59346 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 

(political file) of all requests for 

broadcast time made by or on behalf of 

candidates for public office, together 

with an appropriate notation showing 

the disposition made by the licensee of 

such requests. The data is used by the 

public to assess money expended and 

time allotted to a political candidate and 

to ensure that equal access was afforded 

to other legally qualified candidates. 47 

CFR 76.1701 also requires that, when an 

entity sponsors origination cable casting 

material that concerns a political matter 

or a discussion of a controversial issue 

of public importance, a list must be 

maintained in the public file of the 

system that includes the sponsoring 

entity’s chief executive officers, or 

members of its executive committee or 

of its board of directors. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20526 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–10–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[CG Docket No. 03–123; DA 05–2417] 

Reminder That Video Relay Service 

(VRS) Provides Access to the 

Telephone System Only and Cannot Be 

Used as a Substitute for ‘‘In-Person’’

Interpreting Services or Video Remote 

Interpreting (VRI) 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission reminds Video Relay 

Service (VRS) providers, consumers, 

and businesses that VRS cannot be used 

as a substitute for ‘‘in-person’’

interpreting services or for Video 

Remote Interpreting (VRI). The 

Commission will continue to carefully 

scrutinize the provision and use of VRS 

to ensure that it is being used only as 

a means of accessing the telephone 

system, not as a substitute for VRI or as 

a means to gain free ‘‘in-person’’

interpreting services. Also, in this 

document, the Commission encourages 

persons requiring interpreting services 

and providing interpreting services, as 

well as VRS providers, to report any 

improper use of VRS to the Commission 

so that it may ensure that the Interstate 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(TRS) Fund is compensating only 

legitimate VRS calls. The Commission 

continues to closely monitor alleged 

instances of the wrongful use of VRS, 

and will take whatever enforcement 

action is necessary and appropriate 

against such misuse. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Chandler, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–1475 (voice), (202) 418–0597 (TTY) 

or e-mail Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document DA 05–2417, released 

September 7, 2005 in CG Docket No. 03–

123. The complete text of document DA 

05–2417 and copies of any subsequently 

filed documents relating to this matter 

will be available for public inspection 

and copying during regular business 

hours at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

Document DA 05–2417 and copies of 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

its Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com or 

call 1–800–378–3160. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). Document DA 05–2417 

can also be downloaded in Word and 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at: 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro. 

Synopsis 

On September 7, 2005, the 

Commission issued a Public Notice to 

remind VRS providers, consumers, and 

businesses that VRS cannot be used as 

a substitute for ‘‘in-person’’ interpreting 

services or for Video Remote 

Interpreting (VRI). VRS, as a form of 

telecommunications relay service (TRS), 

is a means of giving persons with 

hearing disabilities access to the 

telephone system. The obligation of 

telephone companies to offer TRS is 

required by Congress under Title IV of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 (ADA). VRS allows people with 

hearing disabilities whose primary 

language is American Sign Language 

(ASL) to use the Internet or another 

broadband connection to contact a 

communications assistant (CA) via 

video equipment. The CA then makes 

an outbound telephone call to a hearing 

person and relays the call between the 

two parties. Currently, the costs for VRS 

calls are reimbursed from the Interstate 

TRS Fund, which is overseen by the 

Commission, making VRS calls free for 

consumers. By contrast, sign language 

interpreters facilitate communication 

between individuals who use sign 

language to communicate and those 

who do not. An interpreter may be used 

in many situations—e.g., in classrooms, 

during medical appointments, at staff 

meetings, or for business transactions—

when the parties are together at the 

same location. Generally, interpreters 

are contracted and paid for on a fee-forservice basis. Video Remote Interpreting 

(VRI) is a service that is used when an 

interpreter cannot be physically present 

to interpret for two or more persons who 

are together at the same location. This 

service uses a video connection to 

provide access to an interpreter who is 

at a remote location. As with ‘‘inperson’’ interpreters, VRI services are 

generally contracted and paid for on a 

fee-for-service basis. VRS is to be used 

only when a person with a hearing 

disability, who absent such disability 

would make a voice telephone call, 

desires to make a call through the 

telephone system (or when, in the 

reverse situation, the hearing person 

desires to make such a call to a person 

with a hearing disability). See 47 CFR 

64.601(17) of the Commission’s rules. 

VRS may not be used as a substitute for 

an ‘‘in-person’’ interpreter or a VRI 

service. 

Although the Commission has 

previously cautioned about the misuse 

of VRS as a substitute for ‘‘in-person’’

sign language interpreting services or 

VRI, it continues to receive reports that 

this is occurring. See, e.g., 

Telecommunications Relay Services and 

Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals with Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98–67, Order 

on Reconsideration, FCC 00–200, 16 

FCC Rcd 4054–4058, paragraph 10 (June 

5, 2000); See Telecommunications Relay 

Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 

for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities, CC Docket Nos. 90–571 and 

98–67, CG Docket No. 03–123, Report 

and Order, Order on Reconsideration, 

and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, FCC 04–137, 19 FCC Rcd 

12475–12537, note 466 (June 30, 2004), 

published at 69 FR 53346 (September 1, 

2004), 69 FR 53382 (September 1, 2004); 

