[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32798-32801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15719]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 98-67; FCC 98-90]


Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 14, 1998, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding telecommunications relay services (TRS) and 
speech-to-speech (STS) relay services, for persons with hearing and 
speech disabilities. We believe that our proposed rule amendments will 
enhance the quality of TRS, and broaden the potential universe of TRS 
users. The proposals set forth in the NPRM are intended to further 
promote access to telecommunications for the millions of persons with 
disabilities who might otherwise be foreclosed from participation in 
our increasingly telecommunications and information-oriented society. 
Rules proposed in the NPRM would require that, within two years of the 
publication in the Federal Register of a Report and Order in this 
proceeding, common carriers providing voice transmission service must 
ensure that nationwide STS relay services are available to users with 
speech disabilities throughout their service area. Rules proposed in 
the NPRM also would amend the Commission's current mandatory minimum 
standards for TRS service to improve the effectiveness of these rules 
and their application to TRS service.

DATES: Written comments are due on or before July 20, 1998. Reply 
comments are due on or before September 14, 1998. Written comments by 
the public on the proposed information collections are due July 20, 
1998.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Room 222, Federal Communications 
Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 
filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the 
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy 
Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6309010c0f061a230500004d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a707875767f635a7c7979347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>, and 
to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e282f272011113a0e2f22602b213e60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80e6e1e9eedfdff4c0e1ecaee5eff0aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris Monteith, 202/418-1098 (Voice), 
202/418-0484 (TTY), 202/418-2345 (FAX), <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93f8fefcfde7f6fae7d3f5f0f0bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="28434547465c4d415c684e4b4b064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>, Network 
Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau. For additional information 
concerning the information collections contained in this NPRM contact 
Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cca6aea3a0a9b58caaafafe2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbb1b9b4b7bea29bbdb8b8f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the matter of Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities, (CC Docket No. 98-67, adopted May 14, 1998, and 
released May 20, 1998). The full text of the NPRM is available for 
inspection and copying during the weekday hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
in the Commission's Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., or 
copies may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, 
ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington D.C. 20037, 202/
857-3800. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on 
or before August 17, 1998.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This NPRM contains proposed information collection. The Commission, 
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites 
the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
comment on the information collections contained in this NPRM, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. 
Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments 
on this NPRM; OMB comments are August 17, 1998.

[[Page 32799]]

Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection.
    OMB Approval Number: 3060-0463.
    Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities--CC 
Docket No. 98-67.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revision.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Estimated              
                                    Number of     time per      Total   
 Proposed information collection   respondents    response      annual  
                                                  (hours)       burden  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 64.604(b)(2)............           31           *1       11,315
Proposed 64.605(b)(2)............           52            1           52
Proposed 64.605(f)...............           52           40       2,080 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on 365 hours per respondent per year.                           

