Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay Services; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 49717-49720 [2013-19787]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49717-49720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19787]



[[Page 49717]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 08-15 and 03-123; FCC 13-101]


Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech 
Telecommunications Relay Services; Telecommunications Relay Services 
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on possible 
actions to enhance the knowledge and use of Speech-to-Speech (STS) 
relay service by persons with speech disabilities. It has been 
estimated by consumer advocates that only one percent of prospective 
users are currently using the service. Thus, amendments to the 
Commission's rules may be necessary to ensure that persons with speech 
disabilities have access to relay services that address their unique 
needs, in furtherance of the objectives of section 225 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) to provide relay 
services in a manner that is functionally equivalent to conventional 
telephone voice services.

DATES: Comments are due September 16, 2013 and reply comments are due 
September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 08-15 
and 03-123, by any of the following methods:
    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the 
Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS), through the Commission's Web site https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site 
for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal 
screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service 
mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 08-15 and 03-123.
     Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. 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 the 
Commission continues 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.
     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 Mail sent by 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 should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to 
fcc@bcpiweb.com mailto:fcc@bcpiweb.com. 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: Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 559-
5158, or email Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech 
Telecommunications Relay Services; Telecommunications Relay Services 
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), document 
FCC 13-101, adopted on July 19, 2013, and released on July 19, 2013, in 
CG Docket Nos. 08-15 and 03-123. In document FCC 13-101, the Commission 
adopted an accompanying Report and Order (Order), which is summarized 
in a separate Federal Register Publication. The full text of document 
FCC 13-101 will be available for public inspection and copying via 
ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's 
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 
378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563, or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com https://www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 13-101 can also be downloaded in Word or 
Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/telecommunications-relay-services-trs. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 
mailto:fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 13-101 does not contain proposed information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any 
proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. Although the Commission approved STS as a compensable relay 
service in 2000, demand for this service has remained relatively 
modest, and its growth has been slow compared with other forms of 
telecommunications relay services (TRS) notwithstanding the sizeable 
population of people in the United States who have speech disabilities. 
The 2010 STS Petition alleges that outreach efforts over the last 
decade have only resulted in the use of STS by an estimated one percent 
of prospective users. Bob Segalman and Rebecca Ladew, Petition for 
Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123 (2010 STS Petition).
    2. To ensure that individuals with speech disabilities who need STS 
become aware of its availability and how to access these services, the 
Commission has been supplementing the STS interstate per minute rate to 
include additional funds for STS outreach activities for the past six 
years. However, this supplemental funding has not increased the number 
of interstate STS minutes of use by any significant amount over the 
past several years and, since 2009, the TRS Fund administrator has 
suggested in each of its annual rate filings that the Commission may 
wish to revisit this additional funding to determine whether there is a 
more effective way to inform consumers with speech disabilities about 
the availability of this service.
    3. The Commission would like to learn more about the reasons that 
STS

[[Page 49718]]

