Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities-Waivers of iTRS Mandatory Minimum Standards, 63152-63157 [2013-24262]
Download as PDF
63152
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements and Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 25, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013–24853 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 03–123; FCC 13–119]
Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities—Waivers of iTRS
Mandatory Minimum Standards
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission proposes to amend its rules
setting minimum standards for
telecommunications relay services
(TRS) by eliminating standards for
Internet-based relay services (iTRS) and
public switched telephone networkbased captioned telephone services
(CTS) which are inapplicable to, or
technologically infeasible for, these
services. In the past and currently, these
services had been exempted from these
standards by the grant of waivers. This
action is necessary to provide greater
certainty for iTRS and CTS users and
providers with respect to the TRS
mandatory minimum standard and to
obviate the need for further periodic
waiver filings regarding the waived
standards.
DATES: Comments are due December 23,
2013 and reply comments are due
January 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket No. 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
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
their full name, U.S. Postal Service
mailing address, and CG Docket No. 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 messengerdelivered 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. 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:
Roger Holberg, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability
Rights Office, at (202) 418–2134 or
email Roger.Holberg@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Speechto-Speech Services for Individuals with
Hearing and Speech Disabilities,
Waivers of Mandatory Minimum
Standards, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), document FCC
13–119, adopted on September 5, 2013,
and released on September 6, 2013, in
CG Docket No. 03–123. The full text of
document FCC 13–119 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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. Document
FCC 13–119 can also be downloaded in
Word or Portable Document Format
(PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/
encyclopedia/telecommunicationsrelay-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 or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY). The proceeding this
NPRM initiates shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with sec.
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
Document FCC 13–119 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. In the last decade, iTRS and CTS
providers have petitioned for and been
granted waivers of various TRS
mandatory minimum standards deemed
inapplicable to or technologically
infeasible for iTRS and CTS. Several of
these waivers have been limited in
duration, necessitating periodic requests
for extension by the affected providers.
2. When section 225 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (Act), was first enacted and
implemented, there was only one type
of TRS, which required the party with
a speech or hearing disability to utilize
a text telephone, or TTY, to transmit
text over the PSTN to a communications
assistant (CA). The CA then relayed the
call between two parties by converting
everything that the text caller typed into
voice for the hearing party and typing
everything that the voice user
responded back to the person with a
disability.
3. With the development of new
communication technologies, the
Commission recognized new forms of
TRS as eligible for compensation from
the Interstate TRS Fund, including three
forms of iTRS: Video Relay Service
(VRS), Internet-Protocol (IP) Relay, and
IP CTS. Today iTRS account for more
than 90% of the total relay service
minutes reimbursed from the Fund. For
all forms of TRS, the Commission has
adopted mandatory minimum standards
to achieve functionally equivalent relay
service.
4. To ensure that TRS is provided in
a manner that is functionally equivalent
to voice telephone service, section 225
of the Act requires the Commission to
prescribe functional requirements,
guidelines, operations procedures, and
minimum standards for these services.
The Commission’s mandatory minimum
standards are intended to ensure that
the user experience when making TRS
calls is as close as possible to a voice
user’s experience when making
conventional telephone calls. Over the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
years, however, the Commission has
granted TRS providers waivers of
certain TRS mandatory minimum
standards that were deemed either
technologically infeasible for or simply
inapplicable to a particular form of TRS.
The waivers granted for IP CTS and CTS
have been issued for indefinite periods,
while most waivers granted for VRS and
IP Relay have been limited in duration.
Generally, the limited-duration waivers
have been renewed periodically—in
recent years on an annual basis. The
Commission has conditioned many of
the waivers on the filing of annual
reports in which providers are expected
to detail their progress in achieving
compliance with the underlying
mandatory minimum standards. The
reports are designed to help the
Commission determine whether
technological advances can enable
providers to comply with the waived
mandatory minimum standards.
5. On November 19, 2009, Hamilton
Relay, Inc., AT&T Inc., CSDVRS, LLC,
Sorenson Communications, Inc., Sprint
Nextel Corporation, and Purple
Communications, Inc. (Petitioners) filed
a ‘‘Request for Extension and
Clarification of Various iTRS Waivers’’
(Hamilton Request), requesting the
Commission to extend indefinitely all
iTRS waivers of limited duration and to
provide clarification on what Petitioners
claim are discrepancies in some of the
waivers. The Commission initiates this
proceeding both in response to
Petitioners’ request and to fulfill our
commitment to take a more in-depth
look at the merits of making permanent
or eliminating these waivers. Although
the Hamilton Request did not address
the waivers granted for CTS, the
Commission includes those waivers as
well in the scope of this overall review.
6. In undertaking this review, the
Commission notes that, historically, it
has generally been reluctant to grant
permanent exemptions from its
mandatory minimum standards based
on mere assertions of technological
infeasibility. The Commission
undertakes its current review of the
pending waivers mindful of this
Commission precedent.
7. The iTRS waivers that the
Commission addresses in this
proceeding generally fall into two
categories. One group consists of
waivers for standards mandating that
TRS include features and functions that
are available with voice telephone
service. In this first group, the
Commission has waived the mandatory
minimum standards for ‘‘types-of-calls,’’
equal-access, pay-per-call, three-way
calling rules, and speed dialing. The
second group consists of waivers for
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63153
standards mandating the provision of
specific communication services needed
by people with speech or hearing
disabilities. In this second group, the
Commission has waived mandatory
minimum standards for voice carry over
(VCO), hearing carry over (HCO),
speech-to-speech (STS), ASCII/Baudotcompatible services, Spanish-toSpanish, and call-release. With respect
to waivers that are presently limited in
duration, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to make the
waivers permanent by amending its
rules to explicitly state that the waived
mandatory minimum standards are
inapplicable to the specified iTRS
providers. The Commission asks
whether this approach will result in a
clearer understanding of and better
ongoing compliance with the
Commission’s rules. For waivers that are
already of unlimited duration, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
amending its rules to codify these as
permanent exemptions similarly would
result in a clearer understanding of and
better ongoing compliance with the
Commission’s rules.
8. Types-of-Calls Requirement.
Commission rules require TRS
providers to ‘‘be capable of handling
any type of call normally provided by
telecommunications carriers unless the
Commission determines that it is not
technologically feasible to do so.’’ Until
now, the Commission has waived the
‘‘types of calls’’ mandate in response to
iTRS providers’ showings that there is
no effective per-call billing mechanism
to accurately identify and bill iTRS
users for long distance and operatorassisted calls, and that the costs of
developing such a mechanism would be
prohibitive. Many providers have
maintained an inability to devise such
a mechanism because they claim that
they do not have a billing relationship
with their users, and that to set up a
billing system would not be cost
effective. The Commission seeks
comment on whether the justifications
that have supported this waiver in the
past still exist such that it should
continue to extend the limited-duration
waiver has been done in the recent past
or whether we should codify a rule that
permanently exempts iTRS providers
from having to offer these billing
options. Finally, even though the
Commission has never waived the
types-of-calls requirement for IP CTS,
Hamilton seeks an exemption for all
forms of iTRS. To the extent Hamilton
meant to include IP CTS in its request,
the Commission seeks comment on the
rationale for establishing a permanent
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63154
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
exemption under circumstances where
no waiver has been granted previously.
9. The Commission seeks comment on
the continued need to require the
provision of operator-assisted billing
(i.e., collect, calling card, and third
party billing) and sent-paid billing for
long distance calls handled by iTRS
providers, in light of the significant
changes that have taken place in
communication technologies—
including the steep decline in
traditional relay usage since the initial
adoption of the ‘‘types of calls’’
requirement more than 20 years ago.
10. Given these technological
changes, including the greater reliance
that relay users have on iTRS,
consumers may no longer need or
necessarily want the same billing
options that were appropriate when
relay services were primarily accessed
via the PSTN. The Commission seeks
feedback on this assumption, and
whether amending its rules to eliminate
the requirement for iTRS providers to
offer billing arrangements for ‘‘operatorassisted’’ billing and sent-paid billing
for long distance calls, provided that
iTRS providers do not charge for such
calls, is appropriate and consistent with
the Act’s intent to achieve functional
equivalency. In this regard, the
Commission asks commenters to
address all three forms of iTRS–VRS, IP
Relay and IP CTS—and to specifically
address the rationale for eliminating the
requirement for IP CTS under
circumstances where no waiver has
been granted previously.
11. Equal Access to Interexchange
Carriers. The Commission’s rules
require TRS providers to offer
consumers access to their interexchange
carrier of choice to the same extent that
such access is provided to voice users.
The Commission has waived this
requirement indefinitely for IP Relay
and IP CTS providers and on a limitedduration basis for VRS providers. The
waivers are contingent on iTRS
providers providing long distance
service without charge. Should the
Commission amend its rules to exempt
iTRS providers permanently from the
‘‘equal access to interexchange carriers’’
requirement (based on its technical
infeasibility and inapplicability to an
iTRS environment), provided that iTRS
providers do not charge for long
distance service? The Commission seeks
comment on the value to consumers of
providing equal access to long distance
carriers in an IP-based environment. Is
there any reason to require iTRS
providers to allow for equal access to
interexchange carriers in order to satisfy
the functional equivalency requirements
of section 225(a)(3) of the Act?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
12. To the extent that commenters
believe that this requirement remains
applicable and necessary to an iTRS
environment, the Commission asks (1)
whether it is feasible for iTRS providers
to implement networking and routing
solutions to allow iTRS users to choose
their carriers and (2) whether reliable
mechanisms exist to allow carriers to
distinguish between local and long
distance calls for this purpose. Finally,
the Commission invites comment on the
costs of implementing solutions to
fulfill this standard and on the
appropriate interval for revisiting the
technological feasibility issues in the
future.
13. Pay-per-Call (900) calls. The
Commission’s rules require TRS
providers to be capable of handling payper-call (i.e., 900-number) calls. The
Commission has waived this
requirement—indefinitely for IP CTS
providers, but on a limited-duration
basis for IP Relay and VRS providers—
because no billing mechanism has been
available to handle the charges
associated with pay-per-call calls. The
pay-per-call standard presupposes a
billing relationship that does not
presently exist between iTRS providers
and users. The Commission seeks
comment on the technical feasibility of
and benefits to requiring that such a
relationship be established for the
purpose of the pay-per-call requirement.
In addition, the Commission seeks
comment and information on whether
the implementation of ten-digit
numbering and registered location
requirements has increased the
feasibility of providing and verifying
ANI for pay-per-call billing purposes.
To the extent that parties maintain that
this feature is not feasible now, but may
be in the future, the Commission also
seeks comment on the appropriate
interval for revisiting the technological
feasibility issue. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
to adopt a rule codifying a permanent
exemption or to eliminate the indefinite
waiver for IP CTS providers. Finally, the
Commission invites comment on
whether the value of pay-per-call
services to iTRS consumers and possible
CA exposure to abusive and/or obscene
video images should affect our
determination regarding a permanent
exemption from the pay-per-call
requirement.
14. Three-way calling. Three-way
calling, also required by the
Commission’s rules, allows more than
two parties to be on the telephone line
at the same time with the CA. Waivers
of the requirement for VRS and IP Relay
providers were previously allowed to
expire. The Commission proposes to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
terminate the three-way calling waiver
for IP CTS providers and seeks comment
on this proposal. The Commission asks
commenters that disagree with this
proposal to justify the need for a
continued waiver. If the Commission
were to eliminate the waiver of the
three-way calling requirement for IP
CTS, the Commission further seeks
comment on an appropriate termination
date.
15. Speed dialing. Speed dialing
allows a TRS user to give the CA a
‘‘short-hand’’ name or number (e.g.,
‘‘call Mom’’) for the user’s most
frequently called telephone numbers.
This feature permits a person making a
TRS call through a CA to place the call
without having to remember or locate
the number he or she desires to call. The
Commission waived this requirement
for VRS and IP Relay until January 1,
2008. The Commission subsequently
found that all VRS providers—but not
all IP Relay providers—were offering a
speed dialing feature. As a result, the
speed dialing waiver was allowed to
expire for VRS but generally was
extended for IP Relay for one year to
allow the remaining IP Relay providers
sufficient time to offer speed dialing.
16. With regard to IP CTS, the
Commission, in 2007, indefinitely
waived speed dialing for IP CTS
providers, contingent on such providers
filing annual reports addressing the
waiver. The Commission asks for
comment on whether it would be in the
public interest for the Commission to
terminate the waiver for speed dialing
for IP CTS providers. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
other IP CTS providers are currently
offering speed dialing capability, and if
not, whether there are any technical
barriers preventing IP CTS providers
from offering speed dialing. If the
Commission was to terminate the speed
dialing waiver for IP CTS, it seeks
comment on when such termination
should take effect. To the extent
commenters argue for continued waiver,
the Commission seeks comment on
when it should revisit the need for this
waiver.
17. The second group of waived
mandatory minimum standards relates
to specific forms of TRS needed by
people with disabilities, including voice
carry over (VCO), hearing carry over
(HCO), speech-to-speech, ASCII/Baudotcompatible services, Spanish-toSpanish, and call release.
