[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49717-49720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19787]
[[Page 49717]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 08-15 and 03-123; FCC 13-101]
Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech
Telecommunications Relay Services; Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on possible
actions to enhance the knowledge and use of Speech-to-Speech (STS)
relay service by persons with speech disabilities. It has been
estimated by consumer advocates that only one percent of prospective
users are currently using the service. Thus, amendments to the
Commission's rules may be necessary to ensure that persons with speech
disabilities have access to relay services that address their unique
needs, in furtherance of the objectives of section 225 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) to provide relay
services in a manner that is functionally equivalent to conventional
telephone voice services.
DATES: Comments are due September 16, 2013 and reply comments are due
September 30, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 08-15
and 03-123, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site
for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service
mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 08-15 and 03-123.
Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the
Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal
Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to
[email protected] mailto:[email protected]. For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Hlibok, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 559-
5158, or email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech
Telecommunications Relay Services; Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), document
FCC 13-101, adopted on July 19, 2013, and released on July 19, 2013, in
CG Docket Nos. 08-15 and 03-123. In document FCC 13-101, the Commission
adopted an accompanying Report and Order (Order), which is summarized
in a separate Federal Register Publication. The full text of document
FCC 13-101 will be available for public inspection and copying via
ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800)
378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563, or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com http://www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 13-101 can also be downloaded in Word or
Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://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 [email protected]
mailto:[email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 13-101 does not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. Although the Commission approved STS as a compensable relay
service in 2000, demand for this service has remained relatively
modest, and its growth has been slow compared with other forms of
telecommunications relay services (TRS) notwithstanding the sizeable
population of people in the United States who have speech disabilities.
The 2010 STS Petition alleges that outreach efforts over the last
decade have only resulted in the use of STS by an estimated one percent
of prospective users. Bob Segalman and Rebecca Ladew, Petition for
Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123 (2010 STS Petition).
2. To ensure that individuals with speech disabilities who need STS
become aware of its availability and how to access these services, the
Commission has been supplementing the STS interstate per minute rate to
include additional funds for STS outreach activities for the past six
years. However, this supplemental funding has not increased the number
of interstate STS minutes of use by any significant amount over the
past several years and, since 2009, the TRS Fund administrator has
suggested in each of its annual rate filings that the Commission may
wish to revisit this additional funding to determine whether there is a
more effective way to inform consumers with speech disabilities about
the availability of this service.
3. The Commission would like to learn more about the reasons that
STS
[[Page 49718]]
has not been more widely utilized. Are people with speech disabilities
not connected to an organized or culturally identified disability
community that could provide them with information and resources about
assistive technologies and services that can be of use to them? Are
there other reasons why this service is not more widely utilized? The
Commission seeks comment on the number of individuals with speech
disabilities who are potential users of this service and what steps can
be taken to ensure that individuals who could benefit from STS can use
this service. The Commission specifically asks whether it would be more
efficient and effective to utilize a single entity to conduct
nationwide STS outreach, instead of continuing the current system of
providing outreach funds to each of the individual interstate STS
providers through the STS compensation formula.
4. The Commission tentatively concludes that centralizing STS
outreach efforts supported by the Fund in a single, coordinated entity
can result in more effectively reaching and educating a greater portion
of the population of Americans who could benefit from this service, and
seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. The Commission believes
that the section 225 of the Act directive for the Commission to
prescribe regulations that ensure relay services are ``available . . .
