32798 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules

of the modified standard or

implementation specification may be no

earlier than 180 days following the

adoption of the modification. HHS

determines the actual date, taking into

account the time needed to comply due

to the nature and extent of the

modification. HHS may extend the time

for compliance for small health plans.

Subparts B–E [Reserved]

Subpart F—National Employer

Identifier Standard

§ 142.602 National employer identifier

standard.

The employer identifier standard that

must be used under this subpart is the

employer identification number (EIN),

which is the taxpayer identifying

number of an individual or other entity

(whether or not an employer) that is

assigned pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6011(b),

or corresponding provisions of prior

law, or pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6109, and

in which nine digits are separated by a

hyphen, as follows: 00–0000000. The

EIN is assigned by the Internal Revenue

Service, U.S. Department of the

Treasury.

§ 142.604 Requirements: Health plans.

Each health plan must accept and

transmit the national employer

identifier of any employer that must be

identified by the national employer

identifier in any standard transaction.

§ 142.606 Requirements: Health care

clearinghouses.

Each health care clearinghouse must

use the national employer identifier of

any employer that must be identified by

the national employer identifier in any

standard transaction.

§ 142.608 Requirements: Health care

providers.

Each health care provider must use

the national employer identifier

wherever required on all transactions

the health care provider transmits

electronically.

§ 142.610 Requirements: Employers.

Each employer must disclose its EIN,

when requested, to any entity that

conducts standard electronic

transactions that require that employer’s

identifier.

§ 142.612 Effective dates of the initial

implementation of the national employer

identifier standard.

(a) Health plans. (1) Each health plan

that is not a small health plan must

comply with the requirements of

§§ 142.104 and 142.604 by [24 months

after the effective date of the final rule

in the Federal Register].

(2) Each small health plan must

comply with the requirements of

§§ 142.104 and 142.604 by [36 months

after the effective date of the final rule

in the Federal Register].

(b) Health care clearinghouses and

health care providers. Each health care

clearinghouse and health care provider

must begin using the standard specified

in § 142.602 by [24 months after the

effective date of the final rule in the

Federal Register].

Dated: April 17, 1998.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15782 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

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 informationoriented 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 jboley@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris

Monteith, 202/418–1098 (Voice), 202/

418–0484 (TTY), 202/418–2345 (FAX),

kmonteit@fcc.gov, 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

jboley@fcc.gov.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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.

Proposed information collection Number of

respondents

Estimated

time per response

(hours)

Total annual

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 forprofit.

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-tospeech 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
32800 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 fiveyear 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 statemanaged 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Parts 385 and 390

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–98–3947]

RIN 2125–AD49

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations; General; Commercial

Motor Vehicle Marking

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); request for comments.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is proposing to

amend its regulations concerning the

marking of commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs) and the submission of the Motor

Carrier Identification Report (Form

MCS–150) that new motor carriers must

submit to the FHWA. The FHWA is

proposing to eliminate the marking

regulations of the former Interstate

Commerce Commission (ICC), and

require that motor carriers replace the

vehicle markings specified by those

requirements with markings that

conform to the requirements of 49 CFR

390.21. The agency is proposing to

amend its current marking requirements

to require that CMVs be marked with

the legal name of the business entity

that owns or controls the motor carrier

operation, or the ‘‘doing business as’’

(DBA) name, and the city and State for

the principal place of business as they

appear on the Form MCS–150. Motor

carriers would be allowed two years to

comply with the proposed marking

requirement to affix the USDOT number

to both sides of their CMVs and five

years to comply with the additional

requirements to add the address of the

principal place of business, and the

legal name or DBA name to their CMVs.

The FHWA is also proposing to move

the regulations that require motor

carriers to submit the Form MCS–150

from 49 CFR part 385 to part 390, and

to amend the regulations to require that

all new interstate motor carriers submit

a Form MCS–150 to the FHWA before

(rather than within 90 days after)

commencing operations. The FHWA

solicits public comment from interested

persons on this action, including

responses to the information collection

requirements set forth in this document.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before August 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Signed, written comments

should refer to the docket number that

appears at the top of this document and

must be submitted to the Docket Clerk,

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001. All comments received

will be available for examination at the

above address between 10:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. Those desiring

notification of receipt of comments must

include a self-addressed, stamped

envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Phil Forjan, Office of Motor Carrier

Research and Standards, (202) 366–

4001, or Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of

the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–1354,

Federal Highway Administration,

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m.

to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 28, 1992, the FHWA

published a final rule (57 FR 3142)

which required interstate motor carriers

to mark their interstate CMVs with

specific information, including the

USDOT number (see 49 CFR 390.21) .

The final rule, however, provided an

exception for ICC authorized for-hire

motor carriers that complied with the

marking requirements formerly in 49

CFR part 1058, now redesignated as 49

CFR 390.401, 390.403, 390.405, and

390.407 (61 FR 54706, 54710, October

21, 1996). The ICC Termination Act of

1995 (ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat.

803) was enacted on December 29, 1995,

and became effective on January 1,

1996. The ICCTA abolished the ICC,

amended subtitle IV of title 49, United

States Code, reformed the economic

regulation of transportation, and

transferred the assets, personnel, and

many of the duties and functions of the

ICC to the Secretary of Transportation

(Secretary). In response to this action,

the FHWA is proposing to: (1) eliminate

the marking requirements at 49 CFR

390.401, 390.403, 390.405, and 390.407,

Identification of Vehicles; and (2)

require all motor carriers operating

CMVs in interstate commerce, including

those motor carriers formerly authorized

by the ICC, to meet the vehicle marking

requirements at 49 CFR 390.21. The