Transition From TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, 7766-7770 [2017-01382]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7766
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies
to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory activities unless the
agency provides Congress, through
OMB, with an explanation of why using
these standards would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods;
sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies.
This NPRM does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this NPRM under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f, and we have made
a preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this categorical exclusion
determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ section of this preamble.
This NPRM involves regulations
concerning marine casualties and
proposes to update the monetary
threshold amounts for a reportable
marine casualty as well as the definition
of an SMI relative to property damage.
Thus, we expect that this NPRM would
likely be categorically excluded under
Section 2.b.2 and figure 2–1, paragraph
34(d) of the Instruction. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this NPRM.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Administrative practice and
procedure, Drug testing, Investigations,
Marine safety, National Transportation
Safety Board, Nuclear vessels, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 46 CFR part 4 as follows:
19:13 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
1. The authority citation for part 4
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 43 U.S.C. 1333;
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2303a, 2306, 6101, 6301, and
6305; 50 U.S.C. 198; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Subpart 4.40 issued under 49 U.S.C.
1903(a)(1)(E).
2. In § 4.03–2, revise paragraph (a) (3)
to read as follows:
■
§ 4.03–2
Serious marine incident.
(a) * * *
(3) Damage to property, as defined in
§ 4.05–1(a)(7) of this part, in excess of
$200,000;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 4.05–1, revise paragraph (a)(7)
to read as follows:
§ 4.05–1
Notice of marine casualty.
(a) * * *
(7) An occurrence causing propertydamage in excess of $72,000, this
damage including the cost of labor and
material to restore the property to its
condition before the occurrence, but not
including the cost of salvage, cleaning,
gas-freeing, drydocking, or demurrage.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 13, 2017.
V.B. Gifford,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of
Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017–01323 Filed 1–19–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 6, 7, 14, 64, and 67
[CG Docket No. 16–145 and GN Docket No.
15–178; FCC 16–169]
Transition From TTY to Real-Time Text
Technology
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on further
actions the Commission could
undertake to continue the transition
from outdated text telephony (TTY)
technology to a reliable and
interoperable means of providing realtime text (RTT) communication over
Internet Protocol (IP) enabled networks
and services for people who are deaf,
hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have a
speech disability.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments are due February 22,
2017. Reply Comments are due March
24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket No. 16–145 and
GN Docket No. 15–178, 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://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 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. 16–145 and
GN Docket No. 15–178.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
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:
Michael Scott, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202)
418–1264 or email Michael.Scott@
fcc.gov, or Suzy Rosen Singleton,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 510–9446 or email
Suzanne.Singleton@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates
indicated in the DATES section.
Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s ECFS. See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
DATES:
PART 4—MARINE CASUALTIES AND
INVESTIGATIONS
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
TITLE 46—SHIPPING
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
This is a summary of the
Commission’s document FCC 16–169,
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text
Technology, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, adopted December 15,
2016, and released December 16, 2016,
in CG Docket No. 16–145 and GN
Docket No. 15–178. The Report and
Order, FCC 16–169, adopted on
December 15, 2016, and released on
December 16, 2016, is published
elsewhere in this issue. The full text of
document FCC 16–169 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.
This proceeding shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
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 47 CFR
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
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).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
Document FCC 16–169 seeks
comment on proposed rule amendments
that may result in modified information
collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified
information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice
in the Federal Register inviting the
public to comment on the requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C.
3501–3520. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, the Commission seeks comment
on how it might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. Public Law 107–198; 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. Real-time text is a mode of
communication that permits text to be
sent immediately as it is being created.
The Commission’s proposed action
seeks to further ensure that people who
are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or
have a speech disability can fully utilize
and benefit from twenty-first century
communications technologies as the
United States migrates from legacy
circuit-switched systems to IP-based
networks and services.
2. In document FCC 16–169, the
Commission seeks further comment on:
• Setting an appropriate timeline or
trigger for the sunset of service
providers’ obligation to ensure
backward compatibility between realtime text (RTT) and text telephone
(TTY) technology, and a proposed date
of 2021 for this purpose;
• Integrating RTT into the provision
of telecommunications relay services
(TRS);
• Addressing the RTT needs of
people with cognitive disabilities and
people who are deaf-blind through the
provision of block mode and
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7767
connectivity with refreshable Braille
displays.
Establishing a Deadline To Sunset the
Obligation To Ensure RTT Is Backward
Compatible With TTY Technology
3. In document FCC 16–169, the
Commission concludes that it is
premature to establish a deadline to
sunset the obligation to ensure that
services and equipment that support
RTT is backward compatible with TTY
technology, until the Commission has
gathered additional information about
the deployment and effectiveness of the
transition from TTY to RTT technology.
The Commission believes that collecting
such information will be useful for a
Commission determination as to when
TTY users have transitioned to RTT to
a point that warrants elimination of the
backward compatibility requirement. To
this end, the Commission seeks
comment on the type of data and
metrics that can be used to monitor the
availability, adoption, and acceptance of
RTT services and devices. For example,
would it be useful to gather data on the
total number of end user devices
supporting RTT that are made available
for sale? Would it also be helpful to
track the adoption of RTT on services
and devices used by public safety
answering points (PSAPs), government
entities, and businesses? To assess the
impact of RTT on PSAPs without IP
connectivity, should the Commission
track the frequency of RTT-to-TTY 911
calls, and how should the Commission
address contingencies if there is an
adverse impact? To what extent can
service providers also gather data on
RTT usage by consumers? Next, the
Commission seeks input on when and
how such data should be reported. The
Commission currently requires wireless
service providers who have been
granted waivers of the TTY obligations
to report to the Commission semiannually on the progress of their RTT
implementation efforts. Should the
Commission require similar reports of
wireless and wireline service providers
and manufacturers? Should certain
actions, such as the grant of a waiver,
trigger a reporting requirement?
Alternatively, should any reporting
requirement be postponed until after the
requirements for the wireline transition
have been adopted? Are there other
reports collected by the Commission
through which it should collect this or
similar information on RTT?
4. The Commission notes that by
2021, Tier I wireless service providers
will have had the opportunity to
support RTT on their IP-based networks
for three years, manufacturers will have
been producing RTT-compliant
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
7768
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
equipment for two years, and smaller
wireless service providers will have
supported RTT on their network for at
least 18 months. For these reasons, and
because by such date, the Commission
expects to have data sufficient to assess
adoption of RTT technology, the
Commission proposes to set a sunset
date for RTT–TTY backward
compatibility of 2021 unless the
Commission finds a reason to extend
this deadline. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal, and whether
there is a different point in time when
it would be appropriate for the
Commission to reassess the need for
covered entities to continue supporting
TTY technology via backward
compatibility on their IP-based voice
service networks. For example, should
the Commission’s reassessment be tied
in any way to the implementation of the
deployment of RTT technology over
wireline networks, or should this
reassessment take place after the sunset
of the public switched
telecommunications network (PSTN)
and the transition of all consumers to
IP-based wireless and wireline
networks?
Requirements for TRS Providers
5. In document FCC 16–169, the
Commission allows wireless service
providers to support TRS access through
RTT technology, including via 711
abbreviated dialing access, in lieu of
supporting TRS through TTY
technology. The Commission further
clarifies that wireless service providers
transmitting such calls may comply
with these RTT support requirements by
ensuring that such communications are
backward compatible with the TTY
technology currently used in such call
centers. This approach is designed to
ensure that RTT users can place and
receive TRS calls through state TRS
program call centers even when such
centers are not equipped to receive RTT
calls.
6. Some forms of TRS are provided
over the PSTN, while others are made
available via IP networks. In the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
published at 81 FR 33170, May 25,
2016, preceding document FCC 16–169,
the Commission sought comment on
whether and how it should amend the
Commission’s TRS rules to authorize or
require other forms of TRS to
incorporate RTT capabilities into
platforms and terminal equipment used
with these services.
7. Comments in the record express a
variety of views as to the manner in
which RTT should be integrated into
TRS operations. The record in this
proceeding also contains extensive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
information about the benefits of RTT.
It would appear, therefore, that
integrating RTT into TRS operations
similarly would benefit text-reliant
users, and would fulfill a congressional
directive to the Commission to ensure
that TRS regulations ‘‘encourage . . .
the use of existing technology and do
not discourage or impair the
development of improved technology.’’
In other words, taking this action will
ensure that TRS users are able to benefit
from evolving technologies in what will
eventually be an all-IP environment.
8. However, before adopting rules
governing the provision of RTT as an
integrated component of TRS, the
Commission seeks additional comment
on the costs, benefits, and technical
feasibility of enabling this feature for
various forms of TRS, for both TRS
providers and TRS users. For example,
what changes would be needed in TRS
equipment (e.g., hardware, software, or
applications) to support RTT between
an IP-based TRS user and the
communications assistant (CA) or
between the parties to the call? Will
adoption of an RTT mandate require
TRS providers or users to purchase new
TRS equipment or updates to TRS
equipment software? To what extent
will providers have to modify their call
routing and handling features?