in the most efficient manner'' makes it appropriate to take new steps
to better educate the public about the purpose and functions of STS and
provides the Commission with sufficient authority to direct that a
national STS outreach effort be funded for this purpose from TRS
contributions as a necessary cost caused by TRS. The Commission asks
commenters whether they agree with this assessment. The Commission
further asks commenters whether, given that the Commission has resolved
to establish the Internet-based TRS National Outreach Program (iTRS-
NOP) for Internet protocol relay service (IP Relay) and video relay
service (VRS), the Commission should bundle national STS outreach
efforts into this national outreach program. What are the costs and
benefits of combining these efforts? Are there efficiencies to be
gained in contracting with a single entity or a group of single
entities for all types of TRS outreach? Or are there characteristics of
STS or the population served by this service that necessitate a
separate outreach effort? If the latter, the Commission asks commenters
to describe these characteristics, as well as any criteria needed for
the selection of a national STS outreach coordinator that should be
different from the criteria used to select a national coordinator of
VRS and IP Relay outreach. Additionally, if the Commission or the
Interstate TRS Fund administrator contracts with a single entity for
the handling of STS calls, and it decides on a national outreach effort
that is separate from the iTRS-NOP, the Commission seek comments on
whether the entity selected to provide STS also should be eligible to
become the national STS outreach coordinator, or whether the outreach
coordinator should be independent of any provider of STS.
5. The Commission also seeks comment on the criteria that should be
used to select a nationwide outreach program coordinator, as well as
the outreach activities for which such coordinator should be
responsible. With respect to the latter, the Commission seeks feedback
on whether the coordinator should be required to engage in the
following activities, as well as any other activities not identified
below:
Consulting with consumer groups, STS providers, the TRS
Fund administrator, and other STS stakeholders;
Establishing clear and concise messaging about the
purposes, functions, and benefits of STS;
Contacting and providing direct outreach and education to
relevant medical, disability and senior citizen organizations,
associations and medical professionals whose constituencies, members,
and patients are likely to benefit from STS;
Determining media outlets and other appropriate avenues
for providing information about STS to identified medical, disability,
and senior citizen organizations, associations, and professionals, the
general public and potential new-to-category subscribers;
Preparing for and arranging for publication, press
releases, announcements, digital postcards, newsletters, and media
spots about STS that are directed to identified medical, disability,
and senior citizen organizations, associations, and professionals, as
well as retailers and other businesses, including trade associations;
Creating electronic and media tool kits that include
samples of the materials listed in the previous bullet, and which may
also include templates, all of which will be for the purpose of
facilitating the preparation and distribution of such materials by
consumer and industry associations, governmental entities, and other
STS stakeholders;
Providing materials to local, state, and national
governmental agencies on the purposes, functions, and benefits of STS;
and
Exploring opportunities to partner and collaborate with
other entities to disseminate information about STS.
1. The Commission proposes that an entity selected by the
Commission or the Interstate TRS Fund administrator to coordinate such
outreach be required to work with and submit periodic reports to the
Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and to the
Managing Director, which reports measure and describe the effectiveness
of the entity's outreach efforts. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there should be
specified levels of outreach activities that the STS national outreach
coordinator should be required to meet, and how and by whom these
levels should be set and evaluated. If a national outreach program is
established, the Commission proposes that the additional amount
currently added to the STS per minute rate for outreach is discontinued
from future rates, and seeks comment on this proposal. If the
Commission chooses not to continue reimbursing the cost of outreach
activities on a per minute basis to providers, it seeks feedback on
whether a specified amount should be set aside from the Fund on an
annual basis for nationwide outreach activities, what this amount
should be, and how it should be determined. Finally, should the cost of
providing STS as well as STS outreach be allocated between the
Interstate TRS Fund and the state program funds, and, if so, how?
2. In recent years, the Commission has undertaken significant
efforts to ensure that its Internet-based TRS programs are structurally
sound and are free from waste, fraud and abuse. Of particular concern
to the Commission is making sure that only those individuals who are
truly eligible for different forms of TRS are allowed to use these
services. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on how to establish
rules to clearly define and oversee the eligibility, registration, and
verification of STS users. As an initial matter, the Commission notes
that in the VRS Reform Order, the Commission recently directed the
creation of a user registration database for VRS users. Structure and
Practices of Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos.