18. VCO and HCO. The Commission’s
rules require TRS providers to offer
VCO and HCO. With VCO, a person who
has a hearing disability, but who is able
to speak, communicates by voice
directly to the other party to the call
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
without intervention by the CA, and the
other party’s voice response is relayed
by the CA as text. With HCO, a person
who has a speech disability, but who is
able to hear, listens directly to the other
party’s voice without intervention by
the CA, and in reply has the CA convert
his or her typed responses into voice.
There are multiple forms of VCO and
HCO. The Commission has granted
fixed-duration waivers for VRS and IP
Relay of all the VCO and HCO
mandatory minimum standards except
two-line VCO and HCO, based on
providers’ representations that Internet
connections are unable to deliver voice
and data over a single line with the
necessary quality. The Commission also
has granted these waivers for IP CTS
indefinitely, as well as granting an
indefinite waiver of HCO for CTS. All
such waivers have been conditioned on
the filing of annual reports regarding the
technological feasibility of compliance.
19. The Commission seeks comment
on whether, given advances in Internet
technologies and the availability of oneline VCO, one-line HCO, VCO-to-VCO,
HCO-to-HCO, VCO-to-TTY, and HCO-toTTY by some providers for some IPbased relay services, waivers for these
features continue to be necessary.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
feedback on the extent to which these
services are technically feasible over a
broadband connection and on whether
any distinction should be drawn for
service in low bandwidth environments.
The Commission also seeks comment on
the quality and convenience of the twoline VCO and HCO services that are
currently available from iTRS providers.
Are such services generally available
and affordable, and are these adequate
substitutes for one-line VCO and HCO?
To the extent that we permit two-line
VCO and HCO as ‘‘work-arounds’’ to
single-line VCO and HCO, the
Commission seeks feedback on whether
it should condition such waivers on
providers’ absorbing the additional cost
of subscriptions for any additional
telephone lines needed for the voice leg
of the service. The Commission asks
commenters to weigh the benefits of
one-line VCO, one-line HCO, VCO-toVCO, HCO-to-HCO, VCO-to-TTY, and
HCO-to-TTY against the cost of
providing these services. If the
Commission were to eliminate the
waivers for one-line VCO, one-line
HCO, VCO-to-VCO, HCO-to-HCO, VCOto-TTY, and HCO-to-TTY for VRS and
IP Relay, it seeks comment on an
appropriate termination date.
20. The Commission seeks comment
on amending our rules to permanently
exempt CTS and IP CTS providers from
providing any form of HCO. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
Commission has previously determined
that HCO involves ‘‘particular
functionalities that do not apply to
captioned telephone calls.’’ Specifically,
as the Commission explained, when
using CTS, ‘‘a person with some
residual hearing can speak to the other
party and in return both listen to what
the other party is saying and read text
of what that party is saying . . . [, t]his
service . . . is simply not able to handle
. . . HCO relay calls.’’ The Commission
has similarly exempted IP CTS
providers.
21. Speech-to-Speech. Speech-toSpeech (STS) service allows a person
with a speech disability to communicate
with voice telephone users through the
use of CAs who are trained to
understand the speech patterns of
persons with disabilities and can repeat
the words spoken by that person. The
Commission has recognized STS as a
form of TRS and required that it be
offered as a mandatory service. In 2002,
the Commission waived this
requirement for IP Relay providers for a
limited period of time. The Commission
subsequently has extended this waiver
on multiple occasions. The Commission
also waived the STS requirement
indefinitely for CTS, IP CTS, and VRS,
finding this mandatory minimum
standard to be inapplicable to these
relay services. Specifically, STS is
purely speech-based, while CTS and IP
CTS require the CA to provide
communication in text and, under our
current rules, VRS requires the CA to
provide communication in American
Sign Language (ASL). Petitioners
request that the Commission waive the
STS requirement indefinitely for IP
Relay ‘‘because, as with VRS and IP CTS
calls, one leg of an Internet Relay call is
entirely text-based without any speech
capabilities, thus rendering the service
incapable of providing STS. The
Commission seeks comment on
amending our rules to exempt CTS, IP
CTS and VRS providers from the STS
requirement. The Commission also
invites comment on whether to
permanently exempt IP Relay providers
from offering STS.
22. ASCII/Baudot Communications.
The Commission’s rules contain
technical mandatory minimum
standards that are specific to the
traditional TTY-based form of TRS. One
of these rules requires TRS providers to
be capable of handling communications
using the ASCII and Baudot formats, at
any speed generally in use. The
Commission has granted CTS and IP
CTS providers indefinite waivers of
these mandatory minimum standards
but has not addressed their applicability
to VRS or IP Relay providers. The
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63155
Commission proposes to amend its rules
to explicitly exempt all forms of iTRS
from the ASCII/Baudot call handling
requirement. The Commission invites
comment on this proposal, and on
whether to codify as permanent
exemptions the existing waivers for CTS
and IP CTS.
23. Spanish Language Service over
CTS, IP CTS, and IP Relay. Section
64.603 of the Commission’s rules
requires the provision of interstate
PSTN-based relay services in Spanish.
The Commission has ruled that
although VRS providers may offer and
be compensated for Spanish language
services, they are not required to do so.
The Commission has not made any
ruling regarding the applicability of the
Spanish language requirement to CTS,
IP CTS and IP Relay. Given that IP
Relay, CTS and IP CTS are not
mandatory, the Commission proposes to
conclude that Spanish language
versions of these services are nonmandatory services. In this regard, the
Commission seeks feedback on the
extent to which Spanish-language IP
Relay, CTS and IP CTS are currently
available to and utilized by consumers,
on the value of such services to
Spanish-speaking consumers, and on
whether mandating Spanish language IP
Relay, CTS and IP CTS is necessary to
ensure the availability of these forms of
TRS for the Spanish-speaking
population. Commenters are also asked
to weigh the benefits of mandating
Spanish language IP Relay, CTS and IP
CTS against the burdens for providers to
offer these services. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether to
amend its part 64 rules to codify its
ruling that VRS providers are not
required to offer Spanish language VRS.
24. Call Release. The Commission’s
rules require TRS providers to offer
‘‘call release,’’ a feature that allows the
CA to drop out—or be ‘‘released’’ from
the relay call after setting up a direct
TTY-to-TTY connection between the
caller and the called party. The
Commission has waived this
requirement indefinitely for CTS and IP
CTS providers, but on a limitedduration basis for VRS and IP Relay
providers. The Commission invites
comment on the inapplicability and/or
technical infeasibility of the call release
feature in the IP environment and
consequently whether we should amend
our rules to permanently exempt all
iTRS providers as well as CTS providers
from compliance with this standard. If
parties still consider this standard
relevant to IP-based services, the
Commission further invites comment
and information on whether solutions to
the present technological barriers to this
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
63156
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
feature are available, and if so, the costs
and benefits of implementing such
solutions. To the extent that parties
maintain that this feature is not feasible
now, but may be in the future, the
Commission also seeks comment on the
appropriate interval for revisiting the
technological feasibility issue.
