iTRS users to port their
telephone numbers from one iTRS provider to another. The Commission's
numbering plan included the creation of a central database mechanism
that maps the NANP telephone numbers assigned to iTRS users' devices to
an appropriate IP address known as a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).
In the First Internet-based TRS Order's Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on issues involved in using
toll free numbers for iTRS, including any impact that such numbers may
have on the provision of 911 service and whether iTRS users should be
subject to a fee for use of a personal toll free number, as hearing
users are.
7. In the Second Internet-based TRS Order, FCC 08-275 (75 FR 29914,
May 28, 2010) released on December 19, 2008, the Commission addressed
issues included in the First Internet-based TRS Order's Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-151 (73 FR 41307, July 18, 2008). Among
other things, the Commission provided existing users a three-month
``registration period,'' during which iTRS users could select a default
provider, provide their Registered Location, and obtain their new ten-
digit NANP telephone numbers, followed by a three-month ``permissive
calling period,'' which ended on November 12, 2009. During these
registration and permissive calling periods, existing iTRS users were
able to place and receive calls via the method used prior to
implementation of the Commission's numbering plan. At the conclusion of
the permissive calling period, however, providers were required to
register any unregistered user before completing a non-emergency VRS or
IP Relay call.
8. The Commission also found that, to further the goals of the
numbering system, ``Internet-based TRS users should transition away
from the exclusive use of toll free numbers'' and required all iTRS
users to obtain ``ten-digit geographically appropriate numbers, in
accordance with our numbering system.'' The Commission reasoned that
local numbers, and not toll free numbers, should be used when
contacting Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). Accordingly, the
Commission stated that a user's toll free number must be mapped to the
user's local, geographically appropriate number. Moreover, the
Commission found that, just as voice telephone users are responsible
for the costs of obtaining and using toll free numbers, the TRS fund
should not compensate providers for the use of toll free numbers by
iTRS users.
9. Toll Free Clarification Public Notice. In August 2009, the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Wireline Competition
Bureau (the Bureaus) released the Toll Free Clarification Public Notice
(24 FCC Rcd 10626, August 11, 2010) to clarify the intent of the Second
Internet-based TRS Order that any toll free number retained or acquired
by an iTRS user must be directed to the user's local number in the
Service Management System (SMS)/800 database by November 12, 2009, and
that a toll free number and a local number should not be directed to
the
[[Page 67338]]
same URI in the iTRS Directory. Additionally, the Bureaus acknowledged
that certain point-to-point calls, as well as inbound dial-around
calls, would require the use of a local number.
10. CSDVRS and TDI Petitions. On September 10, 2009, CSDVRS filed a
petition for expedited reconsideration of the Toll Free Clarification
Public Notice. CSDVRS claimed, among other things, that the Toll Free
Clarification Public Notice violated the Administrative Procedure Act,
impeded VRS interoperability, and undermined functional equivalency by
eliminating toll free numbers for point-to-point and dial-around calls.
Subsequently, the TDI Coalition, which represents deaf and hard-of-
hearing iTRS users, filed a Petition for Emergency Stay and a Request
to Return to the Status Quo Ante. The TDI Coalition asked the
Commission to stay certain portions of the Toll Free Clarification
Public Notice, and direct any iTRS provider that had removed toll free
numbers from the iTRS Directory to reinstate those numbers. The TDI
Coalition claimed that this relief was necessary to avoid ``disruption
of service to the severe detriment of people who are deaf, hard-of-
hearing, deaf-blind or have speech disabilities who currently use toll
free numbers.''
11. Toll Free Waiver Order and Extensions. In response to TDI's
concerns that certain point-to-point calls would not be completed, on
December 4, 2009, the Bureaus waived the portion of the Toll Free
Clarification Public Notice that stated that a toll free number and a
local geographic number should not be directed to the same URI in the
iTRS Directory. Also, the Bureaus directed those iTRS providers that
had removed working, assigned toll free numbers that did not point to
the iTRS user's local number in the SMS/800 database in accordance with
the Toll Free Clarification Public Notice, to reinstate those toll free
numbers to the iTRS Directory. This four-month waiver was designed to
give the Commission time to consider the CSDVRS petition for
reconsideration as well as iTRS toll free issues generally. The
Commission also recognized that it would take consumers and certain
small businesses time to transition to geographically appropriate local
numbers. On April 2, 2010, the Bureaus extended the waiver for an
additional four months, until August 4, 2010, and on August 4, 2010,
the Bureaus further extended the waiver until February 4, 2011.