[[Page 49719]]
03-123 and 10-51, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, published at 77 FR 25609, May 1, 2012 (VRS Structural
Reform Order). Should STS providers be required to use this database to
register all individuals seeking to use STS, whether STS is provided by
a single provider or if it remains with the states? As part of the
registration process, should users be permitted to provide self-
certification that they have a speech disability? The Commission seeks
comment on the costs and benefits associated with a certification
requirement, as well as whether such requirements will effectively
fulfill Congress's directive to the Commission, in section 225 of the
Act, to ensure that TRS is available, ``to the extent possible and in
the most efficient manner,'' to persons with hearing and speech
disabilities. Finally, the Commission proposes that any certification
ultimately required by the Commission's rules be made under penalty of
perjury as an added layer of assurance that the individual's disability
satisfies the Commission's eligibility requirements and seeks comment
on this proposal. Commenters who do not believe these certification
proposals are appropriate should offer alternative requirements that
can be used to ensure that only eligible individuals who are intended
to benefit from this service (i.e., who need STS to communicate in a
manner that is functionally equivalent to communication by voice
telephone users) are permitted to use it.
3. The Commission further asks whether it should adopt a
centralized process by which the identities of STS users are verified,
as the Commission has done in the VRS Structural Reform Order. In that
Order, the Commission directed the Managing Director to ensure that a
centralized user registration database has the capability of performing
an identification verification check when a VRS provider or other party
submits a query to the database about an existing or potential user and
that the criteria for identification verification (e.g., information to
be submitted, acceptable level of risk, etc.) be established by the
Managing Director in consultation with the Commission's Chief
Technology Officer and the Chief of the Office of Engineering and
Technology. In addition, the Commission required that VRS providers not
be permitted to register individuals that do not pass the
identification verification check conducted through the user
registration database, and not seek compensation for calls placed by
such individuals. The Commission asks whether the same requirements
should now apply to STS providers.
4. In the 2008 STS NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that
IP STS providers would not need to meet the following TRS mandatory
minimum standards to be eligible for compensation: (1) CA competency in
typing and spelling; (2) ensuring that TTY calls over TRS can be
transmitted in ASCII and Baudot formats; (3) call release; (4) hearing
carry over (HCO) and voice carry over (VCO) services; (5) equal access
to interexchange carriers; (6) pay-per-call (900) service; and (7)
outbound 711 dialing. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-
Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities;
Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) Speech-to-Speech
Telecommunications Relay Service, CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 08-15,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 73 FR 47120, August 13,
2008 (2008 STS NPRM). The Commission now proposes to amend its rules to
state that the standards for (a) CA competency in typing and spelling,
(b) ensuring that TTY calls over TRS can be transmitted in ASCII and
Baudot formats, (c) call release, and (d) VCO services not be applied
to any form of STS because they are inapplicable to this service, and
it seeks comment on this proposal.
5. The Commission also seeks comment on whether STS user profiles
should be immediately available to an STS CA each time an STS user
places a call, to allow the provider to provide a better and more
``consistent STS relay experience'' for users. Additionally, when an
STS user is silent and does not say ``good-bye,'' should the CA not
terminate the call until at least 60 seconds has passed so that the
call will not be disconnected prematurely? Should the FCC establish an
STS Advisory Council for the purpose of formulating an STS outreach
plan? Should the Commission establish a mandatory minimum standard for
training of CAs who handle STS calls or any other mandatory minimum
standards that are specific to STS? Finally, the Commission seeks
information about any technological advances in end user equipment
since the submissions of the petitions in this proceeding that may bear
on the provision of this service.
6. To what extent should providers be required to allow STS users
to create caller profiles? Such profiles generally allow users to pre-
submit their preferences for call handling, including their contact
information (for emergencies), language preferences, and speed dial
numbers, which may speed up the time needed for STS call set-up. If
providers should be required to offer caller profiles, what should
users be allowed to include in these profiles? What are the costs and
benefits of mandating the availability of profiles?