25. Annual Reports. For those
mandatory minimum standards for
which the Commission decides to adopt
permanent exemptions in place of
existing waivers, it further proposes
elimination of the requirement to file
annual reports. The Commission asks
commenters for their input on this
proposal.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification
26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) requires that an agency prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for noticeand-comment rulemaking proceedings,
unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.’’
The RFA generally defines ‘‘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 Small Business
Administration (SBA).
27. In document FCC 13–119, the
Commission seeks comment on its
proposal to permanently waive in some
instances and to terminate the waivers
in other instances of certain operational,
technical, and functional mandatory
minimum standards applicable to the
provision of TRS for providers using the
Internet to provide services such as
VRS, IP Relay, and IP CTS as well as for
providers offering traditional CTS. To be
eligible for compensation from the
interstate TRS Fund, a TRS provider
must offer service in compliance with
all applicable mandatory minimum
standards, unless they are waived. The
Commission has waived several of these
mandatory minimum standards for VRS,
IP Relay, and IP CTS either because, as
Internet-based services, it is not
technologically feasible for them to meet
the requirement or, in the case of VRS,
because VRS is a video-based service
and the communication is via sign
language and not text. The Commission
has waived other mandatory minimum
standards that are inapplicable to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
particular form of TRS, including VRS,
IP Relay, IP CTS and CTS. Some of these
waivers have been for finite periods,
usually one year, and require new
waivers at the end of the period while
other waivers have been for indefinite
periods. Document FCC 13–119
proposes to incorporate these waivers
into the Commission’s rules to obviate
the need for annual waivers to be
applied for and granted and to
harmonize the treatment of all TRS
providers to which these mandatory
minimum standards do not apply given
the technology through which the
service is provided.
28. Document FCC 13–119 seeks
comment on whether to incorporate
these waivers into the rules. It further
seeks comment on a Petitioner’s request
that the Commission clarify whether the
Spanish-to-Spanish requirement should
be a non-mandatory service for IP Relay
and IP CTS providers as it is for VRS
providers.
29. Where a mandatory minimum
standard is inapplicable, the
Commission proposes to convert
existing waivers of the mandatory
minimum standards to permanent
exemptions, thereby eliminating
unnecessary administrative burdens on
providers and the Commission.
Specifically, IP CTS providers have
received waivers for the following
features: (1) Gender preference; (2)
handling calls in ASCII and Baudot
formats; (3) call release; (4) Speech-toSpeech; (5) Hearing Carry Over (HCO)
and VCO services; (6) outbound 711
calling; (7) emergency call handling; (8)
equal access to interexchange carriers;
(9) pay-per-call (900) service; (10) threeway calling; (11) speed dialing; and (12)
certain rules applying to CAs.
30. With regard to the criterion of the
economic impact of document FCC 13–
119, with respect to those waivers that
are proposed to be made permanent or
otherwise codified, the Commission
notes that all providers potentially
affected by the proposed rules,
including those deemed to be small
entities under the SBA’s standard,
would benefit by being relieved from
the necessity to periodically file for new
waivers of the TRS mandatory
minimum standards and from incurring
unnecessary expenses in research and
development of features or services that
are inapplicable to certain types of TRS
services. Therefore, the Commission
concludes that with respect to those
waivers, document FCC 13–119, if
adopted, will not have a significant
economic impact on any entities.
31. With respect to those waivers that
are being terminated, the record shows
that the providers are generally
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
providing the features that had been the
subject of such waivers. For example,
the record shows that providers are now
able to offer three-way calling and speed
dialing. With respect to one-line VCO,
one-line HCO, VCO-to-VCO, HCO-toHCO, VCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-TTY,
the Commission is seeking comment to
better determine which features should
be waived and which features no longer
require a waiver for the providers of
VRS, IP Relay, IP CTS and CTS. The
Commission believes that the entities
that may be affected by the termination
of such waivers are only those TRS
providers that offer VRS, IP Relay, IP
CTS and CTS. Should the TRS
providers, including the small entities,
become affected by the termination of
such waivers, the costs of compliance of
the requirements to offer three-way
calling and speed dialing are minimal.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition of ‘‘small
entity’’ specifically directed toward TRS
providers. The closest applicable size
standard under the SBA rules is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, for
which the small business size standard
is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Collectively, there are fewer
than ten TRS providers that are
authorized by the Commission or, in the
case of CTS, by any state Commission,
to offer these services. No more than
four of these entities may be small
businesses under the SBA size standard.
Therefore, document FCC 13–119, if
adopted would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
32. The Commission therefore
certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the
proposals in document FCC 13–119, if
adopted, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If commenters
believe that the proposals discussed in
document FCC 13–119 require
additional RFA analysis, they should
include a discussion of these issues in
their comments and additionally label
them as RFA comments. The
Commission will send a copy of
document FCC 13–119, including a
copy of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA.
Ordering Clauses
33. Pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and
225 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), and 225, that document FCC 13–
119 is adopted.
34. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules
document FCC 13–119, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
3. Amend § 64.604 by revising
paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (iv), (v), and (vi)
and (b)(1) and (3) to read as follows:
■
§ 64.604
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities,
Telecommunications.
Proposed Rule Changes
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);
403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat.
56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 227, 228, and 254(k), 616, 620, and
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Amend § 64.603 by adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 64.603
Provision of services.
*
*
*
*
(c) Providers of captioned telephone
relay service, Internet-based captioned
telephone relay service, VRS and IP
Relay are not required to offer speechto-speech relay service and interstate
Spanish language relay service.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Oct 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
Mandatory minimum standards.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Relay services shall be capable of
handling any type of call normally
provided by telecommunications
carriers unless the Commission
determines that it is not technologically
feasible to do so. Relay service providers
have the burden of proving the
infeasibility of handling any type of call.
Providers of Internet-based TRS need
not provide the same billing options
(e.g., sent-paid long distance, operatorassisted, calling card, collect, and third
party billing) traditionally offered for
wireline and wireless voice services.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) Relay services other than Internetbased TRS shall be capable of handling
pay-per-call calls.