12. Continued Distribution of Toll Free Numbers. Although
Commission rules require iTRS providers to give each customer a local
number, some providers are routinely distributing toll free numbers in
addition to local numbers. These toll free numbers are being
distributed at no charge to the user and are provided even if the iTRS
user does not request it. This practice encourages the use of toll free
numbers, which is inconsistent with the Commission's ruling that iTRS
users should ``transition away from the exclusive use of toll-free
numbers to ten-digit, geographically appropriate numbers, in accordance
with our numbering system.''
13. There are several problems with the use of toll free numbers in
the context of iTRS.
Lack of Functional Equivalency and Consumer Confusion. The
First Internet-based TRS Order attempted to ensure that ``Internet-
based TRS users can be reached by voice telephone users in the same way
that voice telephone users are called.'' Hearing users are not
typically reached via personal toll free numbers, nor are they
automatically provided a personal toll free number when they sign up
for service. Moreover, evidence in prior proceedings reflects that the
automatic issuance of toll free numbers can cause confusion and
frustration. An iTRS user may not understand the purpose of the toll
free number, or understand that it is duplicative of the local number.
In addition, many iTRS users do not want to receive a toll free number,
even if it is provided free of charge. Finally, because iTRS customers
are issued a local number, they do not need toll free numbers to
achieve functional equivalency.
Emergency Calling. One of the primary purposes for
developing a numbering system for iTRS that is linked to the NANP was
to ensure that emergency calls placed by iTRS users ``will be routed
directly and automatically to the appropriate emergency services
authorities'' by iTRS providers. The Commission reaffirmed that the
local numbers will ensure automatic routing. In a typical 911 call, the
call taker at the PSAP will see the user's local number displayed and
will verbally confirm that number as the call-back number. If the
person placing an emergency call through iTRS provides a toll free
number as the call-back number (for example, out of habit), there will
be a discrepancy with the local number displayed. This discrepancy
could cause confusion and in turn affect critical response time.
Lack of Portability and Impairment of Full Competition.
When an iTRS provider secures a toll free number for one of its users,
the ``toll free subscriber,'' for porting purposes of the toll free
number, is the iTRS provider and not the user. Thus, when an iTRS user
leaves the service provider, the user cannot easily and reliably take
the toll free number with him or her. For example, many iTRS providers
that would otherwise be a competitive alternative to that service
provider simply do not support provider-paid personal toll free
numbers. As a result, an iTRS user that has relied heavily on a
personal toll free number may be reluctant to switch providers.
Further, although the Commission has found that iTRS providers are
obligated to take all steps necessary to port on behalf of the user, we
do not believe this is consistently achievable for toll free numbers.
Moreover, as a technical matter, the Commission's iTRS Directory is not
able to automatically synchronize the porting of a device's local
number and toll free number from one provider to another.
Because local numbers are readily portable and toll free numbers
are not, the automatic issuance of personal toll free numbers limits
user choice and reduces competition, raising concerns about functional
equivalency. One policy goal of the Commission's numbering plan was to
create competition in the iTRS market and enhance consumer choice. For
example, the Commission made clear that iTRS users could ``dial
around'' their default provider in order to utilize the services of a
different iTRS provider. Moreover, the Commission stated that an iTRS
user could select and register with a new default provider at any time
and have his or her number ported to that provider. To the extent that
iTRS providers promote the use of toll free numbers, that practice is
at odds with our interoperability requirements and competitive goals.
Number Conservation. To the extent that iTRS providers
automatically provide a personal toll free number at the same time they
provide the requisite local number, the toll free number is
duplicative. The Commission has articulated a policy of promoting
number conservation. Issuing toll free numbers that do not serve a
unique purpose, and indeed, that the customer does not request,
undermines that policy. While iTRS users are free to obtain a toll free
number in the same manner as hearing users do, we seek to discontinue
the automatic and unnecessary dissemination of toll free numbers.