9. Additionally, the Commission
seeks comment on whether the
incorporation of RTT into the provision
of TRS operations should be mandated
or only allowed. Along these lines, the
Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate regulatory treatment for
RTT in the TRS context. Specifically,
given that RTT is a text-based form of
communication—as is TTY-based TRS
and IP Relay—should this feature be
subject to the same regulatory treatment
that applies to TTY-based TRS, or
would it be more appropriate to
consider this akin to IP Relay for
purposes of the Commission’s TRS
rules? For example, should the
Commission require RTT-based TRS
providers to meet the same mandatory
minimum standards as currently
applied to TTY-based TRS, such as call
release functionality? To what extent
should such providers be required to
handle emergency calls, and should
they adhere to the Commission’s rules
for TTY-based TRS or IP Relay TRS for
this purpose? Are there certain
mandatory minimum standards that
should not be applicable to RTT
technology?
10. Given that TTY-based TRS is a
mandated service for common carriers,
if the Commission requires the
provision of RTT–TRS, at what point in
the future should providers be relieved
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of their obligations to provide and
support TTY-based TRS? Should
wireline IP-based voice service
providers and equipment manufacturers
be required to support RTT before TRS
providers are required to support RTT?
11. At the same time that the
Commission recognizes that RTT has
the potential to improve TRS for certain
RTT users who choose to communicate
directly in text with another party, the
Commission agrees with commenters
that RTT should augment and
complement rather than supplant TRS,
and seeks comment on this belief.
Specifically, the Commission
acknowledges that some forms of TRS,
such as video relay service and speechto-speech service, may fulfill the needs
of people with disabilities who are not
text-reliant users. The Commission
therefore believes that the addition of
RTT as a TRS option should not
diminish the ability of individuals who
are reliant on these other forms of TRS
to continue having access to those
services. The Commission seeks
comment on this assumption.
12. Finally, the Commission seeks
input on the mechanisms that are
needed to ensure that the provision of
RTT–TRS by IP-based providers
effectively meets the communication
needs of TRS users. Should the
Commission require TRS providers to
support RTT to enable text-based
communication between the CA and the
text-reliant user; between the CA and
the other party to the call; or between
both parties to the call? Are there
technical challenges associated with
supporting RTT in situations where the
parties to the call are connected through
an IP-based TRS provider? Should the
Commission require IP captioned
telephone service (IP CTS) providers to
support RTT transmission in any voice
channels they provide and in any offthe-shelf equipment provided to IP CTS
users? Would the use of conversation
windows help an IP CTS user
distinguish between a direct RTT
communication received from the other
party and text generated by an IP CTS
relay operator? Are there technical
standards the Commission should adopt
for the provision of RTT by IP-based
TRS providers? The Commission seeks
comment specifically on the costs,
benefits, and feasibility of requiring IPbased TRS providers to incorporate RTT
capability into the provision of their
services and on other related matters.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on the appropriate timeline for adopting
RTT requirements for IP-based TRS
providers.
13. Impact of RTT on TRS. In the
NPRM, the Commission assumed that
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
because RTT will provide greater
opportunities for direct, point-to-point
text communications and can enable
text to be intermixed with voice, it can
reduce reliance on relay services to the
extent RTT capabilities in end user
devices become ubiquitous as a
universal text solution. The Commission
similarly noted that RTT could enhance
the ability of TRS to provide
functionally equivalent telephone
service for those individuals who
continue to rely on TRS as their
communication method. AT&T agrees
that it is important to review the
potential impacts of RTT on TRS, and
specifically to assess the need to adjust
the TRS Fund supporting these services
as this impact becomes clearer. The
Commission seeks comment on the best
methodology to determine the extent to
which RTT reduces reliance on TRS.
Additionally, how can the Commission
best determine the extent to which the
introduction of RTT increases TRS use
among some consumers because it
enhances the ability of TRS to provide
functionally equivalent telephone
service? Should any data collected on
the effect that RTT has on TRS wait
until wireline networks transition from
TTY technology to RTT? What other
information should the Commission
consider in determining whether the
availability and use of RTT necessitates
changes to the TRS program or its
funding?
Other RTT Features
14. In the NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether it is
possible to identify certain RTT features
or functional capabilities that are
necessary to meet the communication
needs of individuals who are deaf-blind,
people with cognitive disabilities, or
other specific segments of the disability
community. Some commenters suggest
that slowing down an RTT text display
is necessary for refreshable Braille
displays. They also suggest enabling
Braille display users to suspend
incoming text when the user is typing,
because receiving text while typing on
a Braille keyboard could cause
confusion. The Commission seeks
comment on whether these and similar
features can enhance service providers’
and manufacturers’ ability to meet
performance objectives under 47 CFR
parts 6, 7, and 14 for individuals who
use refreshable Braille displays,
including people who are deaf-blind.