(v) TRS providers are required to
provide the following types of TRS
calls: Text-to-voice and voice-to-text;
VCO, two line VCO, VCO-to-TTY, and
VCO-to-VCO; HCO, two-line HCO, HCOto-TTY, HCO-to-HCO. VRS providers
are not required to provide text-to-voice
and voice-to-text functionality. IP Relay
providers and VRS providers are not
required to provide VCO-to-TTY and
HCO-to-TTY. Captioned telephone
service providers and Internet-based
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
63157
captioned telephone service providers
are not required to provide text-to-voice;
VCO-to-TTY; HCO, two-line HCO, HCOto-TTY, HCO-to-HCO.
(vi) TRS providers are required to
provide the following features: call
release functionality (only with respect
to the provision of TTY-based TRS);
speed dialing functionality; and threeway calling functionality.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Technical standards—(1) ASCII
and Baudot. TTY service shall be
capable of communicating with ASCII
and Baudot format, at any speed
generally in use. Other forms of TRS are
not subject to this requirement.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Equal access to interexchange
carriers. TRS users shall have access to
their chosen interexchange carrier
through the TRS, and to all other
operator services to the same extent that
such access is provided to voice users.
This requirement is inapplicable to
providers of Internet-based TRS if they
do not assess specific charges for long
distance calling.
*
*
*
*
*
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013–24262 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63152-63157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24262]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 13-119]
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities--Waivers of iTRS
Mandatory Minimum Standards
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its rules
setting minimum standards for telecommunications relay services (TRS)
by eliminating standards for Internet-based relay services (iTRS) and
public switched telephone network-based captioned telephone services
(CTS) which are inapplicable to, or technologically infeasible for,
these services. In the past and currently, these services had been
exempted from these standards by the grant of waivers. This action is
necessary to provide greater certainty for iTRS and CTS users and
providers with respect to the TRS mandatory minimum standard and to
obviate the need for further periodic waiver filings regarding the
waived standards.
DATES: Comments are due December 23, 2013 and reply comments are due
January 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 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 No. 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. 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: Roger Holberg, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-
2134 or email Roger.Holberg@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Waivers of Mandatory Minimum Standards, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), document FCC 13-119, adopted on September
5, 2013, and released on September 6, 2013, in CG Docket No. 03-123.
The full text of document FCC 13-119 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. Document FCC 13-119 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 or
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall
be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with
the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with sec. 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
[[Page 63153]]
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 13-119 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. In the last decade, iTRS and CTS providers have petitioned for
and been granted waivers of various TRS mandatory minimum standards
deemed inapplicable to or technologically infeasible for iTRS and CTS.
Several of these waivers have been limited in duration, necessitating
periodic requests for extension by the affected providers.
2. When section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(Act), was first enacted and implemented, there was only one type of
TRS, which required the party with a speech or hearing disability to
utilize a text telephone, or TTY, to transmit text over the PSTN to a
communications assistant (CA). The CA then relayed the call between two
parties by converting everything that the text caller typed into voice
for the hearing party and typing everything that the voice user
responded back to the person with a disability.
3. With the development of new communication technologies, the
Commission recognized new forms of TRS as eligible for compensation
from the Interstate TRS Fund, including three forms of iTRS: Video
Relay Service (VRS), Internet-Protocol (IP) Relay, and IP CTS. Today
iTRS account for more than 90% of the total relay service minutes
reimbursed from the Fund. For all forms of TRS, the Commission has
adopted mandatory minimum standards to achieve functionally equivalent
relay service.
4. To ensure that TRS is provided in a manner that is functionally
equivalent to voice telephone service, section 225 of the Act requires
the Commission to prescribe functional requirements, guidelines,
operations procedures, and minimum standards for these services. The
Commission's mandatory minimum standards are intended to ensure that
the user experience when making TRS calls is as close as possible to a
voice user's experience when making conventional telephone calls. Over
the years, however, the Commission has granted TRS providers waivers of
certain TRS mandatory minimum standards that were deemed either
technologically infeasible for or simply inapplicable to a particular
form of TRS. The waivers granted for IP CTS and CTS have been issued
for indefinite periods, while most waivers granted for VRS and IP Relay
have been limited in duration. Generally, the limited-duration waivers
have been renewed periodically--in recent years on an annual basis. The
Commission has conditioned many of the waivers on the filing of annual
reports in which providers are expected to detail their progress in
achieving compliance with the underlying mandatory minimum standards.
The reports are designed to help the Commission determine whether
technological advances can enable providers to comply with the waived
mandatory minimum standards.
5. On November 19, 2009, Hamilton Relay, Inc., AT&T Inc., CSDVRS,
LLC, Sorenson Communications, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corporation, and
Purple Communications, Inc. (Petitioners) filed a ``Request for
Extension and Clarification of Various iTRS Waivers'' (Hamilton
Request), requesting the Commission to extend indefinitely all iTRS
waivers of limited duration and to provide clarification on what
Petitioners claim are discrepancies in some of the waivers. The
Commission initiates this proceeding both in response to Petitioners'
request and to fulfill our commitment to take a more in-depth look at
the merits of making permanent or eliminating these waivers. Although
the Hamilton Request did not address the waivers granted for CTS, the
Commission includes those waivers as well in the scope of this overall
review.
6. In undertaking this review, the Commission notes that,
historically, it has generally been reluctant to grant permanent
exemptions from its mandatory minimum standards based on mere
assertions of technological infeasibility. The Commission undertakes
its current review of the pending waivers mindful of this Commission
precedent.
7. The iTRS waivers that the Commission addresses in this
proceeding generally fall into two categories. One group consists of
waivers for standards mandating that TRS include features and functions
that are available with voice telephone service. In this first group,
the Commission has waived the mandatory minimum standards for ``types-
of-calls,'' equal-access, pay-per-call, three-way calling rules, and
speed dialing. The second group consists of waivers for standards
mandating the provision of specific communication services needed by
people with speech or hearing disabilities. In this second group, the
Commission has waived mandatory minimum standards for voice carry over
(VCO), hearing carry over (HCO), speech-to-speech (STS), ASCII/Baudot-
compatible services, Spanish-to-Spanish, and call-release. With respect
to waivers that are presently limited in duration, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to make the waivers permanent by amending its rules
to explicitly state that the waived mandatory minimum standards are
inapplicable to the specified iTRS providers. The Commission asks
whether this approach will result in a clearer understanding of and
better ongoing compliance with the Commission's rules. For waivers that
are already of unlimited duration, the Commission seeks comment on
whether amending its rules to codify these as permanent exemptions
similarly would result in a clearer understanding of and better ongoing
compliance with the Commission's rules.