has not been more widely utilized. Are people with speech disabilities 
not connected to an organized or culturally identified disability 
community that could provide them with information and resources about 
assistive technologies and services that can be of use to them? Are 
there other reasons why this service is not more widely utilized? The 
Commission seeks comment on the number of individuals with speech 
disabilities who are potential users of this service and what steps can 
be taken to ensure that individuals who could benefit from STS can use 
this service. The Commission specifically asks whether it would be more 
efficient and effective to utilize a single entity to conduct 
nationwide STS outreach, instead of continuing the current system of 
providing outreach funds to each of the individual interstate STS 
providers through the STS compensation formula.
    4. The Commission tentatively concludes that centralizing STS 
outreach efforts supported by the Fund in a single, coordinated entity 
can result in more effectively reaching and educating a greater portion 
of the population of Americans who could benefit from this service, and 
seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. The Commission believes 
that the section 225 of the Act directive for the Commission to 
prescribe regulations that ensure relay services are ``available . . . 
in the most efficient manner'' makes it appropriate to take new steps 
to better educate the public about the purpose and functions of STS and 
provides the Commission with sufficient authority to direct that a 
national STS outreach effort be funded for this purpose from TRS 
contributions as a necessary cost caused by TRS. The Commission asks 
commenters whether they agree with this assessment. The Commission 
further asks commenters whether, given that the Commission has resolved 
to establish the Internet-based TRS National Outreach Program (iTRS-
NOP) for Internet protocol relay service (IP Relay) and video relay 
service (VRS), the Commission should bundle national STS outreach 
efforts into this national outreach program. What are the costs and 
benefits of combining these efforts? Are there efficiencies to be 
gained in contracting with a single entity or a group of single 
entities for all types of TRS outreach? Or are there characteristics of 
STS or the population served by this service that necessitate a 
separate outreach effort? If the latter, the Commission asks commenters 
to describe these characteristics, as well as any criteria needed for 
the selection of a national STS outreach coordinator that should be 
different from the criteria used to select a national coordinator of 
VRS and IP Relay outreach. Additionally, if the Commission or the 
Interstate TRS Fund administrator contracts with a single entity for 
the handling of STS calls, and it decides on a national outreach effort 
that is separate from the iTRS-NOP, the Commission seek comments on 
whether the entity selected to provide STS also should be eligible to 
become the national STS outreach coordinator, or whether the outreach 
coordinator should be independent of any provider of STS.
    5. The Commission also seeks comment on the criteria that should be 
used to select a nationwide outreach program coordinator, as well as 
the outreach activities for which such coordinator should be 
responsible. With respect to the latter, the Commission seeks feedback 
on whether the coordinator should be required to engage in the 
following activities, as well as any other activities not identified 
below:
     Consulting with consumer groups, STS providers, the TRS 
Fund administrator, and other STS stakeholders;
     Establishing clear and concise messaging about the 
purposes, functions, and benefits of STS;
     Contacting and providing direct outreach and education to 
relevant medical, disability and senior citizen organizations, 
associations and medical professionals whose constituencies, members, 
and patients are likely to benefit from STS;
     Determining media outlets and other appropriate avenues 
for providing information about STS to identified medical, disability, 
and senior citizen organizations, associations, and professionals, the 
general public and potential new-to-category subscribers;
     Preparing for and arranging for publication, press 
releases, announcements, digital postcards, newsletters, and media 
spots about STS that are directed to identified medical, disability, 
and senior citizen organizations, associations, and professionals, as 
well as retailers and other businesses, including trade associations;
     Creating electronic and media tool kits that include 
samples of the materials listed in the previous bullet, and which may 
also include templates, all of which will be for the purpose of 
facilitating the preparation and distribution of such materials by 
consumer and industry associations, governmental entities, and other 
STS stakeholders;
     Providing materials to local, state, and national 
governmental agencies on the purposes, functions, and benefits of STS; 
and
     Exploring opportunities to partner and collaborate with 
other entities to disseminate information about STS.
    1. The Commission proposes that an entity selected by the 
Commission or the Interstate TRS Fund administrator to coordinate such 
outreach be required to work with and submit periodic reports to the 
Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and to the 
Managing Director, which reports measure and describe the effectiveness 
of the entity's outreach efforts. The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there should be 
specified levels of outreach activities that the STS national outreach 
coordinator should be required to meet, and how and by whom these 
levels should be set and evaluated. If a national outreach program is 
established, the Commission proposes that the additional amount 
currently added to the STS per minute rate for outreach is discontinued 
from future rates, and seeks comment on this proposal. If the 
Commission chooses not to continue reimbursing the cost of outreach 
activities on a per minute basis to providers, it seeks feedback on 
whether a specified amount should be set aside from the Fund on an 
annual basis for nationwide outreach activities, what this amount 
should be, and how it should be determined. Finally, should the cost of 
providing STS as well as STS outreach be allocated between the 
Interstate TRS Fund and the state program funds, and, if so, how?
    2. In recent years, the Commission has undertaken significant 
efforts to ensure that its Internet-based TRS programs are structurally 
sound and are free from waste, fraud and abuse. Of particular concern 
to the Commission is making sure that only those individuals who are 
truly eligible for different forms of TRS are allowed to use these 
services. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on how to establish 
rules to clearly define and oversee the eligibility, registration, and 
verification of STS users. As an initial matter, the Commission notes 
that in the VRS Reform Order, the Commission recently directed the 
creation of a user registration database for VRS users. Structure and 
Practices of Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos.