The Commission also seeks further
comment on the technical and practical
challenges of supporting compatibility
with refreshable Braille displays and
similar assistive technologies. What
current steps are being taken to examine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
these issues? Is there a potential
timeline for resolving concerns to
support the use of refreshable Braille
displays with RTT?
15. Block mode allows the user to
hold onto a text communication while
it is being composed, and then send it
in its entirety, in a manner akin to short
message service (SMS) or text
messaging. This enables the user to edit
individual characters and groups of
words before sending a message. Some
commenters agree that block mode is a
desirable option that would enhance
effective communication for certain
individuals and in certain situations.
The Commission seeks further comment
on the extent to which offering a block
mode option will enhance service
providers’ and manufacturers’ ability to
meet part 6, 7, and 14 performance
objectives for people with certain types
of disabilities.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
16. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities by the policies and rules
proposed in document FCC 16–169.
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 specified in the DATES
section. The Commission will send a
copy of document FCC 16–169, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
17. In document FCC 16–169, the
Commission seeks comment on:
• Setting an appropriate timeline or
trigger for the sunset of service
providers’ obligation to ensure
backward compatibility between RTT
and TTY technology, and a proposal of
a date of 2021 for this purpose;
• Integrating RTT into the provision
of TRS; and
• Addressing the RTT needs of
people with cognitive disabilities and
people who are deaf-blind through the
provision of block mode transmission
and through connectivity with
refreshable Braille displays.
Legal Basis
18. The proposed action is authorized
under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 225, 251, 255,
303, 316, and 716 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, section 6 of the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7769
of 1999, and section 106 of the CVAA;
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 225, 255, 303,
316, 615a–1, 615c, 617.
Listing of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
19. The majority of the proposals in
document FCC 16–169 will affect
obligations on telecommunications
carriers and providers, VoIP service
providers, wireline and wireless service
providers, advanced communications
services (ACS) providers, and
telecommunications equipment and
software manufacturers. Other entities,
however, that choose to object to the
substitution of RTT for TTY technology
under the Commission’s amended rules
may be economically impacted by
document FCC 16–169.
• Wired Telecommunications
Carriers;
• Local Exchange Carriers (LECs);
• Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
(Incumbent LECs);
• Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers;
• Interexchange Carriers;
• Other Toll Carriers;
• Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite);
• Cable Companies and Systems
(Rate Regulation);
• All Other Telecommunications;
• TRS Providers;
• Electronic Computer
Manufacturing;
• Telephone Apparatus
Manufacturing (wireline);
• Computer Terminal and Other
Computer Peripheral Equipment
Manufacturing;
• Radio and Television Broadcasting
and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing;
• Other Communications Equipment
Manufacturing; and
• Software Publishers
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
20. In document FCC 16–169, the
Commission seeks comment on
integrating RTT into the provision of
TRS, requiring certain additional
features and capabilities of RTT, and the
appropriate timeline to sunset the
requirement for backward compatibility
of RTT with TTY technology. With the
following exception, these proposals do
not include new or modified reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements. Specifically, in document
16–169, the Commission seeks comment
on the type of data that should be
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
7770
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
collected to help determine the extent to
which RTT reduces reliance on TRS or
alternatively the extent to which the
introduction of RTT increases TRS use
among some consumers because it has
enhanced the ability of TRS to provide
functionally equivalent telephone
service.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
21. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.’’
22. In document FCC 16–169, the
Commission seeks comment on the type
of data and metrics that can be used to
monitor the availability, adoption, and
acceptance of RTT services and devices.
This information is intended to help the
Commission determine when TTY users
have transitioned to RTT to a point that
would warrant elimination of the
requirement for RTT to be backward
compatible with TTY. While the
collection of data may initially burden
small businesses, the eventual sunset of
the obligation to ensure that RTT is
backward compatible with TTY will in
the long run reduce the burden for small
entities and emergency call centers to
maintain TTY technology and backward
compatibility capability.
23. The Commission also seeks
comments on the costs, benefits,
feasibility, and appropriate timeline for
requiring IP-based TRS providers to
incorporate RTT capability into the
provision of their services. The
information requested will inform the
Commission of concerns with the
transition and appropriate timelines for
all entities, which will allow the
Commission to consider rules and
implementation deadlines that
minimize burdens and relieve possible
adverse economic impact on small
entities. The Commission’s gathering of
information to determine the effect of
RTT on TRS services and the TRS Fund
will allow the Commission to consider
changes to the rules that may minimize
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
burdens and relieve possible adverse
economic impact on small entities.
24. In document FCC 16–169, the
Commission also seeks comment on
identifying certain RTT features or
functional capabilities, such as
compatibility with refreshable braille
displays and block mode transmission,
that are necessary to meet the
communication needs of individuals
who are deaf-blind, people with
cognitive disabilities, or other specific
segments of the disability community.
In seeking comments on feasibility, the
Commission seeks to integrate flexibility
into the requirements to take into
consideration the limitations of small
businesses. Because the Commission
will require implementation of these
features only if achievable, the
Commission anticipates that there will
be little to no impact on small entities
that would claim the requirement is not
achievable.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the
Commission’s Proposals
25. None.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 4(i), 225, 255,
301, 303(r), 316, 403, 715, and 716 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and section 106 of the CVAA,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 225, 255, 301, 303(r),
316, 403, 615c, 616, 617, document FCC
16–169 is adopted.
The Commission’s Consumer
Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
document FCC 16–169, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Howard,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–01382 Filed 1–19–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 1
[FAR Case 2016–005; Docket No. 2016–
0005; Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000–AN29
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Effective Communication Between
Government and Industry; Extension
of Time for Comments
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
DoD, GSA, and NASA issued
a proposed rule (FAR Case 2016–005)
on November 29, 2016, amending the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement a section of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016. This rule clarifies that
agency acquisition personnel are
permitted and encouraged to engage in
responsible and constructive exchanges
with industry, so long as those
exchanges are consistent with existing
law and regulation and do not promote
an unfair competitive advantage to
particular firms. The deadline for
submitting comments is being extended
from January 30, 2017 to March 2, 2017
to provide additional time for interested
parties to provide comments on the FAR
case.
DATES: For the proposed rule published
on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 85914),
submit comments by March 2, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in
response to FAR Case 2016–005 by any
of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2016–005’’.
Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that
corresponds with ‘‘FAR Case 2016–
005.’’ Follow the instructions provided
at the ‘‘Comment Now’’ screen. Please
include your name, company name (if
any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2016–005’’ on your
attached document.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers,
1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor,
Washington, DC 20405.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite FAR Case 2016–005, in all
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM
23JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7766-7770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01382]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 6, 7, 14, 64, and 67
[CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178; FCC 16-169]
Transition From TTY to Real-Time Text Technology
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on further
actions the Commission could undertake to continue the transition from
outdated text telephony (TTY) technology to a reliable and
interoperable means of providing real-time text (RTT) communication
over Internet Protocol (IP) enabled networks and services for people
who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have a speech disability.
DATES: Comments are due February 22, 2017. Reply Comments are due March
24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 16-145
and GN Docket No. 15-178, 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://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 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. 16-145 and GN Docket
No. 15-178.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
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: Michael Scott, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-1264 or email
Michael.Scott@fcc.gov, or Suzy Rosen Singleton, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 510-9446 or email
Suzanne.Singleton@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates
indicated in the DATES section. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
[[Page 7767]]
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
This is a summary of the Commission's document FCC 16-169,
Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, adopted December 15, 2016, and released December
16, 2016, in CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178. The Report
and Order, FCC 16-169, adopted on December 15, 2016, and released on
December 16, 2016, is published elsewhere in this issue. The full text
of document FCC 16-169 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. This proceeding shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 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 themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
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).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 16-169 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the
Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. Real-time text is a mode of communication that permits text to
be sent immediately as it is being created. The Commission's proposed
action seeks to further ensure that people who are deaf, hard of
hearing, deaf-blind, or have a speech disability can fully utilize and
benefit from twenty-first century communications technologies as the
United States migrates from legacy circuit-switched systems to IP-based
networks and services.
2. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission seeks further comment on:
Setting an appropriate timeline or trigger for the sunset
of service providers' obligation to ensure backward compatibility
between real-time text (RTT) and text telephone (TTY) technology, and a
proposed date of 2021 for this purpose;
Integrating RTT into the provision of telecommunications
relay services (TRS);
Addressing the RTT needs of people with cognitive
disabilities and people who are deaf-blind through the provision of
block mode and connectivity with refreshable Braille displays.