8. Types-of-Calls Requirement. Commission rules require TRS
providers to ``be capable of handling any type of call normally
provided by telecommunications carriers unless the Commission
determines that it is not technologically feasible to do so.'' Until
now, the Commission has waived the ``types of calls'' mandate in
response to iTRS providers' showings that there is no effective per-
call billing mechanism to accurately identify and bill iTRS users for
long distance and operator-assisted calls, and that the costs of
developing such a mechanism would be prohibitive. Many providers have
maintained an inability to devise such a mechanism because they claim
that they do not have a billing relationship with their users, and that
to set up a billing system would not be cost effective. The Commission
seeks comment on whether the justifications that have supported this
waiver in the past still exist such that it should continue to extend
the limited-duration waiver has been done in the recent past or whether
we should codify a rule that permanently exempts iTRS providers from
having to offer these billing options. Finally, even though the
Commission has never waived the types-of-calls requirement for IP CTS,
Hamilton seeks an exemption for all forms of iTRS. To the extent
Hamilton meant to include IP CTS in its request, the Commission seeks
comment on the rationale for establishing a permanent
[[Page 63154]]
exemption under circumstances where no waiver has been granted
previously.
9. The Commission seeks comment on the continued need to require
the provision of operator-assisted billing (i.e., collect, calling
card, and third party billing) and sent-paid billing for long distance
calls handled by iTRS providers, in light of the significant changes
that have taken place in communication technologies--including the
steep decline in traditional relay usage since the initial adoption of
the ``types of calls'' requirement more than 20 years ago.
10. Given these technological changes, including the greater
reliance that relay users have on iTRS, consumers may no longer need or
necessarily want the same billing options that were appropriate when
relay services were primarily accessed via the PSTN. The Commission
seeks feedback on this assumption, and whether amending its rules to
eliminate the requirement for iTRS providers to offer billing
arrangements for ``operator-assisted'' billing and sent-paid billing
for long distance calls, provided that iTRS providers do not charge for
such calls, is appropriate and consistent with the Act's intent to
achieve functional equivalency. In this regard, the Commission asks
commenters to address all three forms of iTRS-VRS, IP Relay and IP
CTS--and to specifically address the rationale for eliminating the
requirement for IP CTS under circumstances where no waiver has been
granted previously.
11. Equal Access to Interexchange Carriers. The Commission's rules
require TRS providers to offer consumers access to their interexchange
carrier of choice to the same extent that such access is provided to
voice users. The Commission has waived this requirement indefinitely
for IP Relay and IP CTS providers and on a limited-duration basis for
VRS providers. The waivers are contingent on iTRS providers providing
long distance service without charge. Should the Commission amend its
rules to exempt iTRS providers permanently from the ``equal access to
interexchange carriers'' requirement (based on its technical
infeasibility and inapplicability to an iTRS environment), provided
that iTRS providers do not charge for long distance service? The
Commission seeks comment on the value to consumers of providing equal
access to long distance carriers in an IP-based environment. Is there
any reason to require iTRS providers to allow for equal access to
interexchange carriers in order to satisfy the functional equivalency
requirements of section 225(a)(3) of the Act?
12. To the extent that commenters believe that this requirement
remains applicable and necessary to an iTRS environment, the Commission
asks (1) whether it is feasible for iTRS providers to implement
networking and routing solutions to allow iTRS users to choose their
carriers and (2) whether reliable mechanisms exist to allow carriers to
distinguish between local and long distance calls for this purpose.
Finally, the Commission invites comment on the costs of implementing
solutions to fulfill this standard and on the appropriate interval for
revisiting the technological feasibility issues in the future.
13. Pay-per-Call (900) calls. The Commission's rules require TRS
providers to be capable of handling pay-per-call (i.e., 900-number)
calls. The Commission has waived this requirement--indefinitely for IP
CTS providers, but on a limited-duration basis for IP Relay and VRS
providers--because no billing mechanism has been available to handle
the charges associated with pay-per-call calls. The pay-per-call
standard presupposes a billing relationship that does not presently
exist between iTRS providers and users. The Commission seeks comment on
the technical feasibility of and benefits to requiring that such a
relationship be established for the purpose of the pay-per-call
requirement. In addition, the Commission seeks comment and information
on whether the implementation of ten-digit numbering and registered
location requirements has increased the feasibility of providing and
verifying ANI for pay-per-call billing purposes. To the extent that
parties maintain that this feature is not feasible now, but may be in
the future, the Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate
interval for revisiting the technological feasibility issue. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt a rule
codifying a permanent exemption or to eliminate the indefinite waiver
for IP CTS providers. Finally, the Commission invites comment on
whether the value of pay-per-call services to iTRS consumers and
possible CA exposure to abusive and/or obscene video images should
affect our determination regarding a permanent exemption from the pay-
per-call requirement.
14. Three-way calling. Three-way calling, also required by the
Commission's rules, allows more than two parties to be on the telephone
line at the same time with the CA. Waivers of the requirement for VRS
and IP Relay providers were previously allowed to expire. The
Commission proposes to terminate the three-way calling waiver for IP
CTS providers and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission asks
commenters that disagree with this proposal to justify the need for a
continued waiver. If the Commission were to eliminate the waiver of the
three-way calling requirement for IP CTS, the Commission further seeks
comment on an appropriate termination date.
15. Speed dialing. Speed dialing allows a TRS user to give the CA a
``short-hand'' name or number (e.g., ``call Mom'') for the user's most
frequently called telephone numbers. This feature permits a person
making a TRS call through a CA to place the call without having to
remember or locate the number he or she desires to call. The Commission
waived this requirement for VRS and IP Relay until January 1, 2008. The
Commission subsequently found that all VRS providers--but not all IP
Relay providers--were offering a speed dialing feature. As a result,
the speed dialing waiver was allowed to expire for VRS but generally
was extended for IP Relay for one year to allow the remaining IP Relay
providers sufficient time to offer speed dialing.
16. With regard to IP CTS, the Commission, in 2007, indefinitely
waived speed dialing for IP CTS providers, contingent on such providers
filing annual reports addressing the waiver. The Commission asks for
comment on whether it would be in the public interest for the
Commission to terminate the waiver for speed dialing for IP CTS
providers. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether other
IP CTS providers are currently offering speed dialing capability, and
if not, whether there are any technical barriers preventing IP CTS
providers from offering speed dialing. If the Commission was to
terminate the speed dialing waiver for IP CTS, it seeks comment on when
such termination should take effect. To the extent commenters argue for
continued waiver, the Commission seeks comment on when it should
revisit the need for this waiver.
17. The second group of waived mandatory minimum standards relates
to specific forms of TRS needed by people with disabilities, including
voice carry over (VCO), hearing carry over (HCO), speech-to-speech,
ASCII/Baudot-compatible services, Spanish-to-Spanish, and call release.