[[Page 49719]]

03-123 and 10-51, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, published at 77 FR 25609, May 1, 2012 (VRS Structural 
Reform Order). Should STS providers be required to use this database to 
register all individuals seeking to use STS, whether STS is provided by 
a single provider or if it remains with the states? As part of the 
registration process, should users be permitted to provide self-
certification that they have a speech disability? The Commission seeks 
comment on the costs and benefits associated with a certification 
requirement, as well as whether such requirements will effectively 
fulfill Congress's directive to the Commission, in section 225 of the 
Act, to ensure that TRS is available, ``to the extent possible and in 
the most efficient manner,'' to persons with hearing and speech 
disabilities. Finally, the Commission proposes that any certification 
ultimately required by the Commission's rules be made under penalty of 
perjury as an added layer of assurance that the individual's disability 
satisfies the Commission's eligibility requirements and seeks comment 
on this proposal. Commenters who do not believe these certification 
proposals are appropriate should offer alternative requirements that 
can be used to ensure that only eligible individuals who are intended 
to benefit from this service (i.e., who need STS to communicate in a 
manner that is functionally equivalent to communication by voice 
telephone users) are permitted to use it.
    3. The Commission further asks whether it should adopt a 
centralized process by which the identities of STS users are verified, 
as the Commission has done in the VRS Structural Reform Order. In that 
Order, the Commission directed the Managing Director to ensure that a 
centralized user registration database has the capability of performing 
an identification verification check when a VRS provider or other party 
submits a query to the database about an existing or potential user and 
that the criteria for identification verification (e.g., information to 
be submitted, acceptable level of risk, etc.) be established by the 
Managing Director in consultation with the Commission's Chief 
Technology Officer and the Chief of the Office of Engineering and 
Technology. In addition, the Commission required that VRS providers not 
be permitted to register individuals that do not pass the 
identification verification check conducted through the user 
registration database, and not seek compensation for calls placed by 
such individuals. The Commission asks whether the same requirements 
should now apply to STS providers.
    4. In the 2008 STS NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that 
IP STS providers would not need to meet the following TRS mandatory 
minimum standards to be eligible for compensation: (1) CA competency in 
typing and spelling; (2) ensuring that TTY calls over TRS can be 
transmitted in ASCII and Baudot formats; (3) call release; (4) hearing 
carry over (HCO) and voice carry over (VCO) services; (5) equal access 
to interexchange carriers; (6) pay-per-call (900) service; and (7) 
outbound 711 dialing. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; 
Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech 
Telecommunications Relay Service, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 08-15, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 73 FR 47120, August 13, 
2008 (2008 STS NPRM). The Commission now proposes to amend its rules to 
state that the standards for (a) CA competency in typing and spelling, 
(b) ensuring that TTY calls over TRS can be transmitted in ASCII and 
Baudot formats, (c) call release, and (d) VCO services not be applied 
to any form of STS because they are inapplicable to this service, and 
it seeks comment on this proposal.
    5. The Commission also seeks comment on whether STS user profiles 
should be immediately available to an STS CA each time an STS user 
places a call, to allow the provider to provide a better and more 
``consistent STS relay experience'' for users. Additionally, when an 
STS user is silent and does not say ``good-bye,'' should the CA not 
terminate the call until at least 60 seconds has passed so that the 
call will not be disconnected prematurely? Should the FCC establish an 
STS Advisory Council for the purpose of formulating an STS outreach 
plan? Should the Commission establish a mandatory minimum standard for 
training of CAs who handle STS calls or any other mandatory minimum 
standards that are specific to STS? Finally, the Commission seeks 
information about any technological advances in end user equipment 
since the submissions of the petitions in this proceeding that may bear 
on the provision of this service.
    6. To what extent should providers be required to allow STS users 
to create caller profiles? Such profiles generally allow users to pre-
submit their preferences for call handling, including their contact 
information (for emergencies), language preferences, and speed dial 
numbers, which may speed up the time needed for STS call set-up. If 
providers should be required to offer caller profiles, what should 
users be allowed to include in these profiles? What are the costs and 
benefits of mandating the availability of profiles?
    7. Finally, are there other enhancements to STS that the Commission 
should know about? For example, one provider recently implemented a 
national wireless short code to make it easier to place or receive STS 
calls. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits of using such a 
code nationwide.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., as amended, the Commission has prepared this Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in 
this Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments in the Notice. The Commission will send a 
copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    1. Speech-to-speech (STS) relay service is a form of 
telecommunications relay service (TRS) that utilizes specially trained 
communications assistants (CAs) who understand the speech patterns of 
persons with speech disabilities and can repeat the words spoken by 
such individuals to the other parties to a relayed call. In the Notice, 
the Commission seeks comment on four main issues. First, the Commission 
seeks comment on ways to improve outreach to increase awareness and 
utilization for STS, and whether the Commission should contract with a 
single entity to educate potential users about the service's 
availability. Second, to ensure the integrity and long term 
sustainability of the service and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt consumer 
eligibility, registration, and verification requirements to ensure that 
only individuals with speech disabilities who need the service can use 
it. Third, the Commission seeks comment on whether certain mandatory 
minimum standards are inapplicable to STS, including CA competency in 
typing and spelling, transmission format of TTY