Establishing a Deadline To Sunset the Obligation To Ensure RTT Is
Backward Compatible With TTY Technology
3. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission concludes that it is
premature to establish a deadline to sunset the obligation to ensure
that services and equipment that support RTT is backward compatible
with TTY technology, until the Commission has gathered additional
information about the deployment and effectiveness of the transition
from TTY to RTT technology. The Commission believes that collecting
such information will be useful for a Commission determination as to
when TTY users have transitioned to RTT to a point that warrants
elimination of the backward compatibility requirement. To this end, the
Commission seeks comment on the type of data and metrics that can be
used to monitor the availability, adoption, and acceptance of RTT
services and devices. For example, would it be useful to gather data on
the total number of end user devices supporting RTT that are made
available for sale? Would it also be helpful to track the adoption of
RTT on services and devices used by public safety answering points
(PSAPs), government entities, and businesses? To assess the impact of
RTT on PSAPs without IP connectivity, should the Commission track the
frequency of RTT-to-TTY 911 calls, and how should the Commission
address contingencies if there is an adverse impact? To what extent can
service providers also gather data on RTT usage by consumers? Next, the
Commission seeks input on when and how such data should be reported.
The Commission currently requires wireless service providers who have
been granted waivers of the TTY obligations to report to the Commission
semi-annually on the progress of their RTT implementation efforts.
Should the Commission require similar reports of wireless and wireline
service providers and manufacturers? Should certain actions, such as
the grant of a waiver, trigger a reporting requirement? Alternatively,
should any reporting requirement be postponed until after the
requirements for the wireline transition have been adopted? Are there
other reports collected by the Commission through which it should
collect this or similar information on RTT?
4. The Commission notes that by 2021, Tier I wireless service
providers will have had the opportunity to support RTT on their IP-
based networks for three years, manufacturers will have been producing
RTT-compliant
[[Page 7768]]
equipment for two years, and smaller wireless service providers will
have supported RTT on their network for at least 18 months. For these
reasons, and because by such date, the Commission expects to have data
sufficient to assess adoption of RTT technology, the Commission
proposes to set a sunset date for RTT-TTY backward compatibility of
2021 unless the Commission finds a reason to extend this deadline. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal, and whether there is a
different point in time when it would be appropriate for the Commission
to reassess the need for covered entities to continue supporting TTY
technology via backward compatibility on their IP-based voice service
networks. For example, should the Commission's reassessment be tied in
any way to the implementation of the deployment of RTT technology over
wireline networks, or should this reassessment take place after the
sunset of the public switched telecommunications network (PSTN) and the
transition of all consumers to IP-based wireless and wireline networks?
Requirements for TRS Providers
5. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission allows wireless service
providers to support TRS access through RTT technology, including via
711 abbreviated dialing access, in lieu of supporting TRS through TTY
technology. The Commission further clarifies that wireless service
providers transmitting such calls may comply with these RTT support
requirements by ensuring that such communications are backward
compatible with the TTY technology currently used in such call centers.
This approach is designed to ensure that RTT users can place and
receive TRS calls through state TRS program call centers even when such
centers are not equipped to receive RTT calls.
6. Some forms of TRS are provided over the PSTN, while others are
made available via IP networks. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), published at 81 FR 33170, May 25, 2016, preceding document FCC
16-169, the Commission sought comment on whether and how it should
amend the Commission's TRS rules to authorize or require other forms of
TRS to incorporate RTT capabilities into platforms and terminal
equipment used with these services.
7. Comments in the record express a variety of views as to the
manner in which RTT should be integrated into TRS operations. The
record in this proceeding also contains extensive information about the
benefits of RTT. It would appear, therefore, that integrating RTT into
TRS operations similarly would benefit text-reliant users, and would
fulfill a congressional directive to the Commission to ensure that TRS
regulations ``encourage . . . the use of existing technology and do not
discourage or impair the development of improved technology.'' In other
words, taking this action will ensure that TRS users are able to
benefit from evolving technologies in what will eventually be an all-IP
environment.
8. However, before adopting rules governing the provision of RTT as
an integrated component of TRS, the Commission seeks additional comment
on the costs, benefits, and technical feasibility of enabling this
feature for various forms of TRS, for both TRS providers and TRS users.
For example, what changes would be needed in TRS equipment (e.g.,
hardware, software, or applications) to support RTT between an IP-based
TRS user and the communications assistant (CA) or between the parties
to the call? Will adoption of an RTT mandate require TRS providers or
users to purchase new TRS equipment or updates to TRS equipment
software? To what extent will providers have to modify their call
routing and handling features?
9. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
incorporation of RTT into the provision of TRS operations should be
mandated or only allowed. Along these lines, the Commission seeks
comment on the appropriate regulatory treatment for RTT in the TRS
context. Specifically, given that RTT is a text-based form of
communication--as is TTY-based TRS and IP Relay--should this feature be
subject to the same regulatory treatment that applies to TTY-based TRS,
or would it be more appropriate to consider this akin to IP Relay for
purposes of the Commission's TRS rules? For example, should the
Commission require RTT-based TRS providers to meet the same mandatory
minimum standards as currently applied to TTY-based TRS, such as call
release functionality? To what extent should such providers be required
to handle emergency calls, and should they adhere to the Commission's
rules for TTY-based TRS or IP Relay TRS for this purpose? Are there
certain mandatory minimum standards that should not be applicable to
RTT technology?
10. Given that TTY-based TRS is a mandated service for common
carriers, if the Commission requires the provision of RTT-TRS, at what
point in the future should providers be relieved of their obligations
to provide and support TTY-based TRS? Should wireline IP-based voice
service providers and equipment manufacturers be required to support
RTT before TRS providers are required to support RTT?
11. At the same time that the Commission recognizes that RTT has
the potential to improve TRS for certain RTT users who choose to
communicate directly in text with another party, the Commission agrees
with commenters that RTT should augment and complement rather than
supplant TRS, and seeks comment on this belief. Specifically, the
Commission acknowledges that some forms of TRS, such as video relay
service and speech-to-speech service, may fulfill the needs of people
with disabilities who are not text-reliant users. The Commission
therefore believes that the addition of RTT as a TRS option should not
diminish the ability of individuals who are reliant on these other
forms of TRS to continue having access to those services. The
Commission seeks comment on this assumption.
12. Finally, the Commission seeks input on the mechanisms that are
needed to ensure that the provision of RTT-TRS by IP-based providers
effectively meets the communication needs of TRS users. Should the
Commission require TRS providers to support RTT to enable text-based
communication between the CA and the text-reliant user; between the CA
and the other party to the call; or between both parties to the call?
Are there technical challenges associated with supporting RTT in
situations where the parties to the call are connected through an IP-
based TRS provider? Should the Commission require IP captioned
telephone service (IP CTS) providers to support RTT transmission in any
voice channels they provide and in any off-the-shelf equipment provided
to IP CTS users? Would the use of conversation windows help an IP CTS
user distinguish between a direct RTT communication received from the
other party and text generated by an IP CTS relay operator? Are there
technical standards the Commission should adopt for the provision of
RTT by IP-based TRS providers? The Commission seeks comment
specifically on the costs, benefits, and feasibility of requiring IP-
based TRS providers to incorporate RTT capability into the provision of
their services and on other related matters. Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on the appropriate timeline for adopting RTT requirements
for IP-based TRS providers.
13. Impact of RTT on TRS. In the NPRM, the Commission assumed that
[[Page 7769]]
because RTT will provide greater opportunities for direct, point-to-
point text communications and can enable text to be intermixed with
voice, it can reduce reliance on relay services to the extent RTT
capabilities in end user devices become ubiquitous as a universal text
solution. The Commission similarly noted that RTT could enhance the
ability of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone service for
those individuals who continue to rely on TRS as their communication
method. AT&T agrees that it is important to review the potential
impacts of RTT on TRS, and specifically to assess the need to adjust
the TRS Fund supporting these services as this impact becomes clearer.
The Commission seeks comment on the best methodology to determine the
extent to which RTT reduces reliance on TRS. Additionally, how can the
Commission best determine the extent to which the introduction of RTT
increases TRS use among some consumers because it enhances the ability
of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone service? Should any
data collected on the effect that RTT has on TRS wait until wireline
networks transition from TTY technology to RTT? What other information
should the Commission consider in determining whether the availability
and use of RTT necessitates changes to the TRS program or its funding?
Other RTT Features
14. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it is
possible to identify certain RTT features or functional capabilities
that are necessary to meet the communication needs of individuals who
are deaf-blind, people with cognitive disabilities, or other specific
segments of the disability community. Some commenters suggest that
slowing down an RTT text display is necessary for refreshable Braille
displays. They also suggest enabling Braille display users to suspend
incoming text when the user is typing, because receiving text while
typing on a Braille keyboard could cause confusion. The Commission
seeks comment on whether these and similar features can enhance service
providers' and manufacturers' ability to meet performance objectives
under 47 CFR parts 6, 7, and 14 for individuals who use refreshable
Braille displays, including people who are deaf-blind. The Commission
also seeks further comment on the technical and practical challenges of
supporting compatibility with refreshable Braille displays and similar
assistive technologies. What current steps are being taken to examine
these issues? Is there a potential timeline for resolving concerns to
support the use of refreshable Braille displays with RTT?