    Total Annual Burden: 13,447 hours (proposed collections only)
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Costs per Respondent: $0.
    Needs and Uses: The information collections proposed in this NPRM 
are needed to ensure compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum 
standards for telecommunications relay services and will address 
concerns from TRS users that state TRS programs are not providing 
sufficient information to consumers on their complaint and grievance 
options.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. The NPRM is based upon the record developed in 
Telecommunications Relay Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act 
of 1990, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Inquiry, CC 
Docket No. 90-571, 12 FCC Rcd 1152 (1997). The NPRM tentatively 
concludes that two forms of improved relay services, Video Relay 
Interpreting (VRI) and speech-to-speech relay service (STS), are 
``telecommunications relay services'' (TRS) within the meaning of Title 
IV of the ADA (47 U.S.C. 225) and that the definition of ``TRS'' should 
be expanded to encompass these services. VRI allows persons with 
hearing disabilities to access the telephone network through the use of 
sign language interpreters and desktop personal computer video 
conferencing software. STS uses specially trained ``communications 
assistants'' (CAs) that serve as call facilitators for persons with 
speech disabilities. The tentative conclusion that these services fall 
within the scope of ``TRS'' under Title IV of the ADA will allow TRS 
providers to recover the costs of these improved TRS services from the 
intrastate jurisdiction or from the interstate TRS Fund, as 
appropriate.
    2. The NPRM proposes that STS become a mandatory TRS feature two 
(2) years after the effective date of final rules in this proceeding. 
STS services provide access to the telephone network for people with 
severe speech disabilities, a population that is still largely excluded 
from the telephone network and that is not served by traditional TTY-
based TRS. The NPRM, however, does not propose to require that VRI 
services become mandatory at this time, because of the high costs of 
the service, an inadequate supply of qualified interpreters to provide 
the service on a nationwide basis, and the need for further technical 
development of the service. Allowing TRS providers to recover the costs 
of voluntarily provided VRI service, however, will provide incentives 
for TRS providers to continue to develop and test this service.
    3. The NPRM does not propose to require multilingual relay services 
(MRS) at this time, as some commenters suggested, although MRS is a 
covered TRS under Title IV of the ADA. Because language needs and 
population demographics vary widely from state to state, the NPRM 
tentatively concludes that the decision whether or not to mandate MRS 
should remain with the state TRS program administrators.
    4. The NPRM also seeks comment on issues concerning access to 
emergency services through TRS, because a number of commenters assert 
that there are inconsistencies among the states as to how these 
``critical'' TRS calls are handled. Finally, the NPRM does not propose 
to require access to enhanced services through TRS, in light of 
Congressional language stating that Title IV was not intended to 
provide access to enhanced services. The NPRM proposes, however, to 
encourage the voluntary provision of access to enhanced services by, 
for example, allowing CAs to alert the TRS user to the presence of 
recorded messages that cannot be relayed in a verbatim, effective 
manner, and giving the TRS user the option of having the CA summarize 
the message or listen for specific information.
    5. The NPRM proposes a number of rule changes and clarifications 
intended to improve the ``functional equivalency'' of TRS service. 
First, the NPRM proposes to amend the rule requiring that 85% of all 
TRS calls be answered in 10 seconds or less (47 CFR 64.604(b)(2)) to 
require that: (1) calls be ``answered'' by a CA prepared to place the 
TRS call, and not answered by an auto-answer system and placed on hold; 
(2) the 85-10 calculation be performed on at least a daily basis; and 
(3) the 10-second time period begin to run when the TRS call reaches 
the TRS provider's network. Second, the NPRM proposes to require that a 
CA answering and placing a TRS call stay with that call for at least 
ten (10) minutes before an in-call transfer can take place. This 
proposal should minimize the frequency of TRS call disruptions that 
currently occur when CAs change shifts in the middle of ongoing TRS 
calls. Finally, the NPRM does not propose to require a minimum typing 
speed for CAs or other such CA standards at this time, because of 
concern that such a regulation could shrink the labor pool of potential 
CAs, a labor pool already subject to high turnover and attrition rates.
    6. Consistent with the overall policy goal of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 to introduce competition into 
telecommunications markets, the NPRM seeks comment on several 
competitive issues surrounding TRS. First, the NPRM seeks comment on 
the issue of ``multivendoring,'' the practice of allowing several TRS 
vendors to compete directly for consumers in a state for their 
intrastate TRS calling needs (the vast majority of states currently 
rely on a single-provider TRS mechanism, where one provider obtains 
exclusive rights to deliver intrastate TRS

[[Page 32800]]

service for a period of time). The NPRM seeks comment on jurisdictional 
and cost-recovery issues regarding multivendoring. Second, the NPRM 
seeks comment on the use of TRS caller profile data collected by TRS 
providers. Specifically, the NPRM seeks to identify whether this data 
is the property of, and transferable to the state TRS program, or 
whether it is proprietary to the TRS provider, who does not have to 
surrender this data to its competitors in the event it no longer is the 
incumbent TRS provider for that state.
    7. To increase the effectiveness of the Commission's certification 
process, the NPRM proposes that certified state programs shall be 
required to notify the Commission of substantive changes to their state 
TRS program within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the change, 
and to file documentation demonstrating that the state TRS program 
remains in compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum 
standards. This proposal is intended to remedy a gap in current 
Commission rules where, once a five-year certification is obtained from 
the Commission, certified state TRS programs are not required to update 
their certification file regardless of whether or not substantive 
changes occur in their programs during the five-year certification 
period. Also, the NPRM proposes to amend the Commission's certification 
rules to require that, as a condition of certification, a state TRS 
program must demonstrate that its program makes available to TRS users 
informational materials on state and Commission complaint procedures. 
This proposal would address a concern from TRS users that state 
programs are not providing sufficient information to consumers on their 
complaint and grievance options. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on 
whether the Commission should adopt specific guidelines that can be 
used to assess whether a state TRS program provides ``adequate 
procedures and remedies for enforcing the requirements of the state 
program,'' pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 225(f)(2)(B).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, 
the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
on the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