Costs to the Fund. In the Second Internet-based TRS Order,
the Commission concluded that costs associated with iTRS users' toll
free numbers are not compensable from the
[[Page 67339]]
TRS Fund. We remain concerned, however, that costs associated with
obtaining and distributing toll free numbers may be directly or
indirectly compensated. We are also concerned that extensive use of
toll free numbers may increase per-minute costs to the Fund. Although
staff analysis cannot determine whether ``unlimited free calling''
encourages more calls to be placed from hearing people to iTRS users,
analysis does indicate that ``unlimited free calling'' encourages such
calls to be held longer than otherwise would be the case; the extra
minutes of traffic that toll free numbers generate in this fashion are
compensable from the Fund.
III. Discussion
14. In this NPRM, we seek comment on proposed rules intended to
improve access to telephone numbers associated with iTRS and to ensure
that such numbers are assigned in the same manner as numbers are
assigned to hearing telephone users. While iTRS users are of course
free to obtain toll free numbers, our goal is to encourage iTRS users
to use the local number as their primary--and in most cases exclusive--
telephone number, as this is the case for hearing users. Similarly, the
local number should be the number that the user gives out for contact
information, applications and resumes, and online purchases, and that
is presented, for example, for Caller ID purposes. We are not seeking
to prevent deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals who want the use of a
toll free number from obtaining one. Instead, we are seeking to ensure
that toll free numbers do not serve as default personal numbers simply
because a customer is deaf or hard-of-hearing. Deaf and hard-of-hearing
users who wish to use a toll free number for business or personal use
may acquire a toll free number, or keep a toll free number that an iTRS
provider has already assigned, in a manner consistent with how toll
free numbers are used by hearing individuals.
15. Pursuant to our authority under sections 225 and 251 of the
Act, we propose rules to address the problems identified above that are
caused by the promotion and disproportionately high use of toll free
numbers in connection with iTRS services. Moreover, we seek comment on
ways to ensure that those iTRS users who have a need for toll free
numbers for business purposes or who wish to obtain a toll free number
for personal use are able to use toll free numbers in the same manner
as hearing users. Our specific requests for comment are set forth
below.
16. User-Selected Toll Free Use. We propose that the first step in
reforming the use of toll free numbers for iTRS be to prohibit iTRS
providers, acting in the capacity of a user's default number provider,
from also automatically assigning a new toll free number to the user.
The Commission's previous efforts have not led to a significant
reduction in the assignment of toll free numbers by iTRS providers. We
therefore believe that immediately prohibiting iTRS providers from
automatically issuing toll free numbers is the best way to achieve the
goal of encouraging the use of local numbers. Furthermore, the consumer
groups representing iTRS users support this approach. Indeed, consumer
groups have expressed a desire to work with the Commission to promote
use of local numbers as the primary contact for deaf and hard-of-
hearing persons. We seek comment on this approach.
17. Continuing Use of and Access to Toll Free Numbers. We emphasize
that our proposed rules do not preclude iTRS users from having toll
free numbers if they want them. On the contrary, we believe that iTRS
users should have the same access to toll free numbers that hearing
users do. A hearing user who wants a toll free number for personal or
business use contacts a toll free service provider to obtain a toll
free number; we believe that deaf and hard-of-hearing users should do
the same. Moreover, we recognize that it would be disadvantageous to
iTRS users who want to continue to use a toll free number to have to
obtain a new number and inform people of that new number. Accordingly,
we propose that any iTRS user who wants to keep a toll free number that
was issued by an iTRS provider may do so. At the user's request, the
iTRS provider must facilitate the transfer of the user's toll free
number to a direct subscription with a toll free service provider,
making the iTRS user the toll free subscriber for that number. At that
point, the iTRS user will be a customer of the toll free service
provider: The toll free service provider will bill the iTRS user
directly, and the iTRS provider that originally provided the toll free
number will have no continuing role in administering the toll free
number on the user's behalf.
18. No Support for Toll Free Numbers from TRS Fund. The Commission
has concluded that the costs associated with assigning and providing to
iTRS users toll free numbers are not compensable from the TRS Fund.
Thus, if an iTRS user transfers his or her toll free number from an
iTRS provider to a toll free service provider (or obtains a toll free
number directly from a toll free service provider), the user assumes
responsibility for all costs associated with the toll free number.
19. Transfer of Toll Free Numbers. We seek comment on ways that
iTRS providers can help transfer a toll free number assigned by the
iTRS provider to the user's direct subscription with a toll free
service provider. We seek comment on any jurisdictional or policy
issues the Commission should consider in regard to this change in toll
free subscription. Consistent with our Toll Free Clarification Public
Notice, toll free numbers that are used in conjunction with the iTRS
Numbering Directory will be mapped to the user's local number. We seek
comment on any technical or policy issues involved with this proposal
or mapping the toll free number to the user's local number in the SMS/
800 database.
20. We also seek comment on how iTRS providers should assist an
iTRS user in the process of transferring his or her toll free number to
a toll free service provider. We propose that, at a minimum, iTRS
providers modify the user notifications they currently provide to
include information on how users can acquire or transfer a toll free
number and how toll free numbers may be linked to ten-digit telephone
numbers in the iTRS Directory. We also seek comment on whether there
are any additional steps the Commission should take to protect users or
ensure they get unbiased and full information? We want to make the
transition to a new toll free number process as easy as possible for
iTRS users. Commenters should therefore address what information would
be most helpful to users, and what steps the Commission can take to
minimize customer confusion.
21. Toll Free Numbers in the iTRS Directory. When a hearing
customer obtains a toll free number from a toll free provider, that
number is mapped to the user's local number in the SMS/800 database. We
believe that when a deaf or hard-of-hearing person obtains a toll free
number from a toll free provider, the number should also be mapped to
the user's local number in the iTRS Directory. This will permit a deaf
or hard-of-hearing user to be reached at a toll free number both by
other deaf and hard-of-hearing users on direct calls that are
completely Internet-based, and by hearing users who ``dial around'' the
user's default provider.
22. Parties have identified routing problems that occur when toll
free numbers are not linked to the associated local numbers in the iTRS
Directory. We also recognize that these routing problems can create a
``walled garden''
[[Page 67340]]
for the dominant iTRS provider. Therefore, we believe that mapping the
toll free number to the local number in the iTRS directory is an
important aspect of functional equivalency because it allows deaf and
hard-of-hearing users to receive calls through any iTRS provider, and
propose that such mapping to the iTRS directory be mandatory. We seek
comment on that proposal.
23. Transition Period. We recognize that it would take time for
iTRS users to become aware of and conform to the toll free number
procedures that may result from this NPRM. We agree with the TDI
Coalition that we need to allow a reasonable period of time for
consumer outreach and education to transition consumers from toll free
numbers to local numbers. We believe that a one-year transition period
would be sufficient. During this time, the Commission, iTRS providers,
and consumer groups can engage in outreach efforts to educate users on
the problems of toll free numbers in the iTRS context, the benefits of
using geographically appropriate numbers in this context, and the steps
for obtaining toll free numbers directly from a toll free service
provider. Moreover, iTRS users can update contact information, obtain a
toll free number from a toll free provider, if desired, and make any
other necessary adjustments. We also expect to use the transition
period to educate users on the new procedures for obtaining a toll free
number. We seek comment on our proposal to allow a one-year transition
period. We also seek comment on whether there are any other issues we
must consider in connection with the proposed transition period.
24. Removing Non-Selected Toll Free Numbers from the iTRS
Directory. We believe that an important outcome of this proceeding
should be to cleanse the iTRS Directory of extra or unwanted toll free
numbers. Accordingly, we propose that after the transition period, any
toll free numbers that have not been mapped to local numbers in the
SMS/800 database by a toll free service provider be removed from the
iTRS Directory. We seek comment on whether there is any reason not to
remove these numbers from the iTRS Directory. Moreover, we seek comment
on whether there should be a process where, during the transition
period, iTRS users who know they do not want their toll free number(s)
can request that those numbers be deleted from the iTRS Directory. Such
a procedure may help clean up the iTRS Directory on an ongoing basis as
opposed to being done all at once at the end of the transition period.