18. VCO and HCO. The Commission's rules require TRS providers to
offer VCO and HCO. With VCO, a person who has a hearing disability, but
who is able to speak, communicates by voice directly to the other party
to the call
[[Page 63155]]
without intervention by the CA, and the other party's voice response is
relayed by the CA as text. With HCO, a person who has a speech
disability, but who is able to hear, listens directly to the other
party's voice without intervention by the CA, and in reply has the CA
convert his or her typed responses into voice. There are multiple forms
of VCO and HCO. The Commission has granted fixed-duration waivers for
VRS and IP Relay of all the VCO and HCO mandatory minimum standards
except two-line VCO and HCO, based on providers' representations that
Internet connections are unable to deliver voice and data over a single
line with the necessary quality. The Commission also has granted these
waivers for IP CTS indefinitely, as well as granting an indefinite
waiver of HCO for CTS. All such waivers have been conditioned on the
filing of annual reports regarding the technological feasibility of
compliance.
19. The Commission seeks comment on whether, given advances in
Internet technologies and the availability of one-line VCO, one-line
HCO, VCO-to-VCO, HCO-to-HCO, VCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-TTY by some
providers for some IP-based relay services, waivers for these features
continue to be necessary. Specifically, the Commission seeks feedback
on the extent to which these services are technically feasible over a
broadband connection and on whether any distinction should be drawn for
service in low bandwidth environments. The Commission also seeks
comment on the quality and convenience of the two-line VCO and HCO
services that are currently available from iTRS providers. Are such
services generally available and affordable, and are these adequate
substitutes for one-line VCO and HCO? To the extent that we permit two-
line VCO and HCO as ``work-arounds'' to single-line VCO and HCO, the
Commission seeks feedback on whether it should condition such waivers
on providers' absorbing the additional cost of subscriptions for any
additional telephone lines needed for the voice leg of the service. The
Commission asks commenters to weigh the benefits of one-line VCO, one-
line HCO, VCO-to-VCO, HCO-to-HCO, VCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-TTY against
the cost of providing these services. If the Commission were to
eliminate the waivers for one-line VCO, one-line HCO, VCO-to-VCO, HCO-
to-HCO, VCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-TTY for VRS and IP Relay, it seeks
comment on an appropriate termination date.
20. The Commission seeks comment on amending our rules to
permanently exempt CTS and IP CTS providers from providing any form of
HCO. The Commission has previously determined that HCO involves
``particular functionalities that do not apply to captioned telephone
calls.'' Specifically, as the Commission explained, when using CTS, ``a
person with some residual hearing can speak to the other party and in
return both listen to what the other party is saying and read text of
what that party is saying . . . [, t]his service . . . is simply not
able to handle . . . HCO relay calls.'' The Commission has similarly
exempted IP CTS providers.
21. Speech-to-Speech. Speech-to-Speech (STS) service allows a
person with a speech disability to communicate with voice telephone
users through the use of CAs who are trained to understand the speech
patterns of persons with disabilities and can repeat the words spoken
by that person. The Commission has recognized STS as a form of TRS and
required that it be offered as a mandatory service. In 2002, the
Commission waived this requirement for IP Relay providers for a limited
period of time. The Commission subsequently has extended this waiver on
multiple occasions. The Commission also waived the STS requirement
indefinitely for CTS, IP CTS, and VRS, finding this mandatory minimum
standard to be inapplicable to these relay services. Specifically, STS
is purely speech-based, while CTS and IP CTS require the CA to provide
communication in text and, under our current rules, VRS requires the CA
to provide communication in American Sign Language (ASL). Petitioners
request that the Commission waive the STS requirement indefinitely for
IP Relay ``because, as with VRS and IP CTS calls, one leg of an
Internet Relay call is entirely text-based without any speech
capabilities, thus rendering the service incapable of providing STS.
The Commission seeks comment on amending our rules to exempt CTS, IP
CTS and VRS providers from the STS requirement. The Commission also
invites comment on whether to permanently exempt IP Relay providers
from offering STS.
22. ASCII/Baudot Communications. The Commission's rules contain
technical mandatory minimum standards that are specific to the
traditional TTY-based form of TRS. One of these rules requires TRS
providers to be capable of handling communications using the ASCII and
Baudot formats, at any speed generally in use. The Commission has
granted CTS and IP CTS providers indefinite waivers of these mandatory
minimum standards but has not addressed their applicability to VRS or
IP Relay providers. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to
explicitly exempt all forms of iTRS from the ASCII/Baudot call handling
requirement. The Commission invites comment on this proposal, and on
whether to codify as permanent exemptions the existing waivers for CTS
and IP CTS.
23. Spanish Language Service over CTS, IP CTS, and IP Relay.
Section 64.603 of the Commission's rules requires the provision of
interstate PSTN-based relay services in Spanish. The Commission has
ruled that although VRS providers may offer and be compensated for
Spanish language services, they are not required to do so. The
Commission has not made any ruling regarding the applicability of the
Spanish language requirement to CTS, IP CTS and IP Relay. Given that IP
Relay, CTS and IP CTS are not mandatory, the Commission proposes to
conclude that Spanish language versions of these services are non-
mandatory services. In this regard, the Commission seeks feedback on
the extent to which Spanish-language IP Relay, CTS and IP CTS are
currently available to and utilized by consumers, on the value of such
services to Spanish-speaking consumers, and on whether mandating
Spanish language IP Relay, CTS and IP CTS is necessary to ensure the
availability of these forms of TRS for the Spanish-speaking population.
Commenters are also asked to weigh the benefits of mandating Spanish
language IP Relay, CTS and IP CTS against the burdens for providers to
offer these services. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to
amend its part 64 rules to codify its ruling that VRS providers are not
required to offer Spanish language VRS.
24. Call Release. The Commission's rules require TRS providers to
offer ``call release,'' a feature that allows the CA to drop out--or be
``released'' from the relay call after setting up a direct TTY-to-TTY
connection between the caller and the called party. The Commission has
waived this requirement indefinitely for CTS and IP CTS providers, but
on a limited-duration basis for VRS and IP Relay providers. The
Commission invites comment on the inapplicability and/or technical
infeasibility of the call release feature in the IP environment and
consequently whether we should amend our rules to permanently exempt
all iTRS providers as well as CTS providers from compliance with this
standard. If parties still consider this standard relevant to IP-based
services, the Commission further invites comment and information on
whether solutions to the present technological barriers to this
[[Page 63156]]
feature are available, and if so, the costs and benefits of
implementing such solutions. To the extent that parties maintain that
this feature is not feasible now, but may be in the future, the
Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate interval for
revisiting the technological feasibility issue.
25. Annual Reports. For those mandatory minimum standards for which
the Commission decides to adopt permanent exemptions in place of
existing waivers, it further proposes elimination of the requirement to
file annual reports. The Commission asks commenters for their input on
this proposal.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines
``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 Small Business
Administration (SBA).
27. In document FCC 13-119, the Commission seeks comment on its
proposal to permanently waive in some instances and to terminate the
waivers in other instances of certain operational, technical, and
functional mandatory minimum standards applicable to the provision of
TRS for providers using the Internet to provide services such as VRS,
IP Relay, and IP CTS as well as for providers offering traditional CTS.
To be eligible for compensation from the interstate TRS Fund, a TRS
provider must offer service in compliance with all applicable mandatory
minimum standards, unless they are waived. The Commission has waived
several of these mandatory minimum standards for VRS, IP Relay, and IP
CTS either because, as Internet-based services, it is not
technologically feasible for them to meet the requirement or, in the
case of VRS, because VRS is a video-based service and the communication
is via sign language and not text. The Commission has waived other
mandatory minimum standards that are inapplicable to the particular
form of TRS, including VRS, IP Relay, IP CTS and CTS. Some of these
waivers have been for finite periods, usually one year, and require new
waivers at the end of the period while other waivers have been for
indefinite periods. Document FCC 13-119 proposes to incorporate these
waivers into the Commission's rules to obviate the need for annual
waivers to be applied for and granted and to harmonize the treatment of
all TRS providers to which these mandatory minimum standards do not
apply given the technology through which the service is provided.
28. Document FCC 13-119 seeks comment on whether to incorporate
these waivers into the rules. It further seeks comment on a
Petitioner's request that the Commission clarify whether the Spanish-
to-Spanish requirement should be a non-mandatory service for IP Relay
and IP CTS providers as it is for VRS providers.
29. Where a mandatory minimum standard is inapplicable, the
Commission proposes to convert existing waivers of the mandatory
minimum standards to permanent exemptions, thereby eliminating
unnecessary administrative burdens on providers and the Commission.
Specifically, IP CTS providers have received waivers for the following
features: (1) Gender preference; (2) handling calls in ASCII and Baudot
formats; (3) call release; (4) Speech-to-Speech; (5) Hearing Carry Over
(HCO) and VCO services; (6) outbound 711 calling; (7) emergency call
handling; (8) equal access to interexchange carriers; (9) pay-per-call
(900) service; (10) three-way calling; (11) speed dialing; and (12)
certain rules applying to CAs.
30. With regard to the criterion of the economic impact of document
FCC 13-119, with respect to those waivers that are proposed to be made
permanent or otherwise codified, the Commission notes that all
providers potentially affected by the proposed rules, including those
deemed to be small entities under the SBA's standard, would benefit by
being relieved from the necessity to periodically file for new waivers
of the TRS mandatory minimum standards and from incurring unnecessary
expenses in research and development of features or services that are
inapplicable to certain types of TRS services. Therefore, the
Commission concludes that with respect to those waivers, document FCC
13-119, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on any
entities.
31. With respect to those waivers that are being terminated, the
record shows that the providers are generally providing the features
that had been the subject of such waivers. For example, the record
shows that providers are now able to offer three-way calling and speed
dialing. With respect to one-line VCO, one-line HCO, VCO-to-VCO, HCO-
to-HCO, VCO-to-TTY, and HCO-to-TTY, the Commission is seeking comment
to better determine which features should be waived and which features
no longer require a waiver for the providers of VRS, IP Relay, IP CTS
and CTS. The Commission believes that the entities that may be affected
by the termination of such waivers are only those TRS providers that
offer VRS, IP Relay, IP CTS and CTS. Should the TRS providers,
including the small entities, become affected by the termination of
such waivers, the costs of compliance of the requirements to offer
three-way calling and speed dialing are minimal. Neither the Commission
nor the SBA has developed a definition of ``small entity'' specifically
directed toward TRS providers. The closest applicable size standard
under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, for which
the small business size standard is all such firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees. Collectively, there are fewer than ten TRS providers
that are authorized by the Commission or, in the case of CTS, by any
state Commission, to offer these services. No more than four of these
entities may be small businesses under the SBA size standard.
Therefore, document FCC 13-119, if adopted would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
32. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that
the proposals in document FCC 13-119, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If commenters believe that the proposals discussed in document FCC 13-
119 require additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion
of these issues in their comments and additionally label them as RFA
comments. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 13-119,
including a copy of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
Ordering Clauses
33. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 154(j), and 225, that document FCC 13-119 is adopted.
34. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of
[[Page 63157]]
document FCC 13-119, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications.
Proposed Rule Changes
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L.
104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 227, 228, and 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.603 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.603 Provision of services.
* * * * *
(c) Providers of captioned telephone relay service, Internet-based
captioned telephone relay service, VRS and IP Relay are not required to
offer speech-to-speech relay service and interstate Spanish language
relay service.
0
3. Amend Sec. 64.604 by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (iv), (v), and
(vi) and (b)(1) and (3) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Relay services shall be capable of handling any type of call
normally provided by telecommunications carriers unless the Commission
determines that it is not technologically feasible to do so. Relay
service providers have the burden of proving the infeasibility of
handling any type of call. Providers of Internet-based TRS need not
provide the same billing options (e.g., sent-paid long distance,
operator-assisted, calling card, collect, and third party billing)
traditionally offered for wireline and wireless voice services.
* * * * *
(iv) Relay services other than Internet-based TRS shall be capable
of handling pay-per-call calls.
(v) TRS providers are required to provide the following types of
TRS calls: Text-to-voice and voice-to-text; VCO, two line VCO, VCO-to-
TTY, and VCO-to-VCO; HCO, two-line HCO, HCO-to-TTY, HCO-to-HCO. VRS
providers are not required to provide text-to-voice and voice-to-text
functionality. IP Relay providers and VRS providers are not required to
provide VCO-to-TTY and HCO-to-TTY. Captioned telephone service
providers and Internet-based captioned telephone service providers are
not required to provide text-to-voice; VCO-to-TTY; HCO, two-line HCO,
HCO-to-TTY, HCO-to-HCO.
(vi) TRS providers are required to provide the following features:
call release functionality (only with respect to the provision of TTY-
based TRS); speed dialing functionality; and three-way calling
functionality.
* * * * *
(b) Technical standards--(1) ASCII and Baudot. TTY service shall be
capable of communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed
generally in use. Other forms of TRS are not subject to this
requirement.
* * * * *
(3) Equal access to interexchange carriers. TRS users shall have
access to their chosen interexchange carrier through the TRS, and to
all other operator services to the same extent that such access is
provided to voice users. This requirement is inapplicable to providers
of Internet-based TRS if they do not assess specific charges for long
distance calling.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-24262 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P