7. Finally, are there other enhancements to STS that the Commission
should know about? For example, one provider recently implemented a
national wireless short code to make it easier to place or receive STS
calls. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits of using such a
code nationwide.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., as amended, the Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in
this Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments in the Notice. The Commission will send a
copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
1. Speech-to-speech (STS) relay service is a form of
telecommunications relay service (TRS) that utilizes specially trained
communications assistants (CAs) who understand the speech patterns of
persons with speech disabilities and can repeat the words spoken by
such individuals to the other parties to a relayed call. In the Notice,
the Commission seeks comment on four main issues. First, the Commission
seeks comment on ways to improve outreach to increase awareness and
utilization for STS, and whether the Commission should contract with a
single entity to educate potential users about the service's
availability. Second, to ensure the integrity and long term
sustainability of the service and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt consumer
eligibility, registration, and verification requirements to ensure that
only individuals with speech disabilities who need the service can use
it. Third, the Commission seeks comment on whether certain mandatory
minimum standards are inapplicable to STS, including CA competency in
typing and spelling, transmission format of TTY
[[Page 49720]]
calls, call release of a CA from a call with only two TTY users, and
voice carry over (VCO), where a person with a hearing disability speaks
to the other party to the call, but receives the other party's spoken
words as text from the CA. Fourth, the Commission seeks comment on
whether to adopt requirements for STS providers to facilitate the
ability of STS users to create caller profiles. The Commission
tentatively concludes that these proposed rule changes may be necessary
to improve the efficiency of the STS program and to ensure effective,
quality STS services so that users with speech disabilities may receive
functionally equivalent telephone service, as mandated by Title IV of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
B. Legal Basis
1. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the
Notice is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), and 225 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules May Apply
1. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules. The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.
2. The Commission believes that the entities that may be affected
by the proposed rules are STS providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition of ``small entity'' specifically
directed toward STS providers. The closest applicable size standard
under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. According
to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 31,996 firms in the Wired
Telecommunications Carrier category which operated for the entire year.
Of this total, 30,178 firms had employment of 99 or fewer employees,
and an additional 1,818 firms had employment of 100 employees or more.
Thus, under this size standard, the vast majority of firms can be
considered small. (The census data do not provide a more precise
estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
employees; the largest category provided is ``Firms with 100 employees
or more.'') Five providers currently receive compensation from the
Interstate TRS Fund for providing STS: AT&T Corporation; Hamilton
Relay, Inc.; Kansas Relay Service, Inc.; Purple Communications, Inc.;
and Sprint Nextel Corporation. The Commission notes that only one of
the STS providers that would be affected by the proposed rules is
deemed to be a small entity under the SBA's small business size
standard.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
1. Certain rule changes, if adopted by the Commission, would modify
rules or add requirements governing reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance obligations. If the Commission were to adopt consumer
eligibility, registration, and verification requirements to ensure that
only individuals with speech disabilities who need the service can use
it, STS providers, including small entities, would be required to
collect certain information from consumers and to maintain such
information.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
1. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives, specific to small entities, that it has considered in
developing its approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
2. In general, alternatives to proposed rules are discussed only
when those rules pose a significant adverse economic impact on small
entities. In this context, however, two of the proposed rules would
confer benefits as explained below.
3. If the Commission were to contract with a single outreach
coordinator to educate potential users about the availability of STS,
STS providers, including small entities, would benefit, because they
would be relieved of the obligation to conduct outreach.
4. If the Commission were to adopt consumer eligibility,
registration and verification requirements to ensure that only
individuals with speech disabilities who need the service can use it,
STS providers, including small entities, would be required to collect
certain information from consumers and to maintain such information.
The Commission is not proposing alternatives for small entities because
these requirements may be needed to limit waste, fraud and abuse, and
an ineligible user can potentially defraud the TRS Fund by obtaining
service from large and small entities alike. Therefore, if the
Commission were to adopt registration, certification and verification
procedures, the same requirements would need to apply to users of small
entities as well as large entities.
5. If the Commission were to find certain mandatory minimum TRS
standards to be inapplicable to STS, all STS providers, including small
entities, would benefit because they would not need to comply with
those mandatory minimum standards.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With Proposed
Rules
1. None.
Ordering Clauses
2. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), (j), and (o), 225, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j), and
(o), 225, and 403, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby
adopted.
3. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-19787 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P