We seek comment on whether this proposal may cause any service
disruption to users and, if so, steps we can take to minimize such
disruption. We also seek comment on whether there are any technical or
policy considerations regarding, for example, toll free number
administration, that must be addressed.
25. Consumer Outreach. We believe that the success of the
Commission's numbering plan was in major part due to the outreach
efforts by consumer groups, as well as by iTRS providers and the
Commission. We believe this will be the case for our efforts to revise
the Commission's policies and procedures regarding toll free number use
in connection with iTRS service as well. Consumer groups representing
deaf and hard-of-hearing iTRS users have stated that iTRS providers
have given inconsistent information regarding the use of and need for
toll free numbers. We recognize that deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals may be used to the current process for obtaining toll free
numbers and that any change will require substantial education and
outreach. We also recognize that iTRS providers will need to play a
major role in consumer education because of their relationships with
the users and their history as providers of toll free numbers. Consumer
advocacy groups as well as the Commission will also play a significant
role in consumer outreach and education efforts. The Commission is
committed as well to playing a significant role in conducting consumer
outreach and education on this issue. We seek input on ways to make
information about the availability and use of toll free numbers
available to iTRS users, such as fact sheets and Web sites. We
encourage consumers to assist in outreach efforts through their
community contacts, and welcome other ideas about what the Commission
might do to help facilitate consumer outreach efforts.
IV. Procedural Matters
1. Ex Parte Presentations
26. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 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. Other requirements
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Sec.
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
2. Comment Filing Procedures
27. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments
regarding the further notice on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. All filings should refer to WC Docket No.
10-191. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal Government's e-Rulemaking
Portal; or (3) by filing paper copies.
28. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or
the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
29. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
30. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
31. Effective December 28, 2009, all hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
32. People with Disabilities: 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
33. Parties should send a copy of their filings to Heather
Hendrickson, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, Room
[[Page 67341]]
5-C225, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to
heather.hendrickson@fcc.gov. Parties shall also serve one copy with the
Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI),
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
(202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
34. Documents in WC Docket No. 10-191 will be available for public
inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI,
telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562,
e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com.
V. Ordering Clauses
35. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251(e), and 255 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251(e),
and 255, and Sec. Sec. 0.91, 0.141, 0.291, 0.361, and 1.3 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.141, 0.291, 0.361, 1.3, that this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
36. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403 (b)(2)(B), Pub. L.
104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 64.611 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (e) and
(f) as paragraphs (f) and (g), by adding a new paragraph (e) and by
adding paragraph (g)(1)(v) and (g)(1)(vi) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.611 Internet-based TRS registration.
* * * * *
(e) Toll free numbers. A VRS or IP Relay provider:
(1) May not assign or issue a toll free number to any VRS or IP
Relay user.
(2) That has already assigned or provided a toll free number to a
VRS or IP Relay user must, at the VRS or IP Relay user's request,
facilitate the transfer of the toll free number to a toll free
subscription with a toll free service provider that is under the direct
control of the user.
(3) Must remove from the Internet-based TRS Numbering Directory any
toll free number that has not been transferred to a subscription with a
toll free service provider and for which the user is the subscriber of
record as of [end date of transition period].
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) The process by which a VRS or IP Relay user may acquire a toll
free number from a toll free service provider, or transfer control of a
toll free number from a VRS or IP Relay provider to the user; and
(vi) The process by which persons holding a toll free number may
have that number linked to their ten-digit telephone number in the TRS
Numbering Directory.
* * * * *
3. Section 64.613 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as
(a)(4), by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), and by adding a new
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.613 Numbering directory for Internet-based TRS users.
(a) * * *
(1) The TRS Numbering Directory shall contain records mapping the
geographically appropriate NANP telephone number of each Registered
Internet-based TRS User to a unique Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).
(2) For each record associated with a VRS user's geographically
appropriate NANP telephone number, the URI shall contain the IP address
of the user's device. For each record associated with an IP Relay
user's geographically appropriate NANP telephone number, the URI shall
contain the user's user name and domain name that can be subsequently
resolved to reach the user.
(3) As of [date reserved], Internet-based TRS providers must ensure
that the toll free number of a user that is associated with a
geographically appropriate NANP number will be associated with the same
URI as that geographically appropriate NANP telephone number.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-27578 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