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

    The NPRM is based upon the record developed in Telecommunications 
Relay Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Inquiry, CC Docket No. 90-
571, 12 FCC Rcd 1152 (1997). The goal of this proceeding is to consider 
ways in which TRS can be improved, both to better serve current TRS 
users and to ensure that TRS serves the broadest possible population of 
persons with hearing and speech disabilities, consistent with Congress' 
direction at 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2) to the Commission to ensure that its 
regulations encourage the use of existing technology and do not 
discourage or impair the development of improved technology. 
Specifically, the NPRM proposes to require nationwide speech-to-speech 
(STS) service for persons with severe speech disabilities as a 
mandatory TRS feature within two years of publication of final rules in 
this proceeding, and requests comment on this proposal. The NPRM also 
proposes a number of rule amendments based upon the comments submitted 
by parties in the Notice of Inquiry, and seeks comment on those 
proposals. The overall intent of these proposed rules is to improve the 
effectiveness of TRS service and the Commission's oversight of TRS, and 
to clear up ambiguities surrounding several of the Commission's current 
TRS rules.

B. Legal Basis

    Authority for actions proposed in this Notice may be found in: 
Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 151(j), 201-
205, 218 and 225.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    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 proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term 
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating 
by reference the definition of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 
632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business 
applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for 
public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which 
are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such 
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' Id. A small business concern 
is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not 
dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional 
criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Small 
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
    TRS Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of 
telecommunications relay services (TRS). The closest applicable 
definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications 
companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. Id. The SBA 
defines such establishments to be small businesses when they have no 
more than 1,500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) code 4813. According to our most recent data, 
there are 12 interstate TRS providers, and these consist of 
interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, and state-managed 
entities. We do not have data specifying the number of these providers 
that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not 
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, 
and we are thus unable at this time to estimate with greater precision 
the number of TRS providers that would qualify as small business 
concerns under the SBA's definition. We note, however, that these 
providers include large interexchange carriers and incumbent local 
exchange carriers. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 
12 small TRS providers that may be affected by the proposed rules, if 
adopted. We seek comment generally on our analysis identifying TRS 
providers, and specifically on whether we should conclude, for 
Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, that any TRS providers are small 
entities.

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

    This NPRM proposes the following information collection: that 
states be

[[Page 32801]]

required to notify the Commission of substantive changes in their state 
TRS program within 60 days of the effective date of the change and to 
file documentation demonstrating that the state TRS program remains in 
compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards. The 
information collection generally would be performed by a state official 
familiar with the state's telecommunications relay program; it would 
have no impact on large or small entities. The Commission estimates 
that the costs of compliance with this information collection will be 
minimal.

E. Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities and 
Consistent With Stated Objectives

    The proposals in the NPRM, and the comments the Commission seeks 
regarding them, are part of the Commission's analysis of its role with 
respect to the implementation and operation of nationwide TRS for 
persons with hearing and speech disabilities. The guiding principal 
shaping these proposals is Congress' direction to the Commission to 
ensure that TRS keeps pace with advancing technology and that the 
Commission's rules do not discourage the implementation of 
technological advances or improvements. The majority of TRS service is 
provided by large interexchange carriers and incumbent local exchange 
carriers, and we believe that the number of small entities impacted by 
these proposals would be potentially very small. With respect to 
proposed amendments to the Commission's rules governing TRS, by 
statute, common carriers providing voice transmission services who are 
subject to the TRS rules, including small entities, may comply with 
their obligations individually, through designees, through a 
competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers. 47 
U.S.C. 225(c). For this reason, the Commission expects that the 
proposed rule amendments will have a minimal impact on small entities. 
Moreover, the NPRM does not propose any reporting requirements 
applicable to small entities. We tentatively conclude that our 
proposals in the NPRM would impose minimum burdens on small entities. 
We encourage comment on this tentative conclusion.

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

    None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, disabilities, telephone, 
telecommunications relay service.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15719 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>