[[Page 49720]]

calls, call release of a CA from a call with only two TTY users, and 
voice carry over (VCO), where a person with a hearing disability speaks 
to the other party to the call, but receives the other party's spoken 
words as text from the CA. Fourth, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether to adopt requirements for STS providers to facilitate the 
ability of STS users to create caller profiles. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that these proposed rule changes may be necessary 
to improve the efficiency of the STS program and to ensure effective, 
quality STS services so that users with speech disabilities may receive 
functionally equivalent telephone service, as mandated by Title IV of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

B. Legal Basis

    1. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the 
Notice is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), and 225 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules May Apply

    1. 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. 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.
    2. The Commission believes that the entities that may be affected 
by the proposed rules are STS providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition of ``small entity'' specifically 
directed toward STS providers. The closest applicable size standard 
under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which 
consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. According 
to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 31,996 firms in the Wired 
Telecommunications Carrier category which operated for the entire year. 
Of this total, 30,178 firms had employment of 99 or fewer employees, 
and an additional 1,818 firms had employment of 100 employees or more. 
Thus, under this size standard, the vast majority of firms can be 
considered small. (The census data do not provide a more precise 
estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer 
employees; the largest category provided is ``Firms with 100 employees 
or more.'') Five providers currently receive compensation from the 
Interstate TRS Fund for providing STS: AT&T Corporation; Hamilton 
Relay, Inc.; Kansas Relay Service, Inc.; Purple Communications, Inc.; 
and Sprint Nextel Corporation. The Commission notes that only one of 
the STS providers that would be affected by the proposed rules is 
deemed to be a small entity under the SBA's small business size 
standard.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    1. Certain rule changes, if adopted by the Commission, would modify 
rules or add requirements governing reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance obligations. If the Commission were to adopt consumer 
eligibility, registration, and verification requirements to ensure that 
only individuals with speech disabilities who need the service can use 
it, STS providers, including small entities, would be required to 
collect certain information from consumers and to maintain such 
information.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    1. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives, specific to small entities, that it has considered in 
developing its 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 and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    2. In general, alternatives to proposed rules are discussed only 
when those rules pose a significant adverse economic impact on small 
entities. In this context, however, two of the proposed rules would 
confer benefits as explained below.
    3. If the Commission were to contract with a single outreach 
coordinator to educate potential users about the availability of STS, 
STS providers, including small entities, would benefit, because they 
would be relieved of the obligation to conduct outreach.
    4. If the Commission were to adopt consumer eligibility, 
registration and verification requirements to ensure that only 
individuals with speech disabilities who need the service can use it, 
STS providers, including small entities, would be required to collect 
certain information from consumers and to maintain such information. 
The Commission is not proposing alternatives for small entities because 
these requirements may be needed to limit waste, fraud and abuse, and 
an ineligible user can potentially defraud the TRS Fund by obtaining 
service from large and small entities alike. Therefore, if the 
Commission were to adopt registration, certification and verification 
procedures, the same requirements would need to apply to users of small 
entities as well as large entities.
    5. If the Commission were to find certain mandatory minimum TRS 
standards to be inapplicable to STS, all STS providers, including small 
entities, would benefit because they would not need to comply with 
those mandatory minimum standards.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed 
Rules

    1. None.

Ordering Clauses

    2. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), (j), and (o), 225, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j), and 
(o), 225, and 403, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby 
adopted.
    3. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-19787 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P