15. Block mode allows the user to hold onto a text communication
while it is being composed, and then send it in its entirety, in a
manner akin to short message service (SMS) or text messaging. This
enables the user to edit individual characters and groups of words
before sending a message. Some commenters agree that block mode is a
desirable option that would enhance effective communication for certain
individuals and in certain situations. The Commission seeks further
comment on the extent to which offering a block mode option will
enhance service providers' and manufacturers' ability to meet part 6,
7, and 14 performance objectives for people with certain types of
disabilities.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed
in document FCC 16-169. 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 specified in the DATES section. The
Commission will send a copy of document FCC 16-169, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
17. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission seeks comment on:
Setting an appropriate timeline or trigger for the sunset
of service providers' obligation to ensure backward compatibility
between RTT and TTY technology, and a proposal of a date of 2021 for
this purpose;
Integrating RTT into the provision of TRS; and
Addressing the RTT needs of people with cognitive
disabilities and people who are deaf-blind through the provision of
block mode transmission and through connectivity with refreshable
Braille displays.
Legal Basis
18. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i),
225, 251, 255, 303, 316, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, section 6 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act
of 1999, and section 106 of the CVAA; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 225,
255, 303, 316, 615a-1, 615c, 617.
Listing of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
19. The majority of the proposals in document FCC 16-169 will
affect obligations on telecommunications carriers and providers, VoIP
service providers, wireline and wireless service providers, advanced
communications services (ACS) providers, and telecommunications
equipment and software manufacturers. Other entities, however, that
choose to object to the substitution of RTT for TTY technology under
the Commission's amended rules may be economically impacted by document
FCC 16-169.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers;
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs);
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs);
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers;
Interexchange Carriers;
Other Toll Carriers;
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite);
Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation);
All Other Telecommunications;
TRS Providers;
Electronic Computer Manufacturing;
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing (wireline);
Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment
Manufacturing;
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing;
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing; and
Software Publishers
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
20. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission seeks comment on
integrating RTT into the provision of TRS, requiring certain additional
features and capabilities of RTT, and the appropriate timeline to
sunset the requirement for backward compatibility of RTT with TTY
technology. With the following exception, these proposals do not
include new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements. Specifically, in document 16-169, the Commission seeks
comment on the type of data that should be
[[Page 7770]]
collected to help determine the extent to which RTT reduces reliance on
TRS or alternatively the extent to which the introduction of RTT
increases TRS use among some consumers because it has enhanced the
ability of TRS to provide functionally equivalent telephone service.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
22. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission seeks comment on the
type of data and metrics that can be used to monitor the availability,
adoption, and acceptance of RTT services and devices. This information
is intended to help the Commission determine when TTY users have
transitioned to RTT to a point that would warrant elimination of the
requirement for RTT to be backward compatible with TTY. While the
collection of data may initially burden small businesses, the eventual
sunset of the obligation to ensure that RTT is backward compatible with
TTY will in the long run reduce the burden for small entities and
emergency call centers to maintain TTY technology and backward
compatibility capability.
23. The Commission also seeks comments on the costs, benefits,
feasibility, and appropriate timeline for requiring IP-based TRS
providers to incorporate RTT capability into the provision of their
services. The information requested will inform the Commission of
concerns with the transition and appropriate timelines for all
entities, which will allow the Commission to consider rules and
implementation deadlines that minimize burdens and relieve possible
adverse economic impact on small entities. The Commission's gathering
of information to determine the effect of RTT on TRS services and the
TRS Fund will allow the Commission to consider changes to the rules
that may minimize burdens and relieve possible adverse economic impact
on small entities.
24. In document FCC 16-169, the Commission also seeks comment on
identifying certain RTT features or functional capabilities, such as
compatibility with refreshable braille displays and block mode
transmission, that are necessary to meet the communication needs of
individuals who are deaf-blind, people with cognitive disabilities, or
other specific segments of the disability community. In seeking
comments on feasibility, the Commission seeks to integrate flexibility
into the requirements to take into consideration the limitations of
small businesses. Because the Commission will require implementation of
these features only if achievable, the Commission anticipates that
there will be little to no impact on small entities that would claim
the requirement is not achievable.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Commission's Proposals
25. None.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to sections 4(i), 225, 255, 301, 303(r), 316, 403, 715,
and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 106
of the CVAA, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 225, 255, 301, 303(r), 316, 403, 615c,
616, 617, document FCC 16-169 is adopted.
The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information
Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 16-169, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Howard,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01382 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