Federal Communications Commission 

Clarifies That Certain 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

(TRS) Marketing and Call Handling 

Practices Are Improper and Reminds 

That Video Relay Service (VRS) May 

Not Be Used as a Video Remote 

Interpreting Service, CC Docket No. 98–

67, CG Docket No. 03–123, Public 

Notice, DA 05–141, 20 FCC Rcd 1471 

(January 26, 2005), published at 70 FR 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 59347 

8034 (February 17, 2005); 

Telecommunications Relay Services and 

Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals with Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98–67, CG 

Docket No. 03–123, Order on 

Reconsideration, FCC 05–139, note 109 

(July 19, 2005), published at 70 FR 

51643 (August 31, 2005). The 

Commission is concerned that the 

misuse of VRS may be partially 

responsible for the large increase in 

minutes of use of VRS. The Interstate 

TRS Fund reimbursed 869,003 minutes 

of VRS usage for June 2004 and 

2,136,657 minutes for June 2005. The 

Commission understands that VRS 

providers generally have procedures in 

place to terminate calls where VRS is 

being used as a way to obtain free 

interpreting services. However, the 

Commission also understands that 

persons misusing VRS may be doing so 

in ways to avoid detection, and are also 

publicizing these methods via consumer 

bulletin boards and other means. 

The Commission is mindful that 

employers, State and local government 

entities, and public accommodations are 

required under the ADA to provide 

persons with hearing disabilities a 

reasonable accommodation, and that the 

accommodation may entail the use of a 

sign language interpreter. However, VRS 

cannot be used as a substitute for using 

an in-person interpreter or VRI in 

situations that would not, absent one of 

the parties’ hearing disability, entail the 

use of the telephone. The Commission 

will continue to carefully scrutinize the 

provision and use of VRS to ensure that 

it is being used only as a means of 

accessing the telephone system, not as 

a substitute for VRI or as a means to gain 

free ‘‘in-person’’ interpreting services. 

The Commission encourages persons 

requiring interpreting service and 

providing interpreting services, as well 

as VRS providers, to report any 

improper use of VRS to the Commission 

so that it may ensure that the Interstate 

TRS Fund is compensating only 

legitimate VRS calls. The Commission 

will continue to closely monitor alleged 

instances of the wrongful use of VRS, 

and take whatever enforcement action is 

necessary and appropriate against such 

misuse. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Jay Keithley, 

Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 05–20133 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[WC Docket No. 05–276; DA 05–2514] 

Access Charges for IP-Transported 

Calls 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on petitions for declaratory 

ruling filed by SBC and VarTec. SBC 

seeks a declaratory ruling that wholesale 

transmission providers using Internet 

protocol (IP) technology to transport 

long distance calls are liable for access 

charges. VarTec seeks a declaratory 

ruling that it is not required to pay 

access charges to terminating local 

exchange carriers (LECs) when 

enhanced service providers or other 

carriers deliver calls directly to the 

terminating LECs for termination. 

VarTec also seeks a declaratory ruling 

that such calls are exempt from access 

charges when they are originated by a 

commercial mobile radio service 

(CMRS) provider and do not cross 

metropolitan trading area (MTA) 

boundaries. VarTec also seeks a 

declaratory ruling that terminating LECs 

are required to pay VarTec for the 

transiting service VarTec provides when 

terminating LECs terminate intraMTA 

calls originated by a CMRS provider. 

DATES: Comments due November 10, 

2005, and reply comments due 

December 12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 05–276, by 

any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: Include the docket number in 

the subject line of the message. 

Mail: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

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: 

Jennifer McKee, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 

418–1530, jennifer.mckee@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 21, 2005, the SBC incumbent 

local exchange carriers (SBC) filed a 

petition for declaratory ruling that 

wholesale transmission providers using 

Internet protocol (IP) technology to 

transport long distance calls are liable 

for access charges. SBC filed its petition 

after the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Missouri 

dismissed without prejudice SBC’s 

claims seeking payment of access 

charges for long distance calls that were 

transported using IP technology. The 

court found it appropriate to defer the 

issues raised by SBC to the primary 

jurisdiction of the FCC. In its petition, 

SBC seeks a declaratory ruling that 

wholesale transmission providers using 

IP technology to carry long distance 

calls that originate and terminate on the 

public switched telephone network 

(PSTN) are liable for access charges 

under § 69.5 of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 69.5, and applicable tariffs. SBC 

seeks a ruling that providers meeting 

these criteria are interexchange carriers. 

VarTec filed a petition for declaratory 

ruling on related issues. Specifically, 

VarTec seeks a declaratory ruling that it 

is not required to pay access charges to 

terminating local exchange carriers 

(LECs) when enhanced service 

providers or other carriers deliver calls 

directly to the terminating LECs for 

termination. VarTec also seeks a 

declaratory ruling that such calls are 

exempt from access charges when they 

are originated by a commercial mobile 

radio service (CMRS) provider and do 

not cross major trading area (MTA) 

boundaries. VarTec also seeks a 

declaratory ruling that terminating LECs 

are required to pay VarTec for the 

transiting service VarTec provides when 

terminating LECs terminate intraMTA 

calls originated by a CMRS provider. 

Interested parties may file comments 

on or before November 10, 2005, and 

reply comments on or before December 

12, 2005. Comments may be filed using 

the Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. Comments filed through the 

ECFS can be sent as an electronic file 

via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/. Generally, only one copy of 

an electronic submission must be filed. 

In completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number, in this case WC 

Docket No. 05–